ABSTRACT

When genetic reductionism is discussed, it is generally understood in causal terms as the thesis that genes are responsible for determining health and disease. More precisely, genetic reductionism can be understood in terms of the following claims: firstly, further research will continue to reveal that many diseases have a genetic aetiology; and secondly, that a person's future health is causally dependent, in considerable part, on the presence or absence of predisposing disease traits in the person's genetic make-up. To put the point in epistemic terms, once we have all the necessary genetic information we will be able to predict a person's future health. To some extent these claims might appear uncontroversial for there is good evidence to suggest that genetics (biology) does play an important role in health and disease; however, the version of genetic reductionism that seems to underlie the sentiments above is rather more far-reaching, and thus more controversial, since it appears to claim that many (if not most) diseases are genetic, and that genetics plays the central role in determining a person's health. This more radical version of genetic reductionism has been termed 'genetic imperialism' (Juengst, 2000).