Genome-wide association study and the randomized controlled trial: A false equivalence

Area of Science:

• Behavioral Genetics
• Genetics
• Psychology

Background:

• The equivalence of findings from within-family genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is debated.
• Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) aim to identify genetic associations with traits.
• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a gold standard for establishing causality.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the assertion that within-family GWAS findings are equivalent to RCT findings.
• To analyze the distinct characteristics of GWASs and RCTs in the context of behavioral genetics.
• To assess the potential of within-family GWASs to advance behavioral genetics as a causal science.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of methodologies and interpretability of within-family GWASs and RCTs.
• Examination of the "non-unitary, non-uniform, and non-explanatory" nature of GWAS findings.
• Literature review and conceptual critique of causal inference in behavioral genetics.

Main Results:

• Findings from within-family GWASs are not equivalent to those from RCTs.
• GWASs exhibit greater "non-unitary, non-uniform, and non-explanatory" properties compared to RCTs.
• Within-family GWASs improve the identification of genetic causes but do not guarantee causal inference.

Conclusions:

• The claim of equivalence between within-family GWASs and RCTs is misleading.
• While within-family GWASs advance genetic discovery, their role in establishing causality in behavioral genetics is still an open question.
• Further methodological development is needed to strengthen causal claims in behavioral genetics using genetic association data.