
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera, scan the code below and download the Kindle app.


The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality Paperback – Import, 11 October 2022
Kathryn Paige Harden (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
Price | New from |
Kindle Edition
"Please retry" | — |
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
₹0.00
| Free with your Audible trial |
10 Days Replacement Only
Return Reason | Return Period | Return Policy |
---|---|---|
Physical Damage, Defective, Wrong, or Missing item | 10 days from delivery | Replacement |
Return Process

Learn More
Replacement Instructions

Read full replacement policy
Read full returns policy
A provocative and timely case for how the science of genetics can help create a more just and equal society
In recent years, scientists like Kathryn Paige Harden have shown that DNA makes us different, in our personalities and in our health―and in ways that matter for educational and economic success in our current society.
In The Genetic Lottery, Harden introduces readers to the latest genetic science, dismantling dangerous ideas about racial superiority and challenging us to grapple with what equality really means in a world where people are born different. Weaving together personal stories with scientific evidence, Harden shows why our refusal to recognize the power of DNA perpetuates the myth of meritocracy, and argues that we must acknowledge the role of genetic luck if we are ever to create a fair society.
Reclaiming genetic science from the legacy of eugenics, this groundbreaking book offers a bold new vision of society where everyone thrives, regardless of how one fares in the genetic lottery.
- Print length312 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherPrinceton University Press
- Publication date11 October 2022
- ISBN-100691242100
- ISBN-13978-0691242101
Customers who bought this item also bought
Product description
Review
"A thought-provoking read."---Jerry Coyne, Washington Post
"The Genetic Lottery is one of the most thought-provoking books I've read this year."---Dan Falk, CBC Radio
"Harden diligently fights a desperate battle to enlist science to serve progressive social reform." ― Kirkus Reviews
"[An] outstanding new book. . . . It’s scientifically spot on, historically adroit, and excellently written. Required reading."---Adam Rutherford,
"A welcome resource for scholars and policy makers who want to advocate for and initiate equitable social changes with the help of reliable, expert knowledge."---J. F. Heberle, Choice
"The ultimate claim of The Genetic Lottery is an extraordinarily ambitious act of moral entrepreneurialism. Harden argues that an appreciation of the role of simple genetic luck―alongside all the other arbitrary lotteries of birth―will make us, as a society, more inclined to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy lives of dignity and comfort."---Gideon Lewis-Kraus, New Yorker
"The Genetic Lottery is a good read, peppered with relatable stories and examples. Harden pulls off the trick of simultaneously introducing a technical field to newcomers; addressing deep, specialist debates; and taking seriously the intersection of scientific and philosophical analyses of inequality."---Aaron Panofsky, Science
"[Harden] is a beautiful writer, weaving together personal narrative and complex technical concepts skillfully. Her writing is accessible to nonexperts, and the argument she makes―that it is both valuable and politically progressive for researchers of social outcomes to study DNA―is provocative. With this argument, The Genetic Lottery invites a necessary debate."---Daphne Oluwaseun Martschenko, Hastings Center Report
"While acknowledging the roles our environment and experiences play in shaping our lives, Harden makes the case that social scientists who want to address the roots of inequality must reckon with genetics. . . . The more researchers understand about the myriad factors that influence how our lives turn out, the more they can help improve outcomes for everyone. Genetics is one of those factors, Harden argues: when we ignore it, the most vulnerable suffer."---Jennifer Latson, Texas Monthly
"In creating a new synthesis that neither ignores the role of genetics nor misappropriates it, Harden acknowledges the importance the genetic lottery plays in shaping our life outcomes, while cautioning against misinterpreting the genetically laden differences among people as implying inborn, societal superiority. Harden examines the nascent field of behavioral genetics in an intellectually humble way, by detailing in lay terms the science of genetics and its applicability to differential life outcomes among people, and by incorporating this knowledge to advance social policies and social considerations that limit inequities."---Mark Rapala, International Social Science Review
"Harden has illuminated a path forward free of racial bias and 'superior – inferior' dichotomies to build on seeking applications for greater social equality."---E.B. Boatner, Lavender Magazine
"Kathryn Paige Harden has been waging a noble battle to liberate genetic science from its reactionary connotations, and especially the foul practice of eugenics. Her point, pithily made in this important book, is that knowledge of genetics is essential to any progressive politics and can be harnessed to advance the cause of equality."---Matt d’Ancona, Tortoise
About the Author
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Princeton University Press (11 October 2022)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 312 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0691242100
- ISBN-13 : 978-0691242101
- Item Weight : 505 g
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Kathryn Paige Harden is a professor in the Department of Psychology at UT, where she leads the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and co-directs the Texas Twin Project.
Harden received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Virginia and completed her clinical internship at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School before moving to Austin in 2009. Her research has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, and the New Yorker, among others. In 2017, she was honored with a prestigious national award from the American Psychological Association for her distinguished scientific contributions to the study of genetics and human individual differences. Follow her on Twitter at @kph3k.
Customer reviews
Top reviews from other countries



She wrote about some research that she had done herself about what she called "general executive function" (which was extremely heritable) and also about whether or not the earlier teenagers had sex led to increased risk of emotional traumas and a plethora of other negative (social) outcomes. That was interesting and impressive research. I knew that the DNA one shares with one's sister or brother is on average 50%, but was surprised that it can vary as much as 37-63%. (I wonder whether it theoretically couldn't be 0-100% and that the amount of DNA that one shares is distributed under a Gaussian curve?) I might try and convince my brother to take a DNA-test from 23andMe to see how much DNA we share and whether there might be chromosomes, where we are either twins or foreigners to each other. She wrote about the possibility of using genetic data as a way of looking at where siblings were "twins" and where they were more like "adoptees" living in the same family for studying the importance of environment versus genetic inheritance. Either she wrote too little about it, I was too tired or too dumb to quite understand how that research could be done, but it sounded like an interesting and promising line of investigation within genetics.
But, I also have my reservations about her book and line of thought. They are:
1. I think that she’s unjust to the likes of Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray and Robert Plomin. I've read some of their work, and the malicious and nefarious persons one gets the impression of when one reads her book, is not fair. The way she uses and defines the word eugenist, they would be eugenists. They are not. If one should characterize them politically, Herrnstein would be a conservative, Murray I believe has called himself a libertarian at one point, and Robert Plomin wrote in his latest book Blueprint about his ideal of a "just" society instead of a meritocratic society that would place him within easy reach of herself, Arthur Jensen’s politics I’m oblivious of, but James Flynn, who is as liberal as Harden, I’ve heard saying that Arthur Jensen wasn’t any racist. I suspect she is somewhat blind to this because of her somewhat hardened us-liberal, political stance.
2. I am fully onboard when she bemoans the fact that there seems to be a "tacit collusion" within the social sciences not to mention or draw upon genetic research and findings from twin and adoption studies. Once I loved sociology and now I just find it embarrassing and disheartening when scientific institutions, media and politicians discuss and want to do something about the results from the latest study showing "X", but where they have never asked the question or checked whether or not it was explained by twin, adoption or genetic studies. It is truly a scandalous waste of people’s time and resources. Sometimes one wonders if it's a fact that people in fact already know, but everybody plays along. As Leonard Cohen sang "Everybody knows..."
3. I appreciate that she wants to include genetics in order to see what social/environmental interventions truly make a difference. I do not share her optimism, though, about all the positive environmental effects that are waiting to be discovered once the educational sciences include genetics. I'm more gloomy on that prospect. If there were any such wondrous possibilities looming, they would have been discovered, I suspect, by now, also without the help of genetics. When it comes to increasing children's intelligence, the best results have been to adopt them, but short of adoption the results are pauper. And a nationwide or global adoption program is not exactly going to be the prize winner in a humanist competition. As some of the scientists whom she is eager to distance herself from, I predict that she will also be disappointed with time, or maybe she will prove unable to update her priors that much.
4. Her phrasing of an "Anti-eugenic science and policy" is not impressive. I felt she created a straw man and used eugenics in her own idiosyncratic way, reducing the scope of what is meant by eugenics. I also don't think that a policy like "anti-X" will turn out to be viable in the long run. So when she speaks about her stance as "Anti-eugenics" and then has her own reduced understanding of what is meant by the term, then it's kind of confusing. In the book - or maybe it was in an article in the New Yorker covering her book (I can highly recommend the article as it gave me a much better understanding of the cultural context for her book) they used the term "hereditarian left" - I like that term a lot better than anti-eugenic. Peter Singer wrote about a darwinian left decades ago, and in a sense it's the same today. I remember Steven Pinker also wrote about the possibility of a Darwinian left in the Blank Slate.
5. Finally, I take issue with the fact that she just uses the Rawlsian theory of justice to discuss what would be the right thing to do. I like Rawls's idea about "a veil of ignorance" etc, but as she doesn't discuss Nozick’s rejoinders in "Anarchy, State and Utopia" then it is not that interesting. She doesn't seem well orientated into economic and political thinking. I suspect she runs with left leaning economical thinkers the likes of Marx, Piketty, Galbraith, Keynes etc, while the likes of Hayek, Friedman and Sowell, she hasn't read. If one has also read the later names, then the question of fairness, justice, inequality becomes more difficult as they are intrinsically linked to the question of welfare, prosperity, progress, individual rights and freedom. Kathryn Paige Harden considers society behind a veil of ignorance and she sees the injustices, the poor, and feels empathy for the homeless people living today. But, shouldn’t her empathy, her caring and concern not just encompass the people living today, but also people living in the future? If she started reflecting upon her ethical obligations toward (poor) people living in the future, I think she would find her own political and ethical stand questionable or untenable.


Not really to recommend.