• Martschenko and Sam Trejo both want to make the world a better, fairer, more equitable place. • But they disagree on whether studying social genomics-elucidating any potential genetic contributions to behaviors ranging from mental illnesses to educational attainment to political affiliation-can help achieve this goal. • Martschenko’s argument is largely that genetic research and data have almost always been used thus far as a justification to further entrench extant social inequalities. • But we know the solutions to many of the injustices in our world-trying to lift people out of poverty, for example-and we certainly don’t need more genetic research to implement them. • Trejo’s point is largely that more information is generally better than less. • We can’t foresee the benefits that could come from basic research, and this research is happening anyway, whether we like it or not, so we may as well try to harness it as best we can toward good and not ill.

Article Summaries:

  • Summary

Daphne O. Martschenko, a Stanford bioethicist, and Sam Trejo, a Princeton sociologist, have spent a decade co‑authoring What We Inherit: How New Technologies and Old Myths Are Shaping Our Genomic Future. Their partnership is an “adversarial collaboration” that brings together opposing views on social genomics-Martschenko warns that genetic research often reinforces social inequalities, while Trejo argues that more data can uncover benefits and guide ethical use. The book documents how their dialogue has evolved, offering a nuanced perspective on the promise and pitfalls of expanding genetic testing and its implications for equity and policy.

  • The book What We Inherit: How New Technologies and Old Myths Are Shaping Our Genomic Future chronicles a decade‑long “adversarial collaboration” between Princeton sociologist Sam Trejo and Stanford bioethicist Daphne O. Martschenko. Their differing views-Trejo’s belief that more genetic data can ultimately benefit society versus Martschenko’s warning that genetic research often reinforces existing inequalities-drive the narrative. By openly debating and listening to one another, the authors aim to illuminate the ethical and social implications of social genomics, from mental illness to political affiliation, and to assess whether the field can be steered toward equitable outcomes.

Sources: