Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Spit for Science and the Progress and Promise of Psychiatric GeneticsDanielle M. Dick, PhD (bio)In their paper “Spit for Science and the Limits of Applied Psychiatric Genetics,” Turkheimer and Rodock Greer use results from the Spit for Science (S4S) project to argue that the idea of psychiatric genetics1 yielding actionable results is a folly. Although there is much about which Turkheimer and I agree (I took my first psychology class from him 30 years ago), we fundamentally disagree about the outlook of psychiatric genetics. His paper suggests that our differing conclusions arise from the authors misunderstanding the nature of the S4S project and a difference in our views on the broader purpose of psychiatric genetics.It is the characterization of S4S as a “program of research” that is the foundation for the conclusions Turkheimer and Rodock Greer draw about the unlikely potential for meaningful results from psychiatric genetics. But S4S was never intended to be a program of research. The dataset was established as a registry, owned and administered by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), and intended as a resource for the field. Accordingly, what is presented as a series of studies that bounce from one topic to another (which the paper mischaracterizes as resulting from “desultory progress”), actually reflects the use of the dataset by many scientific teams, including trainees and early career investigators, to explore various questions. The fact that the project attracted researchers from a diversity of fields (>140 faculty/trainees from 28 departments across VCU and 16 external collaborators) to study the many factors that impact college behavioral and emotional health is, to my mind, one of the strengths of the project.Within my own program of research, S4S is just one of many datasets with which I work; the papers included in their review account for only 3% of my more than 450 papers. Accordingly, my outlook on psychiatric genetics is not based solely, or even largely, upon S4S. As of 2021, I am no longer involved with the project, having ceded its stewardship to another VCU faculty member. Like with the other genetically informative datasets we analyze, the individual papers from S4S reflect the state of the science at the time they were initiated (often years before the eventual publication date). This fact is evident in the evolution of methods applied to S4S and would be true of a review of papers from Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents [End Page 425] and Children, The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the UK Biobank, or any other dataset made available as a resource for the field. Turkheimer’s paper abstract states “the negligible results have never been acknowledged,” but in fact, many papers have been devoted to discussing small effect sizes in psychiatric genetics (Gordon, 2021).The success of S4S was never intended to be evaluated based on the number of genetic loci identified. Turkheimer wrote, “S4S was not designed to investigate whether individual level genetic data might be useful at the scale of a mid-sized institution including about 10,000 students… it assumed as much.” In fact, they were correct only in the first part of that statement; studying whether individual level genetic data might be useful in a college setting (although a question I find interesting) was never the point of S4S. Turkheimer refers to the findings (of tiny effect sizes, few robust genetic loci identified) as “unexpected” and “surprising”; in fact, we find the results to be neither, as anyone following the progression of the field of psychiatric genetics would agree. The university administrators with whom we worked to launch the study never expected us to deliver actionable individual-level genetic findings. To use that as the benchmark for evaluating the success of S4S, and then to extrapolate to the larger field of psychiatric genetics, misses the point.The ways in which the S4S project made a significant contribution to the field can be found in other metrics. I am most proud of how we used a community-engaged approach (Dick, 2017) and were intentional about the recruitment of underrepresented populations (Dick et al., 2014), which were uncommon in...