What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything?
By Ed Young,
The Atlantic
| 06. 16. 2017
Three Stanford scientists have proposed a provocative new way of thinking about genetic variants, and how they affect people’s bodies and health.
In 1999, a group of scientists scoured the genomes of around 150 pairs of siblings in an attempt to find genes that are involved in autism. They came up empty. They reasoned that this was because the risk of autism is not governed by a small number of powerful genes, which their study would have uncovered. Instead, it’s likely affected by a large number of genes that each have a small effect. Perhaps, they wrote, there might be 15 such genes or more.
Two decades later, that figure seems absurdly and naively low. If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together...
Related Articles
By Carly Mallenbaum, Axios [cites Emily Galpern] | 03.29.2026
More Americans are turning to surrogacy to build their families, as the practice becomes more common and more publicly discussed.
Why it matters: As surrogacy becomes more visible and accessible, ethical, legal and cultural tensions become harder to ignore...
By Carly Mallenbaum, Axios [cites Surrogacy360] | 03.29.2026
Without a federal law, surrogacy in the U.S. is governed by a patchwork of state regulations/
Why it matters: Confusing, varied local rules can determine everything from whether agreements are legally binding to who is recognized as a parent at...
Cathy Tie seems to be good at starting businesses but not so dedicated to maintaining them. CGS, like many others, first heard of her thanks to Caiwei Chen and Antonio Regalado in MIT Technology Review, May 2025, as the partner (perhaps bride) of the notorious Chinese scientist He Jiankui, described in the headline as “China’s Frankenstein.” He prefers “Chinese Darwin.” She ran his Twitter account for a while, contributing such gems as:
Get in luddite, we’re going gene editing...
By Jessica Riskin, Los Ángeles Review of Books | 03.24.2026
This is the second part of the 14th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring the history of eugenics and the ways it shapes our present. You can read the...