Luskin Students and Professors Tackle the “Silver Tsumani” of Aging America The economics and logistics of an aging population presents one of the greatest challenges to social welfare

UCLA - Networking Event1 

By Adeney Zo
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

Gerontology and social welfare go hand in hand, and the intersection of these two fields may be the key to solving America’s future. As the largest living generation in America (the “Baby Boomers”) enters retirement age, there is a growing demand for professionals trained to work with the elderly.

“Many researchers are calling the aging of America’s population the “silver tsunami” because the demographics of the country are so dramatically shifting in the direction of 65+ age group,” said social welfare student and researcher Hayley Schleifstein.

At the Luskin School, student organizations like the Gerontology & Geriatrics Interest Group (GIG) and the Social Welfare Gerontology Caucus work to raise awareness and interest in working with the aged population. “My research interest is getting young people involved,” said Lia Marshall, a social welfare doctoral student. “I want to introduce them to this idea when they’re young and maybe 10 years from now, it might be their career.”

But the Baby Boomer generation is not the only large population in America – the current generation of Millenials (ages 18-34) are about to surpass the Baby Boomers in population size.

“This will be the first time in 150 years where there are as many individuals, 80 million, in Millenials as Baby Boomers,” said Social Welfare and Public Policy professor Fernando Torres-Gil.

For America, this statistic means that the same number of people will be simultaneously entering the work force and retiring – and that the Millenials will be funding social benefits (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) for the Baby Boomers while carrying the knowledge that those benefits may well be gone by their own retirement.

Professor Torres-Gil’s research tackles these difficult policy issues along with the political implications of aging. His work is aimed towards finding policy solutions for a large aging population and creating new structures of support for future generations. “There is no consensus about how to provide reasonable quality of life for the elderly,” said Torres-Gil. “These [issues] go right into the heart of policy, politics, and visceral concerns. People wonder: Who will take care of me when I’m old? Congress is divided because the public is divided.”

However, there may be hope for the future brewing at UCLA. “The good news is that UCLA has very active young people and clubs volunteering for senior programs. We even have an undergraduate minor in gerontology,” said Torres-Gil. “Once we educate people, they are much more open and interested.”

On April 9, the Luskin School hosted its first Careers in Aging Week event to highlight professional opportunities in gerontology as well as its importance to this generation. “Careers in Aging Week” is an annual, nationwide movement sponsored by the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) that draws attention to growing career opportunities with the aging population.

Valerie Coleman, an organizer for the Luskin Careers in Aging Week, entered Urban Planning with a distinct interest in working with the aging population. “When I came into the Luskin, my classmates were surprised at my interest,” said Coleman. “So last year, I coordinated an event with Luskin students about working with the aging population and how it will affect all our careers.”

This year, Coleman teamed up with Zoe Koehler, co-chair for the Gerontology Caucus, and Lia Marshall, co-coordinator for GIG, to coordinate an official Careers in Aging Week event.

“I was especially impressed at the varied turnout at our Networking event, in which a few business and economics students showed up,” said Koehler. “This goes to show that the issue of our aging society is and will be relevant to students of all disciplines.”

The UCLA event featured an afternoon panel with a multidisciplinary array of leaders in the field of aging and aging research, including Professor Torres-Gil. The panel was followed by a networking event that allowed for participants to interact with professionals from the field and discover the variety of opportunities connected to the aging population.

“Careers in Aging is an important event right now because by 2050, 1 out of 5 people will be over the age of 65,” said Koehler. “Whether UCLA students intentionally choose to go specifically into work with seniors or not, they will be working with seniors. We want to help prepare students for the reality of our rapidly shifting and aging demographic in this country.”

 

To learn more about gerontology at Luskin, visit the GIG website at:

http://uclagig.weebly.com/

 

 

 

Uber’s Whetstone to Speak at Commencement Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of policy and communications for ride-sharing service Uber, will give the 2015 Commencement address

 

By Alejandra Reyes-Velarde
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

As the digital age continues to advance with implications across all areas of public life, UCLA Luskin searches for ways to increasingly integrate technology in its students’ understanding of policy, planning and social work.

Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of policy and communications at Uber, will give her insight as a woman with experience in technology, communications and public policy during the 2015 Commencement Ceremony at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Prior to her appointment at Uber this year, Rachel Whetstone served as senior vice president of communications and policy at Google since 2005. Formerly, Whetstone held posts in government in the United Kingdom, including service as Michael Howard’s chief of staff following his election to leadership of the conservative party.

In 2013, Whetstone was named one of the 100 most powerful women in the United Kingdom by “Woman’s Hour” on BBC radio.

When she joined Google in 2005, she became an advisor to CEO Larry Page and handled many of the company’s biggest policy issues including the recent anti-trust charges in Europe, according to Business Insider.

At Uber she will face similar challenges related to policy and public relations, including challenges to Uber’s business model from taxi companies and aggressive expansion plans, according to Re/Code.

The UCLA Luskin commencement ceremony will be held in Royce Hall on Friday, June 12, at 9 am.

 

Leap Honors Dads in ‘Project Fatherhood’ In her new book, Social Welfare professor Jorja Leap tells stories of former gang members who have decided to commit to their roles as fathers

feat_leapbook

By Adeney Zo
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

In her first book, Jumped In, Social Welfare professor Jorja Leap told the story of her life as a “ganster anthropologist,” and an observer and advocate for the young men and women caught up in the life of gangs. Her new book, Project Fatherhood, is about the life that some of these men have chosen to live after leaving the streets—as fathers to their sons. In an environment where involved fathers were hard to find, these men are committed to changing the dynamic for their children.

Leap sat down for this Q&A in advance of the book’s release party on Thursday, June 4.

How did you first become involved with Project Fatherhood?

I’ve known Mike Cummings [co-facilitator of Project Fatherhood] for 15 years. I wrote about him in my first book, and he called me about this group he was starting  with the Children’s Institute. They needed a social worker to co-lead the group, so I literally jumped at the chance. I have been actively involved as a social worker and researcher, trying to help people all of my life.

What made you interested specifically in the Watts community and this project?

I got my MSW at UCLA in 1978 and started working in Watts. I see it as the community I belong to—my parents are from South LA and I was born and raised there for part of  my life. I’m committed to it.

How does Project Fatherhood work differently from other gang intervention programs? What makes it effective?

It’s completely different, especially in its development. Without any organization or guidance, these are former gang members who wanted to reach out [to their children] and be fathers. We all know that the absence of fathers is a huge youth risk factor that leads to a lot of problems in school and community-based activities. It’s a terrible burden for young people that affects them throughout their lives. Project Fatherhood is more like a gang prevention program. Youth with incarcerated fathers find father mentors [through Project Fatherhood], which softens the cycle of life for the next generation. This is also a way for men who were former gang members to father one another. They all grew up without fathers, and now they are helping each other learn to be fathers. It’s so incredible to witness and be part of this for 4 years.

One of the key research findings is the kind of strong leadership that already existed in community. If we are looking at how to rebuild communities in the future, we need leadership that comes from within the community.

How does this book differ from Jumped In?

Jumped In is about what studying gangs taught me. It was very personal. I discussed raising my own child, so it was a memoir as well as a humanizing story of gang members. This book [Project Fatherhood] is about the project—there’s a little about me but mostly it’s about them and the issue of poverty.

Working in the field, teaching at UCLA, and publishing a book each have a different scope of impact. What sort of impact do you hope to make with Project Fatherhood, and what do you hope readers will ultimately take away from the book?

My goal is that the program will be funded and supported. All the proceeds from the book go to Project Fatherhood, the men who really deserve this kind of funding.  I want the stories of these men to be out in the world. We also need to build leadership in the community, and we have to be the support for what exists in that community. UCLA Luskin plays an important role in this—the role of wanting to support and conduct research within these communities. It’s wonderful to be here and be part of a program working to build that kind of community strength.

I want readers to understand what the experience of these men is truly like, who these men are as human beings. I want to show the “new Jim Crow,” this issue of men of color being incarcerated for long periods of time, and what it cost them, their family and community. I also want people to have hope as they read and see how devoted these men are—this is not a problem story, but a hope story. I want to show that strength and dedication is out there.

How did the fathers react to your decision to write a book about them?

I was a little bit worried when I brought it up, but they were very positive, very proud and excited. In the past when I did Jumped In, I worked carefully to disguise the interviewee’s identities. As I interviewed the fathers [from Project Fatherhood] and asked how they felt about being named, they all said, “Don’t worry, you can use our names. Tell the truth.” They were so honest and so open in wanting to share. It was an overwhelming experience, seeing how meaningful their commitment was to the program.

The truth is, I always felt like I belonged in Watts, and this project strengthened my attachment, belief and commitment. People who read the book will understand that we [the fathers and I] had big fights—it was not all sunshine and roses. We really struggled, but we were very open about how we made each other angry. I could have never imagined that through the past four years, this closeness and understanding would develop.

How can the public contribute to a solution for gang violence and poverty in communities like Watts? Do you recommend any programs or resources that offer the chance for people to take action?

I am hoping to bring support for the programs that already exist, that are there and are working. I hope this book will help leadership development and economic development. These are good fathers, good providers who want jobs. They don’t want to raise kids on the county and public support—they want to make a living. It’s quite striking; many people think they want to live on welfare, but that is the farthest thing from the truth.

As part of the UCLA Luskin faculty, I will be sponsoring a book party on June 4. This is an all-day event, and we’re even bringing youth from Watts to tour UCLA and work out with the football team. Copies of the book will be available before the release date on June 9, or Father’s Day. [The event] is really not about me, but the fathers who will be there to speak about their experiences. I really urge the UCLA community to come out and hear their voices.

Dean Gilliam Named Chancellor of UNC-Greensboro After seven years at UCLA Luskin's helm, Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., will step down to lead the East Coast university in the fall

 

The following message was sent to the UCLA community today from Chancellor Gene D. Block:

To the UCLA Community:

I am sad to announce the departure of Frank Gilliam, dean of the Luskin School of Public Affairs and a longtime faculty member, but I am very proud to share the news that he has been named chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His appointment is effective Sept. 8.

A visionary leader, skilled administrator and renowned scholar of public policy and politics, Frank has been instrumental in advancing UCLA’s civic engagement through community partnerships and research addressing some of society’s most pressing problems.

After being named dean in 2008, Frank shepherded a transformative $50 million gift that named the school in honor of our generous donors Meyer and Renee Luskin. With Frank’s guidance, the Luskin School of Public Affairs has ascended on a new trajectory of influence in research and innovation in education. Under Frank, the Luskin School has focused on identifying some of our world’s most vexing issues – such as immigration, drug policy, transportation, national security, health care financing and the environment – and establishing itself as a leader in addressing them. Through the Leadership Initiative, Frank expanded opportunities for students to interact directly with policy leaders, helping to prepare them for real-world challenges in public service. In the new Global Public Affairs program, students and faculty study problems that cross international borders and explore solutions that require a global perspective.

Even before being appointed dean, Frank championed UCLA’s civic engagement. He created the UCLA Center for Community Partnerships and served as associate vice chancellor of community partnerships from 2002 to 2008, forging academic and community collaborations to improve the quality of life throughout Los Angeles. In large part because of Frank, UCLA earned its first Carnegie Foundation Community Engagement classification. Frank’s impassioned commitment to the cause helped make him an ideal choice to lead the Luskin School, which is dedicated to public service through scholarship that informs public policy and teaching that prepares future civic leaders.

I share Frank’s dedication to public engagement. His success in that arena was one reason I chose him, in 2013, as a special adviser to develop a framework for UCLA’s civic involvement in our region – a framework that is now being strategically implemented.

Frank joined UCLA’s faculty in 1986, and he now holds appointments in political science and public policy. His scholarship focuses on elections and political campaigns, with an emphasis on racial and ethnic politics, and how strategic communications shape public policy. Frank is frequently interviewed about these and other subjects by top news outlets. His work is published in many leading academic journals, and he is the author of Farther to Go: Readings and Cases in African-American Politics. Frank also was founding director of the UCLA Center for Communications and Community and he held leadership positions at the UCLA Center for American Politics and Public Policy.

Befitting his scholarship and his commitment to civics, Frank helped establish the FrameWorks Institute, which publishes research to further public understanding of social issues and aid nonprofits. He is a senior fellow at the institute, which this year earned a MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions. Frank also serves as chair of the Blue Shield of California board of trustees and is on the boards of the United Way of Greater Los Angeles and Southern California Grantmakers.

Frank has made an indelible mark on UCLA through our strengthened relationships with partners in the communities we serve. His deanship has elevated the Luskin School to a new level of excellence and helped to prepare thousands of students to become leaders working to enhance the lives of others. By any measure, Frank has had a profound impact on our campus as well as communities throughout the Los Angeles and across the nation.

I am proud to have him as a colleague and am confident he will enjoy continued success leading the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Please join me in congratulating Frank and wishing him well in this new chapter of his career.

We are fortunate to have many strong leaders at the Luskin School, and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh and I intend to appoint an interim dean very soon and then conduct a search for a successor. We are grateful for the clear path Frank has set at the Luskin School, and we are well-positioned to continue UCLA’s broader efforts to serve as a valuable resource for the community – work that is essential to our mission as a public university.

Sincerely,

Gene D. Block

Chancellor

 

Board of Advisors Member Reynolds Receives Honorary Doctorate Vicki Renolds recognized for her philanthropic work

reynolds_doctorate

By Angel Ibañez
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

UCLA Luskin board member Vicki Reynolds was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters by The American Jewish University for her philanthropy and civic leadership at the university’s 65th annual commencement ceremony May 17..

Reynolds is extensively involved in advocating for education through her involvement as president of the Beverly Hills Board of Education and as a member of the California State Board of Education. Reynolds is also a Trustee of the California State Summer School for the Arts, serves on the regional Board of the American Jewish Committee, the Board of Directors of The Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts and is a staunch supporter of women’s and civil rights. She is a member of UCLA Luskin’s Board of Advisors.

Reynolds also served three terms as mayor of Beverly Hills and was elected the City Council for twelve consecutive years.

As a result of her leadership, the city purchased The Historic Beverly Post Office from the Federal Government and led to the creation of The Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts.

Reynolds has been recognized for her work by the Maple Counseling Center and the UCLA Alumni Association, which named Reynolds Alumnus of the Year in 2002.

She has been awarded the Legion D’Honneur, the French government’s highest honor given to a foreign citizen.

A graduate of UCLA, Reynolds earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from UCLA and a Degree Superieur from La Sorbonne at The University of Paris.

Transportation and Connectivity at Luskin Lecture Series U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx discussed the ways transportation builds community at a Luskin Lecture Series event

[<a href=”//storify.com/UCLALuskin/u-s-transportation-sec-anthony-foxx-delivers-luski” target=”_blank”>View the story “U.S. Transportation Sec. Anthony Foxx speaks at Union Station” on Storify</a>]

Study: Asian American Electorate Expected to Double by 2040 New data collected by the Center for the Study of Inequality predicts an increase in Asian American political power in the next 25 years

By 2040, there will be over 6 million more registered Asian American voters in the U.S. than there are today, an increase of more than 100 percent and proof that Asian Americans are one of the fastest growing electorates.

That finding is just one of the results of a new report coauthored by Paul Ong, a professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy at UCLA Luskin with a joint appointment in Asian American Studies. The study explores the implications this growing segment of the population has for the U.S. electorate and upcoming political races through detailed demographic estimations.

According to the report, which augmented information from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Asian American electorate will double to 12.2 million in 2040, a 107 percent increase. Due to their growing numbers, the Asian American population will have the potential to play a key role in tight presidential elections and close political decisions. The report is the first in a series of publications throughout the year that are expected to cover a broad range of topics including culture and multigenerationalism.

The report was prepared in partnership with the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies (APAICS), a national organization committed to promoting Asian Pacific American participation and representation at all levels of the political process, from community service to elected office. The report was coauthored by Elena Ong, a consultant to APAICS.

“These results provide a context for understanding the relative size and potential impact of Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs), as well as the current and future roles of (the population’s) leaders in serving two of the fastest growing racial populations in America,” Paul Ong said.

“This study shows that Asian Americans will have a growing presence and stronger voice in our national debates for years to come,” said Senator Mazie Hirono (HI), the first Asian American woman elected to the U.S. Senate. “I look forward to continuing to work to grow the pipeline of Asian American leaders who will amplify the voice of our community and continue the fight to overcome the challenges we face.”

Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27.), the Chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, commented, “As AAPIs become more engaged in the political process, it is important now, more than ever, that our government both represents and responds to the needs of our diverse communities.”

In the report, the term Asian American is defined in diverse terms ranging from solely Asian to multiracial Asian Americans with mixed backgrounds in terms of culture, ethnicity, nativity and other factors. According to the report, multiracial Asians will have a larger growth rate of 130 percent versus Asians alone, who are expected to grow by 75 percent.

“Electoral candidates will need to understand that the Asian American vote is not a monolith,” the report says. “They will need to understand the political concerns and priorities of Asian Americans are both unique and complex, shaped in part by age, nativity, multiracial and other evolving demographic composition.”

Changes within the Asian American population could also have an impact on the electorate beyond the 2016 presidential election cycle. For instance, while the younger, U.S.-born Asian American population aged 18 to 34 currently constitutes the majority of Asian American voters, the report estimates that by 2040, 57 percent of registered Asian American voters will be over the age of 34.

“(Knowing this information) would help elected officials reach out to Asian American voters in a language, and in a communication preference, that is in tune with the Asian American voter’s immigration status and age-cohort,” Ong said.

According to the report, the difference in race and age may suggest that the growing population will have different needs, including more emphasis on foreign policy, international relations, trade and immigration to accommodate for the concerns of foreign-born Asian American adults.

In 2015, 44 percent of naturalized Asian American registered voters are over the age of 55, but by 2040, 53 percent will be, according to the study. As a result, the youth and middle-aged share of the political landscape will decline. Older, naturalized Asian American voters are likely to demand different needs, such as native-language registration forms, town halls, e-booklets and ballots in order to vote.

Conversely, authors suggest that populations under 34 are likely to share U.S. values and advocate for issues such as equality, health care affordability and college affordability, among others.

“Given the enormous diversity by age and nativity, along with ethnicity and nationality and socioeconomic class, there is a daunting challenge of creating a common political agenda that unites Asian Americans into an effective and cohesive voting bloc,” the report said.

Though the report focuses on political implications, the impacts of the demographic shifts can be extrapolated into other areas of governance. Among other things, these projections are important for understanding the social, cultural and economic dimensions affecting the development of public policies such as new educational programs, English as a Second Language programs, and occupational and social programs for Asian American citizens of all ages.

The report, titled “The Future of Asian America in 2040,” is available via the Center for the Study of Inequality, a research center headed up by Paul Ong and housed at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and APAICS. Commentaries are also hosted there from elected officials and scholars exploring the dynamics of race and politics in America today.

An Officer and a Graduate Student Lr. Michael Fonbuena's commitment to UCLA Luskin

fonbuena

 

By Angel Ibañez
UCLA Luskin Student Writer

When second-year Public Policy student Lt. Michael Fonbuena searched for programs offered by the Navy to earn his graduate degree while continuing his career in the service, he found the Career Intermission Program and chose to attend UCLA Luskin.

The program was implemented in 2009 and gives service members the opportunity to take a one- to three-year break to pursue personal or professional growth and return to active duty following the hiatus.

Fonbuena was attracted to UCLA Luskin for its unique location and the range of policy challenges engaged by the School, as well as the interdisciplinary focus that would bridge his passion for international issues.

When he first arrived at UCLA Luskin he came in knowing what he wanted to study, but his interests quickly expanded as he was exposed to new ideas.

“I came in thinking I knew exactly what I wanted to do and what my interests were,” Fonbuena says, “but by expanding outside of my comfort zone and taking courses I hadn’t exactly intended, I have gained tremendous interest in several new topics.”

One of these new topics has been cybersecurity, and its legal implications, both within and outside of the military framework.

“Currently I am finishing a course in the Law School on cyber law and policy which has greatly piqued my interest not only in the security implications of cyber, which is of great interest to the military, but also on the legal ramifications of things we hear about on a daily basis,” Fonbuena says.

Such classes benefit greatly from students with unique backgrounds. As a sailor and a Naval Academy graduate, Michael has brought a unique viewpoint to many of his classes.

“I remember a few classes with Professor DeShazo where I felt I was able to provide insight on a personal level that some in my cohort might have found useful—specifically on the case study of the Tailhook scandal, and in general discussing what it was like working within such a large bureaucracy at the Department of Defense,” he says.

The intersection of ideas from its students with diverse backgrounds is at the center of UCLA Luskin’s mission to cultivate change agents who will advance solutions to society’s most pressing problems.

Fonbuena has benefited from this exchange, he says, and he will keep as he pursues his career.

“It really taught me that everyone brings something different to the table and can add valuable input. It’s a valuable lesson that I will take back to the Navy with me.”

Another unique resource Michael believes has helped him develop as a person and expand his knowledge of issues has been the guest speakers that come to UCLA Luskin, including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

“I honestly feel that by not taking advantage of the opportunity to learn from these individuals, students are doing themselves a huge disservice, both personally and professionally,” Fonbuena says.

As his time at UCLA Luskin is coming to an end, Michael says his experience has reinvigorated him.

“My experience here has recharged my batteries and left me with a desire to utilize the tools I’ve learned to make the Navy a better organization in any capacity I can,” he says.

“I developed a diversity of thought which I lacked prior to attending Luskin, which in the future will enable me to see problems through a wider lens and make more thoughtful and diverse decisions.”

Aaron Panofsky Explores Controversies in “Misbehaving Science” The Public Policy professor's book explores the roots of simmering battles in science

feat_panofsky

Aaron Panofsky, a professor of public policy with an appointment at the Institute for Society and Genetics, recently published his book “Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics.” The book analyzes the causes and consequences of controversies surrounding behavioral genetics, often leading to debates about race and inequality.

In a recent interview with UCLA Luksin, Panofsky discusses his findings and how science and policy come to be at odds with one another, tracing behavior genetics to its origins and analyzing five major controversies in the field.

Panofsky will discuss the book in an April 30 webcast.

Your book, “Misbehaving Science,” looks at the field of behavioral genetics as a way of showing how scientific consensus — or the lack thereof — and cross-disciplinary relationships can influence the progress of knowledge. What made behavioral genetics the right topic for this kind of study?

At some level, controversy is inherent to science, that’s what distinguishes it from other forms of culture. Scientists propose findings, explanations, and theories, and others try to tear these down. Historians and sociologists have focused on occasions when this process fails to go smoothly. For example, perhaps what’s at stake is not a fact but what counts as a fact, what a method is capable of demonstrating, what evidence is meaningful, or who is even a legitimate participant in a scientific debate. On such occasions…there is a breakdown in the mutual trust and common standards necessary for Popper’s machine to keep running smoothly. So sociologists and historians have been interested in the social processes that get the scientific machine running again.

Behavior genetics—the field devoted to studying genetic influences on intelligence, personality, mental illnesses, criminal behavior, etc.—is interesting from this perspective because it has remained controversial since its founding as a field fifty years ago. The field’s researchers have managed to have productive careers despite there being across this entire period fundamental disagreements across science about the validity of the scientific tools behavior geneticists use and the inferences they make. Behavior genetics is thus an anomaly from the tradition above—controversies must either be resolved or science will grind to a halt. In behavior genetics the scientific machine keeps turning though controversy persists, and my book tries to explain why.

Why is behavioral genetics such a controversial field of study?

The effort to link behavior to biology has always been controversial because it is political. If social status is linked to biology, perhaps inequality is natural rather than caused by exploitative relationships. These ideas are associated with eugenics and scientific racism. Perhaps social problems can be addressed through genetic testing and differential treatment, or perhaps there’s very little to be done and investments in school and social welfare are just wasted money.

Behavior genetics was founded in the 1960s (with) the hope that (it) could be studied separate from politics, racism, and eugenics. But in 1969, educational psychologist launched a national debate… to argue that programs to decrease racial inequality like Project Head Start were doomed to fail because genetically determined differences in intelligence. That controversy…turned a once-cooperative multidisciplinary space into an archipelago of mutually distrusting groups of scientists with opposed scientific purposes.

Many people have suggested that behavior genetics has inherently controversial ideas. But other fields…neuroscience, for example, have much more successfully resisted politicization. I argue that behavior genetics’ problem is due to this unfortunate history, which (fragmented the scientific community and) led to ambiguous intellectual and scientific norms.

Have recent technologies such as genetic sequencing and computer modeling reduced the chaos or further fanned the flames?

Behavior genetics…have long been based on studies using twins and adoptees to separate effects of “nature and nurture” without ever measuring DNA. Molecular technologies were supposed to correlate DNA directly to behavior, but…there have been no discoveries of genes for normal range behaviors accepted widely by scientists. Instead (these molecular methods) have gained importance and have been used to warrant increased investments in costly molecular research. At the same time, facing the highly reductionist approach of molecular geneticists, behavior geneticists have moderated their approach and spoken more of environmental effects on behavior. This new focus has made their research more acceptable to a wider population of social scientists—but fundamental disputes about the field’s methods (haven’t) been resolved.

What lessons can this episode teach us about other areas where policy and science intersect?

Behavior genetics is a high public profile…but its direct policy impact has been limited thus far. As far as I’m aware, there are no implemented behavior genetics informed educational or child welfare policies. I think this is a good thing because the idea that genes limit what societies might do to reduce inequality or improve education is at best too controversial to act upon responsibly.

But I worry that behavior genetics may culturally influence the ways people think about policy objectives in less than salutary ways. There’s evidence that behavior genetics findings could make people more fatalistic about the effectiveness of interventions and diminish their support whether or not the intervention might actually be effective.

Behavior genetics has also helped promote the idea that interventions might affect individuals in different ways. Some have argued that this suggests giving individuals more choices could be more effective than necessarily investing more in problem areas. This too could lead to a kind of policy fatalism. The direct and indirect impacts of behavior genetics ideas on policy are another area I hope to think about more in the future.

How can policy makers and the public help the scientific community avoid these pitfalls and advance knowledge?

One of my basic arguments is that…whether scientists in a specialty take seriously the mutual scientific competition with each other and the cultivation of social ties, boundaries, policing, etc. affects the style and quality of research and commitments to group responsibility. I worry that trends in the management of science…may be pushing scientific fields in the wrong direction. Interdisciplinary science may promote innovation through novel combinations of expertise, but it may also undermine the kinds of disciplinary structures that help build robust fields in the long run. The rush to promote interdisciplinarity may lead fields to experience problems like behavior genetics has faced over the long term.

What perspectives have your colleagues in science shared with you about this research?

Not many yet! I look forward to their feedback as more people get to read the book.

How We Drink Affects Child Abuse or Neglect Research conducted by Social Welfare professor Bridget Freisthler shows that drinking at parties, with family or friends has varied effects on child neglect

feat_freisthler

 

Social Welfare professor Bridget Freisthler released a study on March 24 examining how various drinking habits contribute differently to child abuse or neglect.

In the past, Freisthler has studied how accessibility to alcohol is related to crime and child abuse, as well as how services can reduce these effects. According to a national study, alcohol is a factor in more than 11 percent of child neglect cases, but little is known about how alcohol use is related to neglectful parenting. Neglect is defined by federal legislation as failure to give minimum care that meets a child’s physical needs or is failure to take precautions to ensure child safety in and out of the home.

Most research on this subject has focused on alcohol dependence, abuse and quantity consumed, not on drinking frequency or contexts. Freisthler and her co-authors Jennifer P. Wolf and Michelle Johnson-Motoyama attempted to fill this gap by examining five different drinking contexts and how it does or does not contribute to child neglect.

The study found that frequency of drinking (how often a person drinks), but not volume of drinking (how much he or she drinks), is related to higher likelihood of supervisory neglect, but lower likelihood of physical neglect. In other words, frequent drinkers are more likely to fail to provide adequate care for their children. Heavy drinkers, on the other hand, are more likely to leave their child unsupervised at home or in a car.

The social contexts in which parents drink each played distinct roles in child neglect, according to the study. Those who drank more often with friends, for instance, were more likely to leave their children home alone during the past year, while drinking with family was instead more positively correlated with unsafe monitoring of children. Interestingly, frequency and continued volumes of drinking in any context were not found to be related to parents’ reports of insufficient food or heat in the house.

Freisthler’s findings are significant, especially during National Child Abuse Prevention Month, because it urges researchers, communities and social workers to look more deeply into the social mechanisms behind child abuse and neglect. Freisthler and her co-authors suggest future studies to understand the temporal relationship between drinking and neglect as well as more close examinations of parents’ routines and patterns to discover the nuanced interactions between alcohol consumption and neglect.

In addition to her research, Freisthler leads the Spatial Analysis Lab in the department of social welfare and the Child Abuse and Neglect Social Ecological Models Consortium. The drinking study is funded by NIAAA grant number P60-AA006282.