So, researchers are supposed to ignore the results of their research, or not develop informed opinions? I think science would be in bad shape if not for a bit of thinking!
I don't read this research as an attack...I read it as more understanding of how complex the human mind and social interactions are. The recent research on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from places like Emory is very interesting...the way adult brains are different as a result of childhood stress has tremendous implications on policy and politics! For example, it throws monkey-wrench into the homosexual activists' assumption that adult brain differences must indicate "from birth" tendencies.
For those who question the idea of genetics and environment interacting, how about the following hypothetical: Let's say an army gets deployed in a sunny region where there are parasites that don't do well in sunlight, so the army spends much of its time sunbathing. Then, we might notice a much higher rate of skin cancer in light-skinned soldiers...a genetic influence that is brought out by the special conditions and behavior, as Wiseghy implied with "susceptability".
Now, let's say those troops come home and having grown used to sunbathing a lot, take their families to the beach a lot, etc. The kids of light-skinned troops might have a higher skin-cancer rate than the light-skinned civilians...you can say it's partly genetics, but also partly not. I don't think the article is implying a Lamarkian passing of genetic proclivities. And the headline is what causes the problem--the word "MIGHT" was not included there, but the lead sentence itself does say "may have," indicating the speculative nature of this research and hypotheses.
As do I. It is, however, my understanding that science is about repeatability of results, not opinions.
I may be wrong...