Molecular Genetic Basis of Opposite Gene by Environment Interactions in Reading Disability and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

The goal of this study is to better understand the genetic basis of Reading Disability (RD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by examining molecular G x E interactions with parental education for each disorder. Research indicates that despite sharing genetic risk factors, RD and ADHD are influenced by different types of G x E interactions with parental education - a diathesis stress interaction in the case of ADHD and a bioecological interaction in RD. In order to resolve this apparent paradox, we conducted a preliminary study using behavioral genetic methods to test for G x E interactions in RD and the inattentive subtype of ADHD (ADHD-I) in the same sample of monozygotic and dizygotic Colorado Learning Disabilities Research Center same-sex twin pairs (DeFries et al., 1997), and our findings were consistent with the literature. We posited a genetic hypothesis for this opposite pattern of interactions, which suggests that only genes specific to each disorder enter into these opposite interactions, not the shared genes underlying their comorbidity. This study sought to further investigate this paradox using molecular genetics methods. We examined multiple candidate genes identified for RD or related language phenotypes and those identified for ADHD for G x E interactions with parental education. The specific aims of this study were as follows: 1) partition known risk alleles for RD and/or related language phenotypes and ADHD-I into those which are pleiotropic and non-pleiotropic by testing each risk allele for association with both RD and ADHD-I, 2) explore the main effects of parental education on both RD and ADHD-I, 3) address G-E correlations, and 4) conduct exploratory G x E interaction analyses in order to test the genetic hypothesis. Analyses suggested a number of pleiotropic genes that influence both RD and ADHD; however, results did not remain after correcting for multiple comparisons. Although exploratory G x E interaction findings were not significant after multiple comparison correction, results suggested a G x E interaction in the bioecological direction with KIAA0319, parental education, and ADHD-I. Given the limited power in the current study, replication of these findings with larger samples is necessary.

Comparison of Reading Development Across Socioeconomic Status in the United States

It is well known that higher parental socioeconomic status (SES) predicts better child reading outcomes, but little work has been done to unpack this finding. The main overall question addressed by this project was whether cognitive models of the two main reading outcomes, single word reading (SWR) and reading comprehension (RC), performed similarly across levels of parental SES. The current study predicted a differential relation between parental SES and both predictors and outcomes because of the known large relation between parental SES and child oral language development. Three questions examined the mediating effects of cognitive predictors on the relation between parental SES and reading outcomes, the moderating effects of SES on the developmental trajectories of reading outcomes, and the strength of the relationship between SES and the two reading outcomes. Participants were part of two large and comprehensive datasets: the cross-sectional Colorado Learning Disability Research Center (CLDRC; n=1554) sample, and the International Longitudinal Twin Study (ILTS; n=463 twin pairs) sample. In terms of cognitive predictors, the relation between SES and SWR was disproportionately mediated by two language skills, vocabulary (VOC) and phonological awareness (PA). For the RC models, both SWR and oral listening comprehension (OLC) did not disproportionally mediate the relation between RC and SES; however, full mediation was not exhibited. With regard to the trajectory of reading outcomes, SES moderated the starting values of SWR and RC, and the slopes of SWR development. When performance on the control measures of early reading skills (e.g., print knowledge, vocabulary, and decoding skills) was included the models, the moderating effects of SES were completely accounted for by these measures. In terms of outcomes, SES had a stronger relation to RC than to SWR, especially at later ages. These findings have implications for interventions aimed at improving reading outcomes in children from lower SES families.

Sustainable Development and its Discontents

Sustainable development (or sustainability) is a decision-making framework for maintaining and achieving human well-being, both in the present and into the future. The framework requires both consideration and achievement of environmental protection, social justice and economic development. In that framework, environmental protection must be integrated into decisions about social and economic development, and social justice and economic viability must be integrated into decisions about environmental quality. First endorsed by the world’s nations in 1992, this framework is intended to provide an effective response to the twin global challenges of growing environmental degradation and widespread extreme poverty. Sustainability provides a framework for humans to live in harmony with nature, rather than at nature’s expense. It may therefore be one of the most important ideas to come out of the 20th century. In the last two decades, the framework has become a touchstone in nearly every economic sector and at every level of government, unleashing an extraordinary range of creativity in all of those realms. Sustainable development is having a significant effect on the practice of law and on the way in which laws are written and implemented. Understanding the framework is increasingly important for law makers and lawyers. As sustainable development (or sustainability) has grown in prominence, its critics have become more numerous and more vocal. Three major lines of criticism are that the term is “too boring” to command public attention, “too vague” to provide guidance, and “too late” to address the world’s problems. Critics suggest goals such as abundance, environmental integrity, and resilience. Beginning with the international agreements that shaped the concept of sustainable development, this Article provides a functional and historical analysis of the meaning of sustainable development. It then analyzes and responds to each of these criticisms in turn. While the critics, understood constructively, suggest ways of strengthening this framework, they do not provide a compelling alternative. The challenge for lawyers, law makers, and others is to use and improve this framework to make better decisions.