As a non-scientist who has studied alcoholism I’m always impressed by the ability of opponents of the genetic basis to ignore facts that conflict with their ideas. Although since alcoholism is poorly studied they may not be aware of the following facts that strongly suggest a genetic basis.

From the beginning alcoholics exhibit very high tolerance for alcohol, they simply do not get drunk on quantities that would have the rest of us reeling. They also display extraordinary tolerance for other CNS suppressants. Anesthetists know that alcoholics require “off the charts” volumes to reach a state suitable for surgery. I even know of a case where a member of the US armed forces was handed orders to report to alcoholism rehab following a routine surgical procedure; his docs connected the dots.

My point is high tolerance cannot possibly be explained by psychological factors; unpleasant experiences have no way of altering the CNS. There must be a genetic basis and if it hasn’t been found it’s because they’re looking in the wrong place.

They also ignore animal studies. When a population of rats have access to alcohol, most of them take a taste or two and decide to limit their input to water and food. A minority cannot get enough of the alcohol. I suppose the anti-geneticists might argue that those rats must have had unpleasant juvenile experiences.

Behavioral genetics and the related fields have recently adopted the “missing heritability” position to explain the ongoing failure to uncover genes.[8] Proponents of this position argue that genes (“heritability”) are “missing” because researchers must find better ways to uncover them, as opposed to some critics’ contention that the failure to discover genes indicates that these genes do not exist.[9]

Reference 9 is:

9. Joseph, 2010; Latham & Wilson, 2010.

i.e. something by the author himself, and the “The Great DNA Deficit” article already mentioned!

So, is this just a “teach the controversy” moment?