Suppr超能文献

多基因指数在机会不平等中的作用。

The role of polygenic indices in inequality of opportunity.

作者信息

Grätz Michael, Petrini Sonia

机构信息

Swiss Centre of Expertise in Life Course Research LIVES, University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland.

Swedish Institute for Social Research SOFI, Stockholm University, Stockholm 10691, Sweden.

出版信息

PNAS Nexus. 2025 May 5;4(5):pgaf140. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf140. eCollection 2025 May.

Abstract

Equality of opportunity is a principle of social justice, although there are different conceptions of it. We distinguish between liberal and radical (in)equality of opportunity. Both conceptions consider unfair inequalities in life outcomes that result from ascribed characteristics such as social origin, migration background, and sex. However, they differ in that liberal inequality of opportunity considers it fair when natural talents affect life outcomes. Conversely, radical inequality of opportunity places natural talents in the category of morally arbitrary factors that do not provide a fair basis for inequalities in life outcomes. We use polygenic indices (PGIs) to better disentangle the role of natural talents from the roles of ascribed characteristics and individual choices. We compare using PGIs to using measures of skills observed later in life. We apply this approach to two survey datasets, (i) the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study and (ii) the German Socio-Economic Panel Study. According to our results, radical inequality of opportunity is considerably larger than liberal inequality of opportunity, especially for education. Measuring natural talents using PGIs leads to very similar conclusions as using skills measured later in life. However, the differences between liberal and radical inequality of opportunity are smaller using PGIs than using measures of observed skills.

摘要

机会平等是社会正义的一项原则,尽管对此存在不同的概念。我们区分了机会的自由主义平等和激进平等(或不平等)。这两种概念都认为,由社会出身、移民背景和性别等既定特征导致的生活结果中的不公平不平等现象存在问题。然而,它们的不同之处在于,机会的自由主义不平等认为,当自然天赋影响生活结果时是公平的。相反,机会的激进不平等将自然天赋归为道德上任意的因素,这些因素并不能为生活结果中的不平等提供公平的基础。我们使用多基因指数(PGIs)来更好地将自然天赋的作用与既定特征和个人选择的作用区分开来。我们比较了使用多基因指数与使用后期观察到的技能指标的情况。我们将这种方法应用于两个调查数据集,(i)威斯康星纵向研究和(ii)德国社会经济面板研究。根据我们的结果,机会的激进不平等比机会的自由主义不平等要大得多,尤其是在教育方面。使用多基因指数衡量自然天赋得出的结论与使用后期观察到的技能得出的结论非常相似。然而,使用多基因指数时,机会的自由主义不平等和激进不平等之间的差异比使用观察到的技能指标时要小。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6d6f/12076009/7645d5b4a73a/pgaf140f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验