ArticlePNAS nexus2025
The role of polygenic indices in inequality of opportunity.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.