My research converges at the intersection between the philosophy of science, bioethics, and philosophy of race. I am concerned with scientific explanation, especially questions related to human genetics: how do our genes and environment interact to produce our physical and mental phenotypes, and what risk occurs if we privilege one domain over the other? How has genetic essentialism changed over time? How did pharmacogenetics become so preoccupied with race and what bearing does that history have on contemporary medicine? And what is the relationship between research and clinical practice? In consideration of these questions, I utilize case studies from empirical research, clinical trials, philosophy of science in practice, bioethics, and historical archives to bring new insights to the contemporary practice of genetics.
Some of my work is listed below. If you're unable to access it, please let me know, and I would be happy to send you a copy. If you're interested in collaborating, please reach out!
co-authored with Bennett Knox and Stephen M. Downes; published in 2026 in Behavior Genetics
Abstract: This paper presents the preliminary results of a survey-based study investigating geneticists’ understanding of genetic causation. We are motivated by an underlying assumption that to improve interpretation and implementation of behavioral genetics research, and furthermore for that research to have a positive societal impact, it is important to reveal how geneticists themselves understand their research. Results of sixty-two survey responses from clinical and research geneticists at the University of Utah are discussed and assessed to fulfill these aims and survey the landscape of the field. Analysis of our survey results revealed some variation in responses to questions about genetic causation from geneticists across different research areas.
co-authored with James Tabery; published in JAMA in 2025
Abstract: The Stateville Penitentiary malaria studies began in the 1940s in a panopticon-style prison near Chicago. The research lasted decades and involved hundreds of prisoners in an effort to find safe and effective treatments for latent malaria. What happened at Stateville has been a subject of scrutiny ever since, shaping ideas about informed consent to this day. Moreover, the study of adverse reactions to the antimalarials played a key role in the development of what became pharmacogenetics and the modern science of precision medicine, with its goal of delivering the right treatment, to the right patient, at the right time. It is hard to overstate just how influential the Stateville studies have been for medicine, public health, and the ethical and legal oversight of clinical research. Yet, the prevailing view of Stateville is that the research involved only White prisoners. However, Black prisoners were integral to the studies, providing the crucial data about adverse drug reactions. Revisiting Stateville with a focus on the experiences of Black participants offers a number of lessons for contemporary medicine that move beyond the considerations of consent that have dominated conversations—about the fraught relationship between race and genetics, about the dangerous gap between what gets promised of research involving racial and ethnic minority groups and what gets delivered, and about how to properly acknowledge a group of people whose lasting impact on clinical research and clinical care has been unjustly forgotten.
published in 2024 in Philosophy of Medicine
Abstract: This paper interrogates the concept of luck in cancer diagnosis. I argue that while it might have some utility for individuals, at the clinical and research level, the concept impedes important prevention efforts and misdirects sources of blame in a cancer diagnosis. Such use, in fact, has the possibility of harming already vulnerable efforts at ameliorating social determinants of health and should therefore be eliminated from research and clinical contexts.
published in 2026 in the Journal of Economic Methodology
Abstract: In Understanding the Nature-Nurture Debate, Turkheimer, a psychologist with a robust history in behavior genetics, unlocks this complex and heady debate to ask what makes us human: genes or environment? In this book-length debut, Turkheimer deftly unpacks the history of this debate. He considers the sociology of the field of human behavior genetics and the development and implementation of statistical techniques and methodologies which allowed the field to grow. It’s neither a straightforward introduction, nor so mired in mathematics and statistics that it isn’t worth a beginner’s attention as well. However, the text hardly reads as a textbook – Turkheimer writes with purpose, sentience and deep care for the subject matter in a way that appeals to readers across disciplines. For philosophers of science, the book offers reflections on reductionism, interaction and levels of analysis. For economists, it provides rich comparative perspectives on modeling human heterogeneity, disentangling correlated causes, and interpreting variance-based measures.
co-authored with Bennett Knox and Stephen M. Downes; published in 2024 in Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology
Abstract: Here we articulate a negative answer to Turkheimer and Greer’s question: “Is it possible to envision a genetically informed program that ethically intervenes on campus drinking?” (Turkheimer & Greer, 2024). However, first, we note that the authors cover an immense amount of ground in their paper. They lend insight into how psychiatric genetics, at its very core, is conducted through their detailed examination of a large body of work in one specific area of this large field. A main result of this is to explain the gulf between results and conclusions, work that provides an invaluable service not just to various areas in philosophy and bioethics, but that are deserving of readership by a very wide audience. This gulf is explained via a careful accounting of the statistical measures used to assess the impact of genes on alcohol-related behavior in the college students sampled and comparisons between the strength of these measures and the strength and scope of conclusions drawn by the Spit for Science (S4S) researchers.
co-authored with Jonathan Kaplan; published in 2024 in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology
Abstract: The relationship between evolutionary biology and philosophy has been fruitful for both elds. Philosophy has often brought conceptual rigor to bear on foundational issues in evolutionary biology, and has, at times, played an important role in helping to clarify the complex role that evidentiary standards played in the acceptance (or rejection) of particular hypotheses. Evolutionary biology has opened new avenues of exploration in a number of traditional philosophical domains, and, in providing answers to some questions traditionally thought of as philosophical, has solved (or perhaps dissolved) some philosophical problems.