In the early 1990s, a set of new techniques for manipulating mouse DNA allowed researchers to ‘knock out’ specific genes and observe the effects of removing them on a live mouse. In animal behaviour genetics, questions about how to deploy these techniques to study the molecular basis of behaviour became quite controversial, with a number of key methodological issues dissecting the interdisciplinary research field along disciplinary lines. This paper examines debates that took place during the 1990s between a predominately North American group of molecular biologists and animal behaviourists around how to design, conduct, and interpret behavioural knockout experiments. Drawing from and extending Harry Collins’s work on how research communities negotiate what counts as a ‘well-done experiment,’ I argue that the positions practitioners took on questions of experimental skill reflected not only the experimental traditions they were trained in but also their differing ontological and epistemological commitments. Different assumptions about the nature of gene action, eg., were tied to different positions in the knockout mouse debates on how to implement experimental controls. I conclude by showing that examining representations of skill in the context of a community’s knowledge commitments sheds light on some of the contradictory ways in which contemporary animal behaviour geneticists talk about their own laboratory work as a highly skilled endeavour that also could be mechanised, as easy to perform and yet difficult to perform well.

For a quantitative genetic study of pre-school problem behaviours, we have collected data with the Child Behavior Checklist for 2 and 3-year-old children (CBCL 2/3). Questionnaires were completed by mothers of 3620 twin pairs: 633 monozygotic males, 581 dizygotic males, 695 monozygotic females, 519 dizygotic females and 1192 dizygotic opposite sex twin pairs. The genetic and environmental influences on the Externalising and Internalising Problem scales were estimated, simultaneously with sex differences and sibling interaction effects. Genetic factors explained most of the observed variance for both Externalising and Internalising Problems. Cooperative sibling interactions were found for Externalising Problems, indicating that twins reinforce each other's behaviour. Sex differences in genetic architecture were found for Externalising Problems. Genetic factors explained 75% of the variance in girls and 50% in boys. Shared environmental influences were only of importance in boys. For both problem scales, non-shared environmental factors accounted for 25 to 32% of the variance. The observed variances of Internalising Problems could be adequately explained by genetic and nonshared environmental factors, with genetic factors accounting for 68% of the variance.

The propensity to take risk underpins a wide variety of decision-making behavior, ranging from common ones such as asking for directions and trying out a new restaurant to more substantial economic decisions involving, for instance, one's investment or career. Despite the fundamental role of risk attitude in the economy, its genetic basis remains unknown. Using an experimental economics protocol combined with a classical twin strategy, we provide the first direct evidence of the heritability of economic risk attitude, at 57%. We do not find a significant role for shared environmental effects, a common observation in behavioral genetics that is contrary to commonly held views in economics. Our findings complement recent neuroeconomic studies in enhancing the understanding of the neurobiological basis of risk taking.