Here's
the argument, in brief. Violent crime began to increase in the '60s,
peaked in the early '90s, and has been declining ever since. Neither
demographic changes, i.e., increases and decreases in the number of
young men, nor changes in the economy can fully explain this pattern.
Lead in the environment comes from two major sources: lead paint,
which was gradually phased out during the last century, and gasoline.
Following World War II, Americans began driving a lot more, and the
oil companies added lead to gasoline, allegedly to improve engine performance. In the mid-'70s, due to evidence that lead exposure
reduced I. Q., government forced the oil companies to switch to
lead-free gasoline. Lead has its greatest influence on the
developing brains of children. The results of lead on violent
behavior becomes apparent when people are in their early twenties.
Here are the data (originally compiled by by Rick Nevin) showing the
relationship between the concentration of lead in the environment and
the rate of violent crime 23 years later.
It's obvious that
there is a correlation. But like many social scientists, I've spent
my career telling students that “correlation does not mean causation.” Whenever a variable, A (lead), is correlated with
another variable, B (violent crime), there are three possibilities:
A causes B, B causes A, or some third variable, C, is responsible for
the apparent relationship between them. Since no one is arguing that
violent crime causes lead to be deposited in the environment, the
real issue is whether confounding variables (Cs) have been ruled out.
Correlational
arguments can be strong or weak. They are relatively strong if they
have been replicated using several different data sets and research
methods, and if alternative explanations can be ruled out. The two
primary methods of determining whether a social policy, such as lead
abatement, influences a behavioral variable are time series
and comparison group
designs. In a time series design, you look at whether a change in
the policy is followed, at an appropriate interval, by a change in
the behavior. Those are the data in the above graph.
In a comparison
group design, you compare different spatial locations that have
different levels of the presumed cause to see whether they also have
different incidences of the presumed effect. The switch to unleaded
gasoline was not uniform among the 50 states. Reyes found that
states that switched to unleaded sooner saw their violent crime rate
drop sooner. Nevin has examined the relationship between lead and
crime in several countries, and has found that lead predicts
differences in crime rates both within and between nations. Mielke
has compared lead concentrations in various U. S. cities with the
same results. Mielke has also measured lead concentration in New Orleans soil samples—which is quite unevenly distributed. He finds
that it predicts crime rates at the neighborhood level. There are
also data relating the crime rate to the distance one lives from a major highway.
Turning to
alternative explanations, all these studies do a reasonable job of
statistically controlling for confounding variables such as race,
gender, socioeconomic status, family demographics, and unemployment
rates. Of course, the number of possible alternative explanations is
theoretically infinite, so you can never anticipate all of them. It
is important to note that these researchers are not suggesting that
lead is the only variable that influences violent crime, only that it
is much more important than has been generally realized.
The relationship
between lead and violent crime has been confirmed at the individual
level in longitudinal studies. Researchers at the University of
Cincinnati have followed a cohort of children for 30 years. Those
with higher levels of lead in their bloodstreams as children are more likely to be arrested for violent crimes as adults. Lead exposure is
also related to lower I. Q., attention deficit disorder, and higher
rates of teen pregnancy.
Furthermore,
plausible physiological mechanisms to explain the lead hypothesis
have been proposed. The Cincinnati group compared the MRI brain
scans of adults who had high or low lead exposure as children. Those
exposed to more lead had less gray matter in the prefrontal cortex,
the area of the brain associated with “executive
function”—attention, verbal reasoning and impulse control. They
also have a thinner myelin sheath around the synapses which connect
adjacent neurons, suggesting that their communication channels within
the brain are slower and less reliable.
Tomorrow: Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.