Skip to main content

Will epigenetics ever be a biosocial science? A reply to Chiapperino and Paneni

A Correspondence to this article was published on 17 May 2023

The Original Article was published on 11 November 2022


The recent correspondence article by Chiapperino and Paneni in Clinical Epigenetics correctly points to the inability of epigenetics to incorporate fine-grained mapping data of the individual’s surrounding milieu. The authors underline similar shortcomings of genomics. I argue that the tight link between DNA sequence and epigenetic marks is likely to reproduce those shortcomings in epigenetic studies. Moreover, biosocial epigenetics, if ever fully accomplished, would inevitably unmask genetics-based phenomena. The latter would be highly controversial from the viewpoint of dominant identity politics and social constructivism.


The recent correspondence article by Chiapperino and Paneni in Clinical Epigenetics touches many important issues in contemporary epigenetics research [1]. The authors and the journal deserve praise for contributing to the public debate about the epistemology of science. Moreover, their appreciation of the daylight between epigenomics and fine-grained mapping of the individual's surrounding milieu is correct and reflects previous concerns [2]. As admitted by the authors, that problem is a formidable one to solve even by the best interdisciplinary research and technological advances. The question though is whether the alignment between epigenetics and fine-grained social profiling is a goal worth pursuing, given the emerging characteristics of epigenetics. The latter are core concepts in the current debate, that are often clouded by a degree of confusion about what epigenetics is and can do for us. A very short history of epigenetics is a necessary premise. The reader is referred to excellent historical narrations for details and depth [3, 4]. It is widely accepted that the concept of epigenetics is rooted in Waddington’s definition of epigenesis formulated in the 1940s [5]. That original concept is problematic per se, as it is a description of molecular development that is bound to create some dissonance with the wide scientific community’s intuition of modern epigenetics. Epigenetics has later remained a little understood discipline until it was revived by the advent of genomic imprinting, which lent DNA methylation as a mechanism to explain that clearly non-genetic phenomenon [6]. The next breakthrough was the appreciation that epigenetic marks can be modified by exogenous factors [7]. Consequently, epigenetics became a promising tool to identify markers or molecular mechanisms for a range of non-communicable diseases, particularly in the light of the missing heritability problem that genetics has faced [8]. The result is the widely adopted concept of epigenetics: a DNA sequence-independent, highly exogenous factor-sensitive phenomenon regulating gene expression. That general definition of epigenetics can be easily dismantled and survives only for historical reasons. I argue that this is an example of a historical origin-justified concept akin to cultural or religious ideas rooted in ancient traditions that are usually impermeable to competing reason or empirical evidence. It is truly surprising that such a non-scientific posture shapes one of the central ideas in modern biology and medicine. Here are the weaknesses of that definition. First, although some or all cases of genomic imprinting may well be independent from DNA sequence, the phenomenon of methylation QTL first documented by Tycko’s group accounts for the vast majority of DNA methylation variation in humans [9,10,11]. Accordingly, a comprehensive survey of human tissues concluded that ~ 2-fold more methylation QTL than expression QTL colocalize with GWAS-identified SNP [12]. Curiously, a clear example of dependence of DNA methylation on sequence context has long been documented but is rarely stated: mammalian CpG islands are generally unmethylated as a result of their peculiar sequence [13]. The genetics' grip on epigenetics is further strengthened by the fact that Mendelian Randomization is the best available tool to assess the causality between any DNA methylation profile and phenotype [14, 15]. One prediction based on the tight link between DNA methylation and genetics is that individual differentially methylated CpG would exert comparatively small effects, akin to the genetics’ missing heritability problem: that prediction seems to be correct [16]. Independence from “changes in DNA sequence” is often stated as the main difference between epigenetics and genetics, which shows signs of further confusion: genetics deals with sequence variation in populations rather than sequence changes, except for the relatively minor topic of mutations. Second, the idea that the epigenome is an open book for the environment to erase, change or add information has been questioned. Perhaps the clearest example is the famous The New Yorker article that proposed epigenetics as the underlying mechanism for phenotypic divergence between homozygotic twins; particularly noteworthy are the subsequent reactions by prominent epigeneticistsFootnote 1. This goes without saying that another very enthusiastically held idea, i.e., the existence of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance in humans, is highly controversial [17, 18]. In conclusion, epigenetics describes a highly sequence-dependent and comparatively weakly exogenous factor-sensitive mode of transcription regulation, akin to the activity of transcription factors or DNA-binding long non-coding RNAs. Incidentally, further confusion has been created by including the latter and micro-RNAs in the definition of epigenetics. It can be argued that epigenetics should be rebaptized paragenetics to better describe its essence. One wonders whether we would be witnessing the current enthusiasm for epigenetics had methylation QTL been documented 40 years ago rather than in 2008. Not to mention that if the higher affinity of DNA methyltransferases for RNA relative to DNA had been appreciated then, textbooks would describe those enzymes as RNA-binding proteins that modify the DNA's chemistry [19].

In conclusion, reducing the daylight between epigenetics and fine-grained mapping of the social milieu is a noble and useful enterprise. The central concern is that given its significant dependence on DNA sequence, epigenetics will reproduce the shortcomings of genomics that Chiapperino and Paneni have pointed out. Those hurdles will eventually be overcome only by prior correct understanding of the essence of epigenetics, however changing and dynamic that can be. The devils of genetics when applied to social sciences and economics are obvious, but hidden ones may lurk in epigenetics. For example, the quest for “pure” DNA methylation profiles exclusively written by an adverse milieu—whether politically or economically adverse or else - to explain how social circumstances create and maintain disadvantaged groups is bound to discover genetics-related phenomena. Those data would be highly controversial if misaligned with dominant views of identity politics or social constructivism. It feels like a remote territory from pipettes and tubes: should scientists walk that far?

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.





  1. Chiapperino L, Paneni F. Why epigenetics is (not) a biosocial science and why that matters. Clin Epigenetics. 2022;14:144 Germany.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Non AL. Social epigenomics: are we at an impasse? Epigenomics Epigenomics. 2021;13:1747–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Felsenfeld G. A brief history of epigenetics. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2014;6. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC3941222/?report=abstract. [cited 1 Sep 2020]

  4. Häfner SJ, Lund AH. Great expectations - Epigenetics and the meandering path from bench to bedside. Biomed J. 2016;39:166–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Waddington C. The epigenotype. Endeavour. 1942;18–20.

  6. Stöger R, Kubicka P, Liu CG, Kafri T, Razin A, Cedar H, et al. Maternal-specific methylation of the imprinted mouse Igf2r locus identifies the expressed locus as carrying the imprinting signal. Cell United States. 1993;73:61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Waterland RA, Jirtle RL. Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23:5293–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stylianou IM, Bauer RC, Reilly MP, Rader DJ. Genetic basis of atherosclerosis: Insights from mice and humans. Circ Res. 2012;110:337–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kerkel K, Spadola A, Yuan E, Kosek J, Jiang L, Hod E, et al. Genomic surveys by methylation-sensitive SNP analysis identify sequence-dependent allele-specific DNA methylation. Nat Genet. 2008;40:904–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Husquin LT, Rotival M, Fagny M, Quach H, Zidane N, McEwen LM, et al. Exploring the genetic basis of human population differences in DNA methylation and their causal impact on immune gene regulation. Genome Biol. 2018;19:222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chatterjee S, Ouidir M, Tekola-Ayele F. Genetic and in utero environmental contributions to DNA methylation variation in placenta. Hum Mol Genet. 2021;30:1968–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Oliva M, Demanelis K, Lu Y, Chernoff M, Jasmine F, Ahsan H, et al. DNA methylation QTL mapping across diverse human tissues provides molecular links between genetic variation and complex traits. Nat Genet. United States; 2022.

  13. Bird A, Taggart M, Frommer M, Miller OJ, Macleod D. A fraction of the mouse genome that is derived from islands of nonmethylated, CpG-rich DNA. Cell. 1985;40:91–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dekkers KF, van Iterson M, Slieker RC, Moed MH, Bonder MJ, van Galen M, et al. Blood lipids influence DNA methylation in circulating cells. Genome Biol. 2016;17:138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Richardson TG, Zheng J, Davey Smith G, Timpson NJ, Gaunt TR, Relton CL, et al. Mendelian randomization analysis identifies CpG sites as putative mediators for genetic influences on cardiovascular disease risk. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101:590–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lai CQ, Wojczynski MK, Parnell LD, Hidalgo BA, Irvin MR, Aslibekyan S, et al. Epigenome-wide association study of triglyceride postprandial responses to a high-fat dietary challenge. J Lipid Res. 2016;57:2200–7 American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Inc.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Heard E, Martienssen RA. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms Cell. Elsevier B.V.; 2014. p. 95–109. Available from: [cited 12 Jun 2021]

  18. Horsthemke B. A critical view on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans. Nat Commun. 2018;9:2973.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Di Ruscio A, Ebralidze AK, Benoukraf T, Amabile G, Goff LA, Terragni J, et al. DNMT1-interacting RNAs block gene-specific DNA methylation. Nature. 2013;503:371–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


I thank Dr. Gertrud Lund for critically reading the manuscript.


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SZ performed all necessary work to produce this article. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvio Zaina.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaina, S. Will epigenetics ever be a biosocial science? A reply to Chiapperino and Paneni. Epigenetics Commun. 3, 2 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Epigenetics
  • Genetics
  • Disease
  • Biosocial sciences