of all, the sample size was quite small, with only 96 children used in the study. This means that the claim that only 7% of children had no alcoholic relatives works out to 6.72% kids. The results would have certainly been much different given a larger sample size. Furthermore, the way in which the subjects were found could have influenced the outcome of the study. Subjects were gathered on a voluntary basis based on response to fliers placed in various public locations. It does not seem very likely that people would have volunteered their time to go to the research center and fill out lengthy questionnaires unless there was some reward involved, such as a per-dium. It is quite possible that people exaggerated their reports of family alcoholism because they felt they were being paid for this information. It is also entirely possible that these people, mostly mothers, would have been reluctant to provide details about their own, and their family’s alcohol problems. Therefore the reports of alcoholism could also have been deflated substantially. This study illustrates how problems with the methods can have significant effects on the results.Conclussion:The seven studies examined in this paper strongly suggest that there is some genetic component to risk for alcoholism. However, the situation is rarely so clear cut as having a specific gene that makes a person more at risk for alcoholism. Though the risk of alcoholism may have a genetic component, it is unclear how much of this is passed from parent to child. Twins might have the same genetic risk, but a child will not necessarily have the same risk as its parents or siblings. Genetics may code for a stronger high as the result of alcohol consumption that could lead to heightened drinking activity among social drinkers, but these people by definition have a choice, and this choice overrides the genetic component. Genetics can even cause people to react negatively to alcohol, and ther...
