now well recognized in molecular genetic research of complex traits. Although the table indicates effects that were nominally significant by the criteria used (p < .05 or p < .01), none reach significance if all variants within all genes reported across all these studies were used in the multiple testing correction. This may seem like an unfair standard because the reports were conducted under the candidate gene paradigm, where a priori evidence is used to select candidate genes based on “theory”. However, we maintain the position stated in section 7.1 that candidate gene selection based on theory is highly fallible and that candidate gene studies conducted in the traditional sense where candidate genes are selected based on psychobiological theory and not statistical evidence, are in fact more exploratory than not. Thus, when multiple candidate gene findings are described in multiple publications from the same dataset, they should be held to higher statistical standards than within-study corrections, the now widely adopted standard for genome wide significance. None of the associations in Table 6 constitutes a verified finding.
