Just as early forms of psychology focused on mental illness, until the likes of Maslow came to study the psychology of over-achievers, perhaps neuro-science needs to do something similar. Models are developed based on average people, and so the model then tends to conclude that this is the only possible range of results.
Another issue is this: I don't see that the idea of genes as causal factors (though not out and out causes) is entirely against the Buddhist position. However, and this is the important point, whereas most science would argue that person with certain personality traits and related genes are basically random, ie. if you are born with the genes, you have the traits, Buddhism would ask the question of why would that person be born into that situation in the first place? eg. if there is an "alcoholism gene", then perhaps those people who in past lives have strong tendency towards alcohol would be more likely to be born into families who also behave in this manner, and thus end up with the same gene. In other words, the gene isn't really the cause at all, but is just as much a result. An earlier cause leads to the result of both the behavior and the gene, through karmic forces which propel one into an environment of such behavior comprised of people of the same family and thus genes.
And of course, from the Buddhist perspective, this wouldn't mean that gene must lead to said behavior. People can have propelling karma which would get them the gene, but not the fulfilling karma which would complete the behavior pattern.
Taking this to the area of "buddha genes", we note that most Buddhist schools always detail that the "family" and "clan" of a future Buddha is very important. They have to pick the right parents, for instance, and they are very rare and difficult to find.
I note that in the book, all the topics of "craving" are basically drugs, which is only a small part from the Buddhist perspective. The section on "learning" has studies on mice. Likewise for "aggreeableness". Are these really relevant? How much can we learn from these studies about the state of a Buddha?
The content in "The Gene Pool Metaphor" is ... poor. "According to "The Teachings Of Buddha," a fundamental choice presented to the individual is whether to embrace Buddha-nature or to retreat into the ego-personality of the self." "The rejection of "self" is almost paradoxical since self-experience is central to achieving Enlightenment."
But when I read this:
"Buddha's rejection of selfness must be aligned with his teaching of the centrality of self-experience to achieving Enlightenment. We start with defining the self. The self, as viewed by Buddha, is the mind, the eye from within which perceives and experiences stimuli, both from the external and internal worlds. As we know it today, the source of the mind is the brain."
Then I know, in the end, I think that this is 99% neuro-science, and about 1% Buddha. They seem to be maybe hoping the catchy title will help with promotion, perhaps?