Sidestepping the main points of the piece here, I don’t think that having relatives who work in a particular field is sufficient to support claims about being genetically predisposed to succeed in that field. I suppose the author wanted a title that flatly contradicted the manifesto. But we would be right in other contexts (and this one) to reject such weak evidence of anyone being “biologically designed” for something; it doesn’t come close to resolving the usual difficulty of nature/nurture, particularly if the author was raised by and around these relatives.