The debate over nature vs nurture has been going on for at least hundreds of years, and our modern understanding of DNA and the research around behavioral genetics is just another facet of that discussion. We already know human responses to various stimuli are triggered by numerous neurochemicals and molecular signalling pathways, which are in turn regulated by the activation and deactivation of particular genes. The way that I’ve always understood it, though, is that while there are certain sets of genes that, if inherited, may predispose you to be more susceptible to addiction or obesity or whatever else, it is not in any way guarantee that you’ll actually exhibit these traits. In addition, the field of epigenetics has also revealed that environmental factors can impact when and how a gene is activated or deactivated. For instance, in the article by Kathleen Mcauliffe, Jaroslav Flegr’s research into T. gondii did not illustrate human genes driving disordered behavior, but rather external environmental factors which were, in this case, the presence and disruptive influence of the T. gondii parasite. As discussed in Amy Harmon’s article “The DNA Age”, some people see themselves as “hostages” to their genes. I disagree with this attitude, excluding in cases of diagnosed disorders, because I believe it overstates how much individual genes can direct complex and variable human behaviors. I personally think of it as DNA acting as a foundation for what might be possible, and then factors from both the physical environment and the social environment build up from there and result in the formation of what behavioral tendencies are exhibited.
Recent comments