Nature vs Nurture, some new science on the matter

Last week, Time magazine had an interesting cover story about an interesting new area of science called Epigenetics.

When people talk about 'pit bulls', there is often a lot of talk about genetics and whether certain types of dogs are genetically predisposed to certain traits that may make them more dangerous to the public.  This inevitably leads to a nature vs nurture discussion.  But the entire conversation may not even be that easy (and that one isn't easy).

Simply put, Epigenetics is based on scientific evidence that shows that nature may be a more powerful factor than we could have ever predicted. Not only can we be shaped by the environment that surrounds us, but historical evidence suggests that powerful environmental conditions can somehow leave an "imprint" on our genetic material that can then be transferred to future generations.  Environmental factors like diet, stress and prenatal nutrition can not only affect how our genes are expressed, but can affect future generations as well.

In his upcoming book, "The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've been Told Abut Genetics, Talent and IQ Is Wrong", science writer David Shenk calls epigentics a "new paradigm" that "reveals how bankrupt the phrase 'nature vs nurture' really is."

At this point, it seems unlikely that epigenetics would change how we emotionally react to certain events, it may affect how we physically react (sweaty palms, higher heart rate, etc).

The science itself is pretty new -- and most of its applications have been focuses seemingly on cancer research -- so it would be mere speculation on what impact epigenetics really has on canines in one way or the other.  However, one thing would seem pretty evident -- and that's the tremendous diversity that would exist within a particular breed of dog. Not only would dogs be a product of their genetics, and of their environment - -but also products of the specific environment of previous generations.  It also seems to point at an increased need for officials to focus on animal abuse and cruelty for long-term public safety concerns.

It will be interesting to see how this new area of science evolves over time, but it seems all the more reason that we need to be treating dogs as individuals -- uniquely shaped by their own genes, environment, and the environment of their parents -- with their own specific attitudes and behaviors. It's not just an opinion...it's science.

You can read the Time Magazine article here-- it's easily the most readable information on the topic I've found for non-scientists.

Comments

[Rinalia]

I don't think epigenetic theory dismisses entirely a genetic basis for evolution. I think it will show to be an addition to our wealth of knowledge on inheritance and environmental influences. At least I hope that is how it goes!

I'm looking forward to Shenk's book. I like his writing style a lot - very accessible.

[Brent]

Rinalia,

It certainly doesn't replace evolution -- or environmental factors. But it does show that environmental factors may have a lasting impression on us -- to the point they can even affect change on future generations. This would, theoretically, give us the ability to adapt to environmental changes faster than would be possible simply by genetic evolution alone (which, it seems, is much quicker than scientists first thought, but under natural conditions, is very slow because natural selection weeds out most mutations).

[Rinalia]

Absolutely agree. It makes a lot of sense, really. It gives individuals (and species) opportunities for both optimal survival and unfortunate demise depending on how they interact with the environment at a molecular level. Fascinating stuff!

[Valerie]

Great write up. Epigenetics certainly does not supersede or replace the genetic basis of evolution. It concerns the regulation of gene expression. It came as a bit of a surprise that patterns of gene regulation could be passed down from one generation to the next, resulting in environmental conditions having a very lasting effect. The Central Dogma (it is really called that, so named by Watson and Crick) has been that information flows in one direction only--from the genes out. Now we know that it is a bit more convoluted. Biology is complex. Who knew?

[Valerie]

Still, since the anti-pit bull camp doesn't seem willing to trouble themselves with scientifically valid information, I don't know that new scientific insights will change their minds.

[Julie]

Interesting. There are so many layers and facets of what makes an individual who he or she is, whether that he or she is human or canine or something else. Conversations about the complex interplay between genes and environment are never dull, for sure. Truly, there are so many components to it that the next time someone tells me that "pit bulls" are genetically this or that, I may just skip trying to explain it all and just say "It is never, ever that simple."

[girlamal]

"its not an opinion, its science" ? are you serious? is science not an opinion? does everyone really believe in everything "science" has to say without questioning? sounds like some type of religion to me folks..."its not an opinion..god said" lets try to be more critical people..i personally dont know any scientist, nor does anyone i know...i haveno idea what other motivations could be at work when this information is published..

[Brent]

It is fine for different scientists to disagree on something based on competing data. But it does seem sort of ridiculous to say "I don't believe it" without any insight or knowledge to the contrary.

Science isn't a religion. Religion, by it's nature relies on a good amount of faith in "knowing" what's out there without much for evidence. Science relies on evidence to "know".

It is true that science is often wrong and proven wrong over time. But they're right an awful lot of the time -- based on evidence, not faith.

[PAMM - People Against Miscalculating Math]

Further proof our public school system is failing us...