Genetic determinism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed category Philosophy of science; Quick-adding category Biology theories (using HotCat)
→‎Genome wager: link to scientific wager page
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
Evidence for the genetic influence on phenotypes comes from [[hereditary diseases]], for instance, [[cystic fibrosis]] and [[sickle cell anemia]], which are caused by mutations in single genes, and [[Down syndrome]] and [[Klinefelter's syndrome]] by the abnormal duplication of a [[chromosome]]. Genetic determinism of behavioral traits is related to the field of [[neuropsychology]]. It is the belief of many neuropsychologists that mental illnesses are also predetermined by genes and are therefore unavoidable.{{fact|date=April 2009}}
Evidence for the genetic influence on phenotypes comes from [[hereditary diseases]], for instance, [[cystic fibrosis]] and [[sickle cell anemia]], which are caused by mutations in single genes, and [[Down syndrome]] and [[Klinefelter's syndrome]] by the abnormal duplication of a [[chromosome]]. Genetic determinism of behavioral traits is related to the field of [[neuropsychology]]. It is the belief of many neuropsychologists that mental illnesses are also predetermined by genes and are therefore unavoidable.{{fact|date=April 2009}}


Definitions of genetic determinism vary. It is usually thought of as the belief that all physical and behavioral phenotypes are determined exclusively by the genes. This belief is sometimes attributed to biologists by the media or some in the social sciences,{{fact|date=April 2009}} or attributed to proponents of [[evolutionary psychology]],{{fact|date=April 2009}} though in this sense many biologists would consider it a [[straw man]].<ref>[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]], 2003. "The Myth of Genetic Determinism" in ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]''. London, Phoenix ISBN 0-7538-1750-0.</ref> Although many behavioral traits in humans and other animals appear to be influenced by genes, few modern-day geneticists would consciously take a strong determinist stance.<ref name="melo-martin"/>
Definitions of genetic determinism vary. It is usually thought of as the belief that all physical and behavioral phenotypes are determined exclusively by the genes. This belief is sometimes attributed to biologists by the media or some in the social sciences,{{fact|date=April 2009}} or attributed to proponents of [[evolutionary psychology]],{{fact|date=April 2009}} though in this sense many biologists would consider it a [[straw man]].<ref>[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, R.]], 2003. "Genes Aren't Us" in ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]''. London, Phoenix ISBN 0-7538-1750-0.</ref> Although many behavioral traits in humans and other animals appear to be influenced by genes, few modern-day geneticists would consciously take a strong determinist stance.<ref name="melo-martin"/>


Nonetheless, many biomedical researchers assume a form of genetic determinism, focusing heavily on "genes for" a particular disease in the search for treatments. With diseases such as Down syndrome and [[Huntington's disease]] there is a clear "one chromosome aberration one disease" or "one gene one disease" diagnosis. Although both Down's and Huntington's cause predictable constellations of behavioral traits, most people's behavior varies more subtly, with a strong influence from environment, beginning with influences in the womb and continuing throughout life.
Nonetheless, many biomedical researchers assume a form of genetic determinism, focusing heavily on "genes for" a particular disease in the search for treatments. With diseases such as Down syndrome and [[Huntington's disease]] there is a clear "one chromosome aberration one disease" or "one gene one disease" diagnosis. Although both Down's and Huntington's cause predictable constellations of behavioral traits, most people's behavior varies more subtly, with a strong influence from environment, beginning with influences in the womb and continuing throughout life.

==Origins==

The idea that an organism's morphology and instincts are genetically determined can be traced back to Austrian theorist [[August Weismann]], who proposed in the 1890s that the key actors in the struggle for survival are not organisms but their genes, which he called determinants. While [[Charles Darwin|Darwin’s]] concept of natural selection was intended to apply to whole organisms, Weismann modified Darwin's idea according to a process he called "germinal selection." Since the fittest determinants would be whichever ones correlate to the most useful phenotypic traits, germinal selection would result in the fittest organisms surviving and reproducing.<ref>Stephen Jay Gould, ''The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'', Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2002, p. 207</ref> Weismann referred to the chemical carrier of these determinants as the germ plasm, now known to be [[DNA]].

Weismann’s view was founded on the belief that biological inheritance cannot conceivably take place except through transfer of germ plasm from parents to offspring. As [[Stephen Jay Gould]] pointed out, this belief was not based on empirical observation. "We accept it," wrote Weismann, "not because we are able to demonstrate the process in detail... but simply because we must, because it is the only possible explanation that we can conceive."<ref>Stephen Jay Gould, ''The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'', Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2002, pp. 201-203</ref> On the assumption that behavior cannot affect genes, Weismann argued that only genetic mutation, not adaptations on the part of a struggling organism, could significantly alter the developmental patterns inherited by progeny. Though contrary to Darwin's view, Weismann's belief that determinants shape the body, and never vice versa, has long been known as the [[central dogma]] of modern biology.

==The machine theory==

Weismann believed that the initial division of the egg into two cells causes determinates to be divided into two groups, such that one cell will develop, say, the left half of the embryo, while the other cell will generate the right half. With each subsequent division, determinants continue to be meted out differently to different cells until the stage is reached where each cell type is in place. At this point the distinct set of determinants in each cell type produce the developmental machinery that will generate the tissue, organ or system associated with that type of cell.<ref>Ludwig von Bertalanffy, ''Modern Theories of Development'', London: Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 32</ref>

Weismann’s developmental concept was based on a mistaken interpretation of an 1882 experiment carried about by [[Wilhelm Roux]], in which Roux killed one of the cells of a frog embryo at the two-cell stage. The remaining cell then led to half an embryo, leading Weismann to believe that the determinants for the embryo were divided along with each cell division. As [[Hans Driesch]] and other researchers discovered, when the dead cell is removed, the other cell produces a whole organism, not half.<ref>Ludwig von Bertalanffy, ''Modern Theories of Development'', London: Oxford University Press, 1933, pp. 73-74</ref> It's now well known that all the cells in a given organism contain the same set of genes.

==Developmental genes==

Weismann also assumed that different species contain different developmental determinants. The lizard's germ plasm naturally contains different developmental instructions than the cow's germ plasm. Only in the late 20th century did scientists learn that developmental genes, now known as [[Homeobox|homeobox]] genes, hardly vary at all across vast portions of the phylogenetic tree. Everything from flies to humans share roughly the same set of developmental genes. What differs between the species is not the genes themselves but the way they are expressed. <ref>Sean Carroll, ''Endless Forms Most Beautiful'', New York: WW Norton & Company, 2005</ref>

==The modern synthesis==

Following the rediscovery of Mendel's principles of genetics, several theorists such as [[Ronald Fisher|RA Fisher]], [[JBS Haldane]], [[Sewall Wright]], [[Ernst Mayr]] and [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] contributed to the synthesis of Mendel and Darwin's concept of natural selection. In contrast to Weismann, the modern synthesis rejected the notion that the organism is ultimately reducible to physical principles. According to Mayr, the organism responds to a dual causation, one based on laws of physics, the other based on a genetic program. Thus the organism reflects not just the mechanics of its constituent parts but the phylogenetic history encoded in its genes. Genetic information both reflects a species' descent and directs an organism’s development.<ref> Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 30</ref> The key to genes is not their chemical makeup but the information they carry. According to esteemed researcher [[Christiane Nusslein-Volhard]], what distinguishes genes from proteins is that genes are chemically identical and differ only in terms of their sequence of nucleic acids and the information encoded in that sequence.<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p. 37</ref>

==Crick and Watson==

The chemical nature of the germ plasm was discovered in 1953, when [[Francis Crick]] and [[James Watson]] explained the structure of DNA. This event was heralded as the discovery of the book of life, a view still prevalent in the popular press and among many scientists.<ref>Boyce Rensberger, ''Life Itself'', New York: Oxford University Press, 1996</ref> However, nearly 50 years later, when a “first draft” of the human genome became available, the book of life turned out to be considerably less extensive than had been anticipated. Instead of the expected 100,000 characters, the genome contains less than 30,000. As Nusslein-Volhard points out, morphological complexity does not correlate with size of genome.<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p 127</ref>

==The contemporary view==

Despite surprises about the quantity and distribution of genes, the model of genetic determinism remains the standard view. According to Nusslein-Volhard, who won a Nobel for her research into molecular mechanisms of development, the genome is a "building plan," DNA a "language of four letters that can be read faultlessly... In the fertilized egg, the genetic program is complete."<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, pp. 21, 32, 145</ref> She reiterates the reductionist approach even as she fleshes out a model of development based not on genetic information but the way genes are “expressed.” She notes that it's rare that one gene determines a specific structure in a specific position.<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p 52</ref> Rather than provide anything like a blueprint for the finished organism, homeobox genes guide development by regulating other genes.<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p 55</ref>.

A given organic form is thought to emerge at a particular place in the embryo on the basis of its distance from an "organizer," a set of cells that influence how other cells develop. By generating a chemical gradient that permeates the embryo, the organizer establishes zones of development. Depending on which zone a cell is located in, some of its genes are expressed while others are repressed.<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p 43</ref> “Through an interplay of mutual activation and repression, more and more complex molecular patterns emerge”<ref> Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, ''Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development'', Kales Press, 2006, p 57</ref>.

==Genome wager==

With its intricate nonlinear complexity, development from the egg is far different from Weismann's original concept. We no longer have a distribution of different genes to different cell types or different developmental genes in different species. Instead we have a complex system of gene expression that produces radically different tissues from cells with identical genes and radically different body plans from the same developmental genes. For this reason, genetic determinism is no longer universally assumed among biologists. [[Rupert Sheldrake]], for instance, contends that genes merely code for proteins, which are then correlated with phenotypic characteristics. Genes provide individuals with distinguishing traits without necessarily determining the general form characteristic of all members of a given species. <ref>Rupert Sheldrake, ''The Presence of the Past'', New York: Times Books, 1988, pp 88-90 </ref>

Defending the standard determinist view, biologist [[Lewis Wolpert]] bet Sheldrake a case of port that scientists will eventually be able to predict, on the basis of complete knowledge of its genome, the entire developmental course of at least one organism. Sheldrake accepted the [[Scientific wager|wager]], which comes due in May of 2029. <ref>"What can DNA tell us? Place your bets," ''New Scientist'', July 8, 2009</ref>


==In fiction==
==In fiction==

Revision as of 00:22, 24 September 2009

Genetic determinism is the belief that genes determine physical and behavioral phenotypes. It is usually taken to mean "that the genotype completely determines the phenotype, that is, the genes completely determine how an organism turns out",[1] or that "genes alone determine human traits and behaviours."[2] The term may be applied to the mapping of a single gene to a single phenotype, or more widely to the discredited belief that most or all phenotypes are determined exclusively by genes. While it is well established that most phenotypic variability is strongly influenced by genes, it is clear that environment plays an important role, and non-genetic mechanisms of inheritance are also known to exist.[3]

General information

Evidence for the genetic influence on phenotypes comes from hereditary diseases, for instance, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia, which are caused by mutations in single genes, and Down syndrome and Klinefelter's syndrome by the abnormal duplication of a chromosome. Genetic determinism of behavioral traits is related to the field of neuropsychology. It is the belief of many neuropsychologists that mental illnesses are also predetermined by genes and are therefore unavoidable.[citation needed]

Definitions of genetic determinism vary. It is usually thought of as the belief that all physical and behavioral phenotypes are determined exclusively by the genes. This belief is sometimes attributed to biologists by the media or some in the social sciences,[citation needed] or attributed to proponents of evolutionary psychology,[citation needed] though in this sense many biologists would consider it a straw man.[4] Although many behavioral traits in humans and other animals appear to be influenced by genes, few modern-day geneticists would consciously take a strong determinist stance.[2]

Nonetheless, many biomedical researchers assume a form of genetic determinism, focusing heavily on "genes for" a particular disease in the search for treatments. With diseases such as Down syndrome and Huntington's disease there is a clear "one chromosome aberration one disease" or "one gene one disease" diagnosis. Although both Down's and Huntington's cause predictable constellations of behavioral traits, most people's behavior varies more subtly, with a strong influence from environment, beginning with influences in the womb and continuing throughout life.

Origins

The idea that an organism's morphology and instincts are genetically determined can be traced back to Austrian theorist August Weismann, who proposed in the 1890s that the key actors in the struggle for survival are not organisms but their genes, which he called determinants. While Darwin’s concept of natural selection was intended to apply to whole organisms, Weismann modified Darwin's idea according to a process he called "germinal selection." Since the fittest determinants would be whichever ones correlate to the most useful phenotypic traits, germinal selection would result in the fittest organisms surviving and reproducing.[5] Weismann referred to the chemical carrier of these determinants as the germ plasm, now known to be DNA.

Weismann’s view was founded on the belief that biological inheritance cannot conceivably take place except through transfer of germ plasm from parents to offspring. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, this belief was not based on empirical observation. "We accept it," wrote Weismann, "not because we are able to demonstrate the process in detail... but simply because we must, because it is the only possible explanation that we can conceive."[6] On the assumption that behavior cannot affect genes, Weismann argued that only genetic mutation, not adaptations on the part of a struggling organism, could significantly alter the developmental patterns inherited by progeny. Though contrary to Darwin's view, Weismann's belief that determinants shape the body, and never vice versa, has long been known as the central dogma of modern biology.

The machine theory

Weismann believed that the initial division of the egg into two cells causes determinates to be divided into two groups, such that one cell will develop, say, the left half of the embryo, while the other cell will generate the right half. With each subsequent division, determinants continue to be meted out differently to different cells until the stage is reached where each cell type is in place. At this point the distinct set of determinants in each cell type produce the developmental machinery that will generate the tissue, organ or system associated with that type of cell.[7]

Weismann’s developmental concept was based on a mistaken interpretation of an 1882 experiment carried about by Wilhelm Roux, in which Roux killed one of the cells of a frog embryo at the two-cell stage. The remaining cell then led to half an embryo, leading Weismann to believe that the determinants for the embryo were divided along with each cell division. As Hans Driesch and other researchers discovered, when the dead cell is removed, the other cell produces a whole organism, not half.[8] It's now well known that all the cells in a given organism contain the same set of genes.

Developmental genes

Weismann also assumed that different species contain different developmental determinants. The lizard's germ plasm naturally contains different developmental instructions than the cow's germ plasm. Only in the late 20th century did scientists learn that developmental genes, now known as homeobox genes, hardly vary at all across vast portions of the phylogenetic tree. Everything from flies to humans share roughly the same set of developmental genes. What differs between the species is not the genes themselves but the way they are expressed. [9]

The modern synthesis

Following the rediscovery of Mendel's principles of genetics, several theorists such as RA Fisher, JBS Haldane, Sewall Wright, Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky contributed to the synthesis of Mendel and Darwin's concept of natural selection. In contrast to Weismann, the modern synthesis rejected the notion that the organism is ultimately reducible to physical principles. According to Mayr, the organism responds to a dual causation, one based on laws of physics, the other based on a genetic program. Thus the organism reflects not just the mechanics of its constituent parts but the phylogenetic history encoded in its genes. Genetic information both reflects a species' descent and directs an organism’s development.[10] The key to genes is not their chemical makeup but the information they carry. According to esteemed researcher Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, what distinguishes genes from proteins is that genes are chemically identical and differ only in terms of their sequence of nucleic acids and the information encoded in that sequence.[11]

Crick and Watson

The chemical nature of the germ plasm was discovered in 1953, when Francis Crick and James Watson explained the structure of DNA. This event was heralded as the discovery of the book of life, a view still prevalent in the popular press and among many scientists.[12] However, nearly 50 years later, when a “first draft” of the human genome became available, the book of life turned out to be considerably less extensive than had been anticipated. Instead of the expected 100,000 characters, the genome contains less than 30,000. As Nusslein-Volhard points out, morphological complexity does not correlate with size of genome.[13]

The contemporary view

Despite surprises about the quantity and distribution of genes, the model of genetic determinism remains the standard view. According to Nusslein-Volhard, who won a Nobel for her research into molecular mechanisms of development, the genome is a "building plan," DNA a "language of four letters that can be read faultlessly... In the fertilized egg, the genetic program is complete."[14] She reiterates the reductionist approach even as she fleshes out a model of development based not on genetic information but the way genes are “expressed.” She notes that it's rare that one gene determines a specific structure in a specific position.[15] Rather than provide anything like a blueprint for the finished organism, homeobox genes guide development by regulating other genes.[16].

A given organic form is thought to emerge at a particular place in the embryo on the basis of its distance from an "organizer," a set of cells that influence how other cells develop. By generating a chemical gradient that permeates the embryo, the organizer establishes zones of development. Depending on which zone a cell is located in, some of its genes are expressed while others are repressed.[17] “Through an interplay of mutual activation and repression, more and more complex molecular patterns emerge”[18].

Genome wager

With its intricate nonlinear complexity, development from the egg is far different from Weismann's original concept. We no longer have a distribution of different genes to different cell types or different developmental genes in different species. Instead we have a complex system of gene expression that produces radically different tissues from cells with identical genes and radically different body plans from the same developmental genes. For this reason, genetic determinism is no longer universally assumed among biologists. Rupert Sheldrake, for instance, contends that genes merely code for proteins, which are then correlated with phenotypic characteristics. Genes provide individuals with distinguishing traits without necessarily determining the general form characteristic of all members of a given species. [19]

Defending the standard determinist view, biologist Lewis Wolpert bet Sheldrake a case of port that scientists will eventually be able to predict, on the basis of complete knowledge of its genome, the entire developmental course of at least one organism. Sheldrake accepted the wager, which comes due in May of 2029. [20]

In fiction

  • Children of the revolution, a comedy about Stalin's son's inescapable path into rebellion and eventually a revolution of any sort
  • Andromeda, a television series in which the nietzschean species was genetically programmed to be ambitious, treacherous, and brutal
  • Gattaca, a 1997 film starring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Jude Law

See also

References

  1. ^ Philosophy Talk on Genetic Determinism
  2. ^ a b de Melo-Martín I (2005). "Firing up the nature/nurture controversy: bioethics and genetic determinism". J Med Ethics. 31 (9): 526–30. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.008417. PMC 1734214. PMID 16131554. {{cite journal}}: Text "month" ignored (help)
  3. ^ There is a wide class of phenomena, collectively termed as epigenetic inheritance, where changes in phenotype are not caused by changes in the genotype.
  4. ^ Dawkins, R., 2003. "Genes Aren't Us" in A Devil's Chaplain. London, Phoenix ISBN 0-7538-1750-0.
  5. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2002, p. 207
  6. ^ Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2002, pp. 201-203
  7. ^ Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Modern Theories of Development, London: Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 32
  8. ^ Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Modern Theories of Development, London: Oxford University Press, 1933, pp. 73-74
  9. ^ Sean Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, New York: WW Norton & Company, 2005
  10. ^ Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 30
  11. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p. 37
  12. ^ Boyce Rensberger, Life Itself, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
  13. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p 127
  14. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, pp. 21, 32, 145
  15. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p 52
  16. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p 55
  17. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p 43
  18. ^ Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Coming to Life: How Genes Drive Development, Kales Press, 2006, p 57
  19. ^ Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past, New York: Times Books, 1988, pp 88-90
  20. ^ "What can DNA tell us? Place your bets," New Scientist, July 8, 2009

External links

Critics

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_determinism&oldid=315814242"