What Makes You Who You Are
Which is stronger—nature or nurture? The latest science says genes and your experience interact for your whole life

Nurturing Nature
Genes are not static blueprints that dictate our destiny
Ancient Quarrel
The debate over what determines human behavior is a old argument

In your opinion, what determines human behavior?

Genetics
Life experiences
Both



Cracking the Code
J. Craig Venter and Dr. Francis Collins: the men who mapped the genome
[7/03/2000]
Genetic Science
New breakthroughs can cure diseases and save lives
[1/17/1994]
Indicates premium content

E-mail your letter to the editor

Antisocial behavior
It has often been suggested that childhood maltreatment can create an antisocial adult. New research by Terrie Moffitt of London's Kings College on a group of 442 New Zealand men who have been followed since birth suggests that this is true only for a genetic minority. Again, the difference lies in a promoter that alters the activity of a gene. Those with high-active monoamine oxidase A genes were virtually immune to the effects of mistreatment. Those with low-active genes were much more antisocial if maltreated, yet—if anything—slightly less antisocial if not maltreated. The low-active, mistreated men were responsible for four times their share of rapes, robberies and assaults. In other words, maltreatment is not enough; you must also have the low-active gene. And it is not enough to have the low-active gene; you must also be maltreated.

Homosexuality
Ray Blanchard at the University of Toronto has found that gay men are more likely than either lesbians or heterosexual men to have older brothers (but not older sisters). He has since confirmed this observation in 14 samples from many places. Something about occupying a womb that has held other boys occasionally results in reduced birth weight, a larger placenta and a greater probability of homosexuality. That something, Blanchard suspects, is an immune reaction in the mother, primed by the first male fetus, that grows stronger with each male pregnancy. Perhaps the immune response affects the expression of key genes during brain development in a way that boosts a boy's attraction to his own sex. Such an explanation would not hold true for all gay men, but it might provide important clues into the origins of both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

To be sure, earlier scientific discoveries had hinted at the importance of this kind of interplay between heredity and environment. The most striking example is Pavlovian conditioning. When Pavlov announced his famous experiment a century ago this year, he had apparently discovered how the brain could be changed to acquire new knowledge of the world—in the case of his dogs, knowledge that a bell foretold the arrival of food. But now we know how the brain changes: by the real-time expression of 17 genes, known as the creb genes. They must be switched on and off to alter connections among nerve cells in the brain and thus lay down a new long-term memory. These genes are at the mercy of our behavior, not the other way around. Memory is in the genes in the sense that it uses genes, not in the sense that you inherit memories.

In this new view, genes allow the human mind to learn, remember, imitate, imprint language, absorb culture and express instincts. Genes are not puppet masters or blueprints, nor are they just the carriers of heredity. They are active during life; they switch one another on and off; they respond to the environment. They may direct the construction of the body and brain in the womb, but then almost at once, in response to experience, they set about dismantling and rebuilding what they have made. They are both the cause and the consequence of our actions.

Will this new vision of genes enable us to leave the nature-nurture argument behind, or are we doomed to reinvent it in every generation? Unlike what happened in previous eras, science is explaining in great detail precisely how genes and their environment—be it the womb, the classroom or pop culture—interact. So perhaps the pendulum swings of a now demonstrably false dichotomy may cease.

It may be in our nature, however, to seek simple, linear, cause-and-effect stories and not think in terms of circular causation, in which effects become their own causes. Perhaps the idea of nature via nurture, like the ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity, is just too counterintuitive for human minds. The urge to see ourselves in terms of nature versus nurture, like our instinctual ability to fear snakes, may be encoded in our genes.

Matt Ridley is an Oxford-trained zoologist and science writer whose latest book is Nature via Nurture (HarperCollins)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4



Premium Content

The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature vs. Nurture

By David Moore
Amazon: $11.20
The Red Queen : Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

By Matt Ridley
Amazon: $10.47




Table of Contents
Subscribe to TIME

ADVERTISEMENT

TIME Capsules
Own your own day in history
Browse the Bookstore
QUICK LINKS: Cover Story | Ancient Quarrel | Nurturing Nature | Back to TIME.com Home
FROM THE JUNE 2, 2003 ISSUE OF TIME MAGAZINE; POSTED SUNDAY, MAY 25, 2003

BANNER ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY TAVIS COBURN

Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Subscribe | Customer Service | Help | Site Map | Search | Contact Us
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Reprints & Permissions | Press Releases | Media Kit