-
Not in Our Genes
Sunday Times, 17 June 2012
Nicky and Louise are 30-year-old identical twins. They are attractive, competent women and, as you would expect, have a lot in common — taste in food, drink and clothes, and a commitment to exercise. They avoid dangerous sports, cigarettes, drugs, and gambling. As identical twins have exactly the same genes, there you have it, proof positive, it’s all in the genes.
Except it isn’t. Nicky has had five men in her life, Louise 25. Even though they like the same kind of men and both enjoy sex and have orgasms, their attitudes are utterly different. Aged 15, they discovered that their father had kept a secret mistress for years. Nicky took it badly; Louise didn’t, and, at that point, their sexual trajectories diverged.
But why? The short answer is that identical twins aren’t identical and our genes are not our destiny. Tim Spector is a professor working in genetic epidemiology at King’s College, London. He made the headlines and outraged many “sex counsellors” when he announced in 2009 that the G-spot (a zone of special erotic sensitivity in women) did not exist.
He also used to think genes were the heart of the matter. “Until three years ago,” he writes, “I was one of the many scientists who took the genecentric view of the universe for granted…But I had a nagging doubt that we were missing something.”
But why? The short answer is that identical twins aren’t identical and our genes are not our destiny.
Spector is not alone in experiencing a Damascene conversion from gene-centrism, but with this eminently readable book he is the first successfully to explain the issue to the general reader. In 1993 he started the UK Twins Registry of 11,000 twins, which is now one of the best databases of its kind in the world. Identical twins are one of the gold standards of genetic research; they have the same genomes, therefore any variations or similarities in them provide evidence of the influence of the genes. Spector’s doubts emerged as the variations revealed by his database became ever more apparent.
These variations need not be minor, they may be a matter of life and death. Twins Peter and Nigel, for instance, were ready to celebrate their 42nd birthday together when Peter hanged himself. Depression ran in the family but, although identical, only one of the pair seemed to have inherited the trait. Even conjoined twins such as Ladan and Laleh in Iran exhibited striking differences. Laleh liked computer games, Ladan liked praying; Ladan was left-handed, Laleh right-handed. They died in the operation to separate them in 2003. Doubtless, if they had lived apart, they would have diverged even further. The point here is that identical twins do not prove the power of the gene, they define its limitations.
Now, full disclosure — I have a dog in this fight. In the 1990s, while writing a book on genetics, I became baffled by the arguments of the gene-centrists. Following Richard Dawkins, who insisted we were lumbering robots operated by our genes, the gene-centrists claimed that our genomes did almost everything and that whatever remained could be explained by the “environment”, an entity that remained undefined. This position was riddled with unfounded assumptions and contradictions but, whenever I pointed this out, the scientists merely looked at me pityingly. Anyway, just to say, thanks, Spector, for backing me up.
The defeat of the gene-centrists began with the over-hyped publication of the human genome in 2000. This was, it was claimed, “the book of life” — it isn’t — and was to be the prelude to a revolution in medicine — so far, no. The first sign there was something wrong was the revelation that we have only about 23,000 genes, half as many as a tomato, and only a quarter as many as, in our vanity, we thought we had. The second sign was that the gene-centrists’ belief in the simple link between genotype and phenotype (organism) was naive; vast complexity was the harsh (but, for me, consoling) reality.
Following Richard Dawkins, who insisted we were lumbering robots operated by our genes, the gene-centrists claimed that our genomes did almost everything
One genetic fundamentalist claim after another collapsed — there is no gene for homosexuality, none for alcoholism and so on. It is probably true to say that the phrase “gene for” is usually meaningless. This is partly because many genes are involved in almost any trait, but, more important, it is because (as Spector surmised) there was something missing.
What was missing is now called epigenetics, a concept whose importance can scarcely be overstated. The gene-centric view was that the gene produced a protein that went on to build an organism. In fact, we now know not only that some genes can produce several proteins, but also that this mechanism can be turned on and off by processes of which, not long ago, we knew nothing. The gene, in other words, is not the last word and may not even be the first. It is certainly not in complete control of anything.
The implications are staggering. The first is that twins may not be identical because these processes (the most common is called methylation) could have happened to them in the womb. Second, the sins of the grandparents can be visited upon the grandchildren. Spector has cases of one generation’s starving and binge-eating during postwar austerity resulting in obesity two generations later. In other words, what you do in life may affect the genomes of your offspring.
This book concludes with a list of four genetic dogmas that have been overthrown: genes are not our essence; our genetic inheritance can be changed; environmental events can be “remembered” by cells; and what happens in your life can affect later generations. Or, to put it bluntly, almost everything you’ve been told about genetics is wrong.
The list also, potentially, settles the old, stale and often irrational argument about nature v nurture. What epigenetics demonstrates is not a simple division between humans and their environment (the underpinning of much of the illogic spouted by the scientists I met in the 1990s), but rather a flow of indecipherably complex interactions, a ballet of cells that, in some ways, matches the flowing, dancing world of particles and forces discovered by the physicists beneath the surface of matter.
This is not simply a book of ideas, it is also a book of stories, most astounding, many heartbreaking. Flo and Kay, for example, were an incredibly rare case of “idiot savant”, identical twins who found peace in the American television quiz show Pyramid. When it ended, they found further consolation in the idea of being buried with memorabilia of the show’s host Dick Clark. There are twin sisters, one of whom has frequent orgasms and one who didn’t have one until she was 42. There is a twin who conspires, unsuccessfully, to have her identical twin murdered. Most alarmingly, there is the story of a substance in almost all plastic that may epigenetically alter our genomes. If proved, that, I imagine, will make the euro meltdown look like a very small disaster indeed.
Spector will get you through many dinner parties. But, much more importantly, he will show how a certain kind of scientific fundamentalism collapsed under the burden of its inability to explain the world as it is — complex, flowing, changing — rather than as they would like it to be — simple and clear. Read him.
24 Responses to “Not in Our Genes”
Leave a Reply
- The Ecstasy of Bedford Park
- The Mormons and Liberty Valance
- The Bad-Good and the Good-Bad
- Compassion, Chris Huhne and Twenty Years of Respect
- Christmas Continues
- American Guns
- Cruel Jerks
- Thou Shalt Not Cover Thine Ass
- The Resistible Rise of the Corporate Con Artist
- The Prig Imperiale
- Melvyn Bragg: The Mark of the Mother
- The Future According to Google
- Osborne’s Tears for Thatcher
- Tom Waits: Growling Through the Grain
- Bedford Park: The Enchanted Suburb
- The New Ritual of Dying in Public
- Museums: The Price of Free
- Rage Against the Machines
- Mohsin Hamid: Help for the Dislocated Self
- Tony Versus the Philistines
18 June 2012 at 9:57 am
Thanks for this… it is fascinating and potentially revolutionary. Epigenetics is a subject we have become increasingly interested in as a cancer charity because it is really important that people who have a cancer ‘gene’ e.g. breast cancer gene, know and understand that they can still influence their own chances of developing cancer through their behaviours and choices. Having a cancer gene does not mean that cancer is a person’s destiny.
20 June 2012 at 7:38 pm
As I keep telling my kids “you may be born into a free society, but you still have to choose to be free” If what you reporting is correct then that freedom might be more than just a moral principle but a physical destiny.
22 June 2012 at 1:05 am
Hi Bryan,
I may have to get this book. Today I was speaking with a couple of customers, Pat and Julie, looking for a vehicle to take across the country. Both are going to UC Davis this fall to get PhDs, one in sociology and one in biology. They said how divergent their two studies were, and then I mentioned your article here, which applies to both.
Just for thought-experiment play, when I first read this review, I started spinning off the concepts within epigenetics, probably taking them where they do not belong and may never go. But the what-ifs opened up. For instance, my own PhD son Sam was conceived when I was first going back to college in my thirties. This got me thinking about what I was doing when my other three kids were born. Could there be an art to creating an family of PhDs, or prize fighters, or even serial killers.
Could it be that not only who you choose as a partner, but what you are doing or very much involved with, not only while raising the kids, but while conceiving them, could change bio-chemical make up? But also, what about early children, conceived in adolescence, versus late children, conceived in middle age? Does where we are in our psycho-social developmental aspects change our children from conception? Is there an art to making babies?
What about going a step further? What about jungian archetypes and the collective unconscious. Could the brainwashing pill that makes us think these certain archetypal ways, be passed down from the society through biology? Is there a biological mechanism to something like Assagioli was getting at with psychosynthesis? If this could be so, then everything pretty much stopped psychodynamically speaking several decades ago, shifting over to look at the biological basis for behavior, in order to return for a yet-more sophisticated or exacting look at the psychic, psychological and social.
24 June 2012 at 3:45 pm
[...] Are Not Destiny Posted at 11:30 on June 24, 2012 by Andrew Sullivan Bryan Appleyard marvels: The gene-centric view was that the gene produced a protein that went on to build an [...]
24 June 2012 at 5:28 pm
“Following Richard Dawkins, who insisted we were lumbering robots operated by our genes…”
I’ve read half a dozen of Dawkins’ tomes over the years, beginning with “The Selfish Gene,” and can’t help thinking that this is a misrepresentation, or at best a caricature, of his views. If he has taken so explicit a stance in one of the volumes I haven’t yet read, I’d be interested to learn of it.
24 June 2012 at 6:35 pm
“Following Richard Dawkins, who insisted we were lumbering robots operated by our genes”
Evidently written by someone who hasn’t read much Dawkins. A cursory two minute search of the Selfish Gene turned up this quote: “We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on Earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators”.
24 June 2012 at 6:51 pm
Unfortunately this review mischaracterises the so-called “gene-centric” view. It’s not possible to explain the full extent of the misunderstanding in the space of a comment, but perhaps I can provide interested readers with a few pointers to consider:
1) The “gene-centric” view described in the article is the view that the gene is the unit at which evolutionary selection occurs. In the Dawkins quote about “lumbering robots”, he was discussing the idea that genes are long-lived (copied between generations), while individuals (the “robots”) are transient vessels. This is one reason why evolution acts on genes, not individuals.
2) The “gene-centric” view does *not* imply that genes control our behaviour or that there is a 1-1 mapping between genes and individual behaviours or individual proteins. It is sufficient that the presence or absence of a gene makes some (statistical) difference to the reproductive outcomes for part of the overall population.
3) Epi-genetic effects, while extremely interesting, do not challenge the view put forward in point (1). Before epi-genetic effects were identified, there were two known mechanisms by which genes changed between generations: shuffling during (sexual) reproduction and random mutation (e.g., cosmic rays, chemical damage, etc). Epigentic effects add a third mechanism, but this does not change the fact that it is still genes being passed from generation to generation, and that these genes are still selected on the basis of reproductive success.
24 June 2012 at 9:25 pm
What is the name of the book being reviewed in this article?
24 June 2012 at 9:58 pm
Evelyn Fox Keller published an article in 1985 in a collection called Reflections on Gender and Science (Chapter 9, A World of Difference) about the work of Barbara McClintock, who had, as Keller puts it, “no investment in the passivity of nature.” McClintock’s brand of genetic science lost the infight between scientists who thought the gene was a one-way arrow determining all, and scientists who thought it was more complicated than that. Go read this article. In fact, read the whole book.
24 June 2012 at 11:46 pm
Maybe I’m mistaken, but as far as I know, Richard Dawkins didn’t say that we were all just preprogrammed cellular automata. He even coined the word meme for talking about transmitting ideas to the world, and he and Daniel Dennett has gone on at lengths at how this way of transmitting thoughts and ideas is faster than regular DNA replication.
Could you please provide some sourcing for the claim?
25 June 2012 at 5:45 am
In The Selfish Gene Dawkins wrote”:
‘They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.
They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
This quote entirely stands up Spector’s use of the phrase. Dawkins has been inconsistent and, in his use of Darwin, often incoherent and his later attack on religion.
‘On Facebook Nassim Nicholas Taleb messaged me about Dawkins:
Bryan, Dawkins is not a scientist. His understanding of probability and mathematical modeling is tiny (I have evidence from some of his statements). He never went after the core maths of the argument rather started playing a terror game.’.
His anti-religious posturing is not science and a disgraceful abuse of the authority of science.
The book is called Identically Different.
25 June 2012 at 11:22 am
Dawkins points out that our genes go on, and that the organism is the vessel. True enough. But that does not necessitate a logic of saying “therefore” to a gene-centric view. Yet, Dawkins uses it just this way, trying to proffer it as a compelling argument in support of the gene-centric view. We could say take an earth-centric view or a hydrogen-centric view to say that because earth or hydrogen outlasts us organisms, then we are here in service of the earth or hydrogen. One does not necessarily follow the other.
Above, Studentof Biology said, “Epi-genetic effects, while extremely interesting, do not challenge the view put forward in point.” Nor would they challenge an earth-centric view or hydrogen-centric view.
Dawkins calls it the selfish gene. What we have is a selfish theorist who insists on his selfish theory sucking in every phenomenon like a black hole. Epi-genetic effects do not support his theory, just as other contrivances such as altruism do not–and I mean contrivances in the sense that these phenomena need to be argued into the theory.
Ultimately,anything that has survived, a particular gene, for instance, does not have to be the fittest, only the fit enough to have gotten this far. So we do not need to boast genes into being the operative reason for most anything we do. Sometimes gene-centricity will be the best explanation for a given phenomenon, most times probably not.
25 June 2012 at 11:47 am
I’ll bet that I can argue for a Bella-centric view of the world. Bella is my cat. The entire bio-history and cultural evolution of humans and everything else, everything heritable for any species, and all mechanisms for such, have come down to Bella being able to laze around the house I think of as my own, which is actually hers. I as an organism work to pay the mortgage, buy her food and keep her safe. The entire economic system is such that I am able to go out and do this. The internet exists for her sake, so that I might network better to better support her and find healthy food for her and find how to treat her best. And so forth.
I know I will never be able to prove it satisfactorily to you selfish gene-centrists, but it is so.
25 June 2012 at 11:48 am
I was going to say and forgot my place, “I know I will never be able to prove it satisfactorily to you selfish gene-centrists, with your own pet argument, but it is so.”
29 June 2012 at 3:54 pm
In an issue dedicated to THE NEUROSCIENCE AND EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF SEXUAL LEARNING, I published:
Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors
http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/17338/20758
The 10-page article details how the epigenetic influences of nutrient chemicals and pheromones are responsible for adaptive evolution of the required ecological, social, and neurogenic niche construction that allows for our hormone-driven brain development and behavior (e.g., our socio-cognitive niche construction). The required pathway also is detailed and includes the required reciprocity at all levels: gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system.
What’s painfully clear is the fact that endocrine disruptors and other toxins are responsible for disorders of brain development and behavior that are typically absent with proper nutrition and socialization in other species. Why then, does it take evidence from twin studies to make others realize that we are what we eat and our pheromones tell others who and what we are? That’s the common theme across all of molecular biology, and the effects of a toxic environment are evidenced via my use of the honeybee model organism. What the queen bee eats determines her pheromone production and everything else about the interactions of the colony, including the neuroanatomy of the worker bees’ brains. Does what one twin eats and the exposure to pheromones received change the neuroanatomy of the brain in humans? How could these things not be responsible for the epigenetic changes now being reported? There’s no other model for the differences, and the molecular biology doesn’t change across species from microbes to man.
30 June 2012 at 12:54 am
Hi James,
Very interesting paper. Dabbling in the word selection of poets, I am reminded from your work that there is a-whole-nother language for human interaction.
This paragraph is one that stuck out as important:
Just as the influence of diet and pheromones can be in the larval stages or in other developmental stages of insects, it can also be in the pre- and postconception stages of mammals, including humans (Fowden et al., 2006; Mennella, Jagnow, & Beauchamp, 2001). For example, pheromones and nutrition could alter levels of maternal hormones, gestational events, and postnatal outcomes via their direct effect on maternal GnRH and the placenta. The outcomes might not always be positive, which means the possible effects should not be ignored.
We should explore what those possible effects are, and find out which are most probable. What environments including materials, behaviors or even exercises, and food bring about the psychologically and physically healthiest children.
2 July 2012 at 3:39 pm
Wow, this is incredibly stupid and ignorant. Your whole rant is against a straw man, that no real scientist ever believed. Do you think you are the first person to notice that identical twins are not literally identical? Epigenetics is another piece of what makes an individual but why would it rescue you from ‘genetic determinism’ any more than the obvious influence of the environment?
7 July 2012 at 3:52 am
[...] Not in Our Genes by Bryan Appleyard [...]
7 July 2012 at 7:58 am
[...] Not in Our Genes by Bryan Appleyard [...]
7 July 2012 at 10:38 am
[...] Not in Our Genes by Bryan Appleyard [...]
10 July 2012 at 4:20 am
[...] Not in Our Genes by Bryan Appleyard [...]
15 July 2012 at 12:27 pm
[...] Not in Our Genes by Bryan Appleyard [...]
2 August 2012 at 11:09 am
‘Is human behavior controlled by our genes?’ A critique of the genecentric Edward O Wilson’s book, ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’ by Richard Levins.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/08/01/is-human-behavior-controlled-by-our-genes-richard-levins-reviews-the-social-conquest-of-earth/
Slowly but surely, the genecentric ‘myth’ is being exposed for what it is…
7 August 2012 at 1:28 pm
I guess that many people still believe that everything is controlled by genes. Your post certainly proves that it is not and you placed a very good example of telling the stories of twins that are really different, except for their appearances and mutual similarities.