We are made entirely of recyclable parts, you and I; some highly organized collection of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen-based molecules. Remarkably, all life forms as we know them are composed of the same type of molecules and have been built, decomposed and reconfigured many times over the billions of years life has existed on Planet Earth.
The decaying process is rather quick and can be viewed as easily as finding mold on a loaf of bread or seeing a vulture eagerly consume roadkill. Bacteria, molds, and scavengers of all types make quick and efficient work of any organic matter that happens to be left on the forest floor — or the kitchen floor, for that matter.
How does the building process happen? With sunlight as the original energy source, the mechanism for building is the same throughout all the living world. DNA molecules code for specific amino acids that in turn are conjoined to produce specific protein molecules. Loosely considered, one gene codes for the production of one specific protein. These proteins are then (at least in more complex life forms) organized into tissues that form organs and systems. It is these proteins that determine traits as we know them. The DNA double-helix is unzipped and copied by messenger RNA, transported to building sites (ribosomes) where the “protein synthesis” takes place. The process is the same in bacteria, trees, and humans. This is one of the ways we know all life has a common origin.
If one gene coded for one trait, then outcomes would be quite predictable. However, the vast majority of traits are determined by the confluence of multiple genes. Due to sexual reproduction, parents produce children similar to themselves in many ways, but not copies. In the same way, planting a seed from a Red Delicious apple does not produce a Red Delicious apple tree. Also to be considered are the influences of environment, or anything that happens after fertilization (the combining of genetic material) that may influence the production of traits. This is true in both humans and apple trees. Thus, we face the long-standing rhetorical question as to whether forces of nature (genetics) or of nurturing (environment) are most consequential in molding each of us as individuals.
While my presentation of the nature vs. nurture question is overly simplified, the point I would most like to make is that today science believes nature (genetics) is a much bigger and broader influence than mankind has believed historically. Let’s look at some examples of how society has changed in response to these genetically driven phenomena.
Mental Illness: Collectively, and over time, we have moved from a belief that individuals are fully capable of picking themselves up by their own bootstraps to overcome depression and the desolation of mental illness to understanding that these conditions have a strong genetic component. The symptoms and associated behaviors of the afflicted are often outside the control of the individual. Thus, instead of treating those suffering as pariahs in society, treatment has moved away from guilt driven behavioral strategies and more toward managing symptoms and therapeutics.
Personality: Through twin studies we know that despite separation at birth, identical twins tend to develop very similar personalities. In other words, similarities in personality may result more from inherited DNA than from the nurturing influence of parents. It is important to note that identical twins have the same prenatal experience. This may prove instructive.
Sexual Orientation: Born this way? It is a difficult and contentious question. Geneticists tell us there is no “gay gene;” however, there appears to be a strong genetic predisposition that influences sexual attraction. Knowledge of this has moved our society in the direction of acceptance on LGBTQ issues. This change in public attitude has been swift and dramatic in my own lifetime. I clearly recall that 50 years ago homosexual behavior was considered abhorrent, often illegal, and quite probably the result of having an overbearing and controlling mother. The public divide today is largely generational. Most young people don’t see it as an issue and are willing to allow others to love whomever they wish. Most opposition comes from older generations holding to the values ingrained during their formative years, despite the science.
Health and Disease: Our understanding of genetic influences has slowly moved medical treatment and health messaging in the direction of prevention as opposed to merely treating symptoms as they appear. This holistic approach makes sense based upon the understanding that genetics are a huge influence on our individual wellness journeys. This would seem an uncontroversial outcome; yet, any suggestion that we would be healthier both personally and environmentally if we consumed less meat and ate more vegetables brings an outcry from many despite the science.
I do not use these examples to diminish the positive influence of nurturing parents and mentors. On the other hand, the grand influence of genetics on every aspect of our lives does inform our future as individuals and as a society. Change happens. For some the change is too slow and for others too fast. New information from science demands that we question conventional thinking in many areas of great importance. This makes some very uncomfortable. For example, the current furor over what may or may not be addressed as topics in our public schools is driven by the lag time between new science and public opinion. As Sam Cooke sang, “A change is gonna come.”
Nothing will change the fact that a plant does not grow to be productive and healthy without being fed, watered, and exposed to the right amount of sunlight. Neither does a child develop to his or her full potential without the nurturing influences of proper prenatal care, exposure to early childhood education, and healthy emotional support. Nurturing enhances nature. Both are essential, and both must be considered.
Here’s The Thing: I recently listened to a “Freakonomics: podcast that asked the question: Why does the United States, the richest country in the world, have a child poverty rate among the highest in the developed world? (By definition, one child in seven.) The answer to this national tragedy and embarrassment, delivered through the eyes of economists is this: Children do not vote. Children have no political influence. In comparison to other First World countries, we dedicate far fewer resources for prenatal health and nutrition, early childhood education, and new mothers. Even so, science informs us that the key to developing neural pathways in the brain and breaking the cycle of poverty is access to these essential nurturing forms of support.
Interestingly, and conversely, at the other end of the age scale, our senior citizens (of which I am a member and beneficiary) are among the most financially comfortable in the world. We need to challenge conventional ways of thinking. It makes progress possible.
ken.ballinger@yahoo.com
———
Editor’s Note: This is one of a series of articles written by a group of retired and current teachers — Ken Ballinger, Billy Kreigh, Marianne Darr-Norman, and Anna Spalding. Their intent is to spur discussions at the dinner table and elsewhere. You may also voice your thoughts and reactions via The News-Banner’s letters to editor.
