Nature versus Nurture, chicken or the egg (egg, by the way Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), molecules versus Mom... Science seems to force a divide between philosophical camps, which are more accurately defined as scientific perspectives. Molecular biology versus cell biology, physiology versus evolutionary biology and so on. I had a drunken argument at a bar regarding two of the above because I feel, from the perspective of a Physiologically-minded Biologist (wanna-be Dentist actually), that it does not really matter where we came from or why, what matters is how to end suffering, cure disease and so on. Evolutionarily speaking this is abhorrent, at least it was to the gentleman in question. How can I be so crass as to overlook something so important as the means by which humans diverged into distinct races? Well, I replied, we are more similar than different. If I need a kidney, does it really matter if it came from a black, white, yellow, red, blue, green or purple person? No. What matters is blood type and a relatively close DNA match, plus a proper dosage of anti-rejection immunosuppressive drugs. Race, I argued, was an archaic classification using over-simplified concepts to describe obvious phenotypic differences such as skin color or coarseness of hair whilst completely (or almost completely) ignoring more compelling similarities and not accounting for environmental conditions which may impact observable traits, phenotypes, more than genetics. It seems we are ever hopeful that the code is being unlocked, that the Great Book will fall open in just a few more years thanks to advances in Physics, Biology, Genetics, Chemistry, whatever. Actually as ancient philosophers have predicted the more we learn the more aware we become that our ignorance is far more vast than we ever imagined before. This discussion will focus on Genetics but it will focus also on Social Science, Culture, parenting, media, or any other factors that can also contribute to phenotype - factors that complicate the classical "DNA-RNA-Protein-Phenotype" dogma that has been abused and misused even by the most disgusting of bigots to support, improperly, the idea that humans simply pass down their glorious heritage from father to son (of course!) and to cling, ever so subtly, to the idea that those who have must be destined to have, and by default those who have not must be destined to have not. All civilizations have struggled with this concept, but it is most clearly demonstrated in the history of the Indus Valley people, more commonly the Hindus of India, and their millenia-long struggle with the Caste system. It is equally expressed amongst Christians and Muslims and virtually all other cultures, but in the Indus Valley descendents we saw a quite honest and open expression of this idea that works as a decent model of this doomed (and ultimately malignant) universal human Meme. You are a king, a warrior, a merchant or totally filthy and useless human waste. You are born this way and there is nothing you can do about it. Gandhi worked most of his life to combat this idea. The Buddha had his own way of battling this ancient idealogical beast. Sadly it is still with us to this day, this idea that because of some seed or spark or molecule or protein you are either smart, capable and successful or dumb, primitive, violent... I will battle this concept using the science of Genetics itself. Within Genetics there is what is known as Phenocopy, where an organism will express a given phenotype because of environmental conditions. An example would be a colony of bacteria which show susceptibility to a chemical present in the agar not because their genes lack the code for a given resistance, but because a certain necessary nutrient is lacking in their environment. The lacking nutrient makes it impossible to produce the protein they need to protect them from Chemical X and they die, just like their genetically susceptible relatives. In humans we see this type of expression in regions of Africa where again proper nutrition is lacking and such phenotypic traits as blindness or reduced organ function is observed not because of a genetic mutation, but due to malnutrition, and again because a certain protein is not present 20% of the population has bad kidneys, say, or produces blind children. When their genetics are compared to the population at large we see no evidence of the genetic conditions we expect. And when these people are supplemented with the proper nutrients we see the problems gradually vanish. Conclusion? Environment affects phenotype. When it comes to an area like human behavior, culture, level of education, income, etc, there are those who argue that certain people are genetically disadvantaged, which is a polite way of saying they are inferior. I am arguing that such conditions as rates of illness or even IQ result from a host of factors, and genetics is simply one of many possible culprits when problems arise. We do see certain genetic anomalies presenting more frequently in isolated populations such as those we might find in deserts or in the Arctic. But genetics just does not provide sufficient evidence to support the belief that some populations are genetically predisposed to poverty. Are men from certain ethnic groups more likely to have Huntington's disease? Absolutely. But Huntington's is a far simpler process than being poor, or being intelligent and so on. I guess what I am refuting here is the belief that objective science (Physics, Chemistry, Genetics...) can be used to support unfortunate, sad and malignant idealogical concepts in hopes that our collective Enlightenment will somehow protect the misguided perspectives of the past. Science will do no such thing, and I am quite confident that it will actually point out what I think we all know, that which we have been told in our Mosques, Temples, Churches and Synagogues all our lives (if we had been paying attention...): we are all connected and we are co-dependent. The daring philosophers of the past, most of whom have been assassinated, have stated this with little or no evidence. Now, I think, science is beginning to catch up so that this simple (and once quite dangerous) idea is gaining momentum. What will this science tell us, eventually? It will tell us what we have already been told. We need to form strong communities. We need to take the education of our children seriously. We need to learn to be less angry, less divisive, more understanding, etc. Why? Because just as Genetics can lead to horrific diseases of the human body wherein eyes do not work, or kidneys shut down, dangerous and pervasion "mutations" of human thought similarly produce objectively observable consequences. Poverty leads to malnutrition, which leads to developmental problems, which makes individuals less competitive in the work place, which leads to poverty, which leads to malnutrition.... And then you test the IQ of the poor and find it is lower than that of the rich. No shit. Try being clever when you barely have a thing to eat and both your parents practically kill themselves working to survive.
