Customer Reviews

The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture"

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Dependent Gene is a deeply thoughtful and carefully articulated synthesis of contemporary genetics, developmental biology and evolutionary principles. Thus, it transcends the gene-centric propositions that directed much biological science in the 20th century, and that pervades today in such starkly different venues as repair shops and hospital chart rooms, where a repairman or a psychiatrist might explain human traits and behavior with "It's in the genes." (cf. D. Nelkin & M.S. Lindee, The DNA Mystique). Professor Moore's penetrating expose of the nature versus nurture fallacy is a sizeable accomplishment because as Stephen Jay Gould has written: "Thinking in dichotomies may be the most venerable (and ineluctable) of all human mental habits." (S.J. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory).

The author, a professor of psychology at Pitzer College and the Claremont Graduate University, invites the reader's curiosity with such charming chapter headings as - From Aristotle's Wonder to a Fork in the Road: The Wrenching of Genetics from Development; Dependent Genes: Essential Biology and DNA; A Turtle in the Shade: The Development of Sexual Characteristics; Chicken Shoes and Monkey Foods: The Not-so-Subtle Effects of Some Very Subtle Postnatal Experiences; On Big Muscles and Facial Hair: Reconsidering "Inherited," "Acquired," and "Innate." Through aptly chosen vignettes we learn how to speed up the metamorphosis of a tadpole into a frog and how a tree can grow from its top to its roots rather than the usual way. In the process we acquire an understanding of "The Developmental Systems Perspective" that melts the arbitrary and artificial boundaries between genomic processes and human development.

The book is separated into five sections: Part I: Where We're Going, Where We've Been; Part II: Background Basics; Part III: Developmental Systems; Part IV: Development and Evolution (by itself, worth the price of the book); Part V: Implications (for the philosophically and policy minded). Taken as a whole, one gets a clear sense of what a fine teacher Professor Moore is. The concepts he presents are not easy ones (for example DNA machinery, immediate early genes, epigenetics, heritability, neoteny) yet, through a careful step-by-step propaedeutic, highly abstract concepts are made real and the hard work of synthesis is made accessible. This fine book will likely be enjoyed by lifetime learners as well as advanced undergraduates and graduate students.

This book is one of the clearest and most convincing critiques of genetic determinism, availing itself of a new, or renewed, developmental perspective. The nature-nurture debate was always an exercise in futility, but here, armed with a new approach, the issues seem to resolve themselves almost transparently. The resurfacing of this developmental perspective in the last decade, even as evolutionary psychology and sociobiology move into the mainstream, is both timely and a source of essential information for those confused by the Darwin debate, with its high powered promotions of genetic reductionism, and the misleading promises of the Human Genome project. It was always hard to resist the rigid claims based on Mendelism, but now we can see there is no alternative, a lesson, after all these years, to remember, think before the experts tell you what constitutes science.
Demonstrating the many confusions here starting with those of Galton, and Weismann, and tracing the embryological perspective all the way back to von Baer in the early nineteenth century, the author shows how the emergence of population genetics derailed developmentalism, leading to the now dominant one-sidedness of the Neo-Mendelian Synthesis, which is not able to account for the relationships of genes in relation to environments. The sidelined corrective of Gerstang and de Beer is now seen to be the source of a newly consolidating research perspective, now envigorated by new knowledge of regulatory genetics. The confusion of genes and traits is reviewed in a very clear and convincing account, with a remarkable discussion of Lamarck's ideas, their direct relevance, and limitations.
The end result is a fascinating new approach to the idea of evolution based on traits at the level of phenotype, a view, by the way, pointed to by Ernst Mayr, long ago. I think here the author is too kind to Darwin and still with the reflex over Lamarck. For now we are given the variant of Darwin whereby his later Lamarckism makes him prefigure the new developmentalism, even as Lamarck is given but a brief pat on the back. That is surely not quite the right history in the middle of what must be an important new outlook very much on the right track.
This is a very useful and important book for those on the defensive in the current environment of genetic fundamentalism. However, although the new perspective is essential as a new foundation for any theory of evolution, I think that this new and inevitable paradigm will still fall short of a full theory of evolution. But that is another story, as one can only hope this new point of view will enable a swift exit from the current dominant confusion.

If this guy has ever actually read a book on behavior genetics or population biology, it doesn't show. The "words" he puts into the mouths of behavior geneticists are things that behavior geneticists (such as Plomin and Bouchard) don't in fact say. His interpretation of the heritability coefficient, for example, is simply wrong. His misunderstanding of that statistic is typical for a psychologist (I am one myself), and even more typical of the lay public, and therefore it is something that needs to be corrected. But blaming behavior geneticists for getting it wrong is just misinformed. What Moore says is, for the MOST PART correct. He just attributes the mistakes he is trying to correct to the wrong people.

I found the general tone of the book arrogant, and for that reason I found it hard to read, which is a shame because the book contains a valuable message that many psychologists still need to learn (even though that lesson has been out there and available to them for over 50 years). The way to get that message out, however, is not by setting up and then knocking down a straw man, which is what Moore does.

I think the book finds its voice in chapter 4 and subsequent chapters. It's too bad the author didn't start the book there. Even so, he presents his material in a tone that suggests he believes (or wants us to believe) that it is "new stuff" that "genetic determinists" (whoever they are) are unaware of. In fact, I remember studying a lot of this stuff in undergraduate biology classes several decades ago. His discussion of brain development is also outdated and was so even 10 years ago when this book was being written, although that's not really a serious detriment to the point he is trying to get across.

I had high hopes for this book (it came highly recommended). I was disappointed. Too bad because a lot of people, mostly psychologists, need to understand this stuff. And they don't!

Moore's primary concern is that equal emphasis be paid to both genetic and non genetic factors in studying human traits. His hope is that if $3 billion is spent sequencing the human Genome's DNA that another $3 billion should be spent on understanding the development of genes. Put bluntly, Moore thinks that confining yourself to genetic determinism is lazy, dumb thinking. For example, scientists should now know better than to draw connections between skin color and IQ levels. However, I think his whole approach is old fashioned semantics. He thinks because an author traces a trait to a gene this means that author is ignoring the cell in which the gene develops and ignoring proteins, enzymes and hormones that trigger growth. The genetic-non-genetic dichotomy is out of date. Why waste time with it? Moore wants to wean the reader away from genetic determinism but isn't this just a corner he's painted himself into? He suggests that one shouldn't label genes and attribute them to traits. But who is still doing this beyond the media? Modern writers now take a biochemical, proteomic rather than a genetic approach. In many ways the book chops down an old tree that is nearly toppling from the weight of its dead wood.

Moore omits much of what doesn't fit into his pretty picture. For example no mention of knockout studies (The Misunderstood Gene by Michel Morange) where one missing fosB gene prevented the mother mouse from tending her litter of newborns. Also missing is a discussion of certain inherited conditions like sickle cell, Huntington's and hemophilia where the non genetic factors add little to the understanding of these mutations. Genes are only important because they can be modified. The trouble is that the field is moving so fast that anything published is outmoded before the ink is dry.

While Mr. Moore presents his view with reasonable facts of science, it leaves one with the impression "what do we do now?" I never got a clear picture of his definition of the Nature vs. Nurture debate.