Basics of Genetics for Brain Users
Quite possibly, you know nothing about genetics – and what's worse, you don't even want to know. Yet the world turns regardless of the wishes and complaints of individual inhabitants. Between heaven and earth of the twenty-first century, there are things you simply must know if you want to find your way around your own brain. Did you know, for example, that what is given genetically for an Australian is a matter of environment for a Swede? And how would the Czechs fare?
If we had a perfectly just, egalitarian society, would important positions pass from parents to children? The usual answer is no: key positions would be filled regardless of the parents' status, with respect to the individual's own abilities. In the history of mankind, such an idea probably held true almost without exception – the accumulation of functions in family clans almost always meant corruption in the selection of candidates. Democratic societies subsequently showed that the inheritance of functions can result from less obvious mechanisms than placing a prince on the throne: children from better families had better conditions, from education to nutrition, so they reach the thrones even in fair selection procedures. So it is today – and probably will be forever. Not because we cannot achieve a higher level of social justice, but because both intelligence and the emotional and social skills necessary for a successful career are largely hereditary. So if someone qualifies for a leadership position in an ideal world, their descendants will quite likely jump to an above-average position as well, without any favoritism. Details on the influence of genes versus environment on intelligence are offered by research whose authors, through an elegant combination of genetic analysis and behavioral testing, showed that children's intelligence is influenced more by genes than by the socioeconomic status of parents, although that too plays about a one-third role. This is as much as the traditional genetic model can tell us, in which the role of genes and environment is clearly separated and we are left only to research which plays a higher role. However, the twenty-first century requires us to go beyond such a view, as the authors of the research also indicate.
What Teachers Didn't Tell You About Genes – Because Nobody Knew Yet
Let's take quite ordinary strawberries from grandma's garden as an example. In the Šumava garden, where many flowers have already perished, they prosper quite well – which indicates that they have quite good genes. Upon being transplanted into the Amazon rainforest, however, they immediately perish. If an organism's success were based on the mutually independent quality of genes and the quality of environment, we would have to state that the rainforest is a bad environment. Yet countless other plants thrive in it. The assumption of the independence of genes and environment thus leads to a paradox: it is false. And it is equally false for human intelligence.
If we talk about 'inheriting' the position of a state representative, it is obvious that the degree of inheritance depends on the social structure: in monarchies it will be incomparably higher than in republics. The same applies to the inheritance of human traits, from physical strength to intelligence or health. In societies where only successful parents manage to provide their offspring with sufficient nutrition or education, the 'heredity' of strength, smarts, or health will be high, but the influence of genes minimal. Only those children for whom parents provided a suitable environment will develop well, regardless of genes. In societies that ensure equal conditions for everyone, on the contrary, the influence of genes will be essential. A great example is the difference between the 'innateness' of the ability to read in Australian and Swedish preschoolers: while little Australians are taught to read already in kindergarten, Swedish preschoolers can learn to spell only from parents or educators. In Australia, therefore, the reading of five-year-old children depends mostly on their genetic talents, while in Scandinavia it depends on upbringing. And the same applies generally. The extent to which genes decide our fate is not fixed – it depends on the environment into which we were born. For health, happiness, intelligence, and success.
Moreover, the 'quality' of our genes depends on the environment and society. The genetic prerequisites we have are sometimes not good or bad – but suitable or unsuitable for a specific society. If we change society, it is as if we changed the Šumava environment for a desert or a rainforest in the plant example: organisms with different genetic roots push forward. A glaring example is the position of women: while a few decades ago they were discouraged from a technical career, today's society offers programming courses intended exclusively for them. By the mere transformation of society, the 'quality' of women for a career in IT has significantly increased. Similarly, in different cultures, 'quality' can be, for example, assertiveness or modesty, introversion or extraversion. From here also stem ideological currents that prefer to call 'mentally disabled' people 'neurologically diverse': because objectively we can only state that they deviate from the average (if at all) – and it depends on the setup of society whether it labels them as shamans or their patients. Genes are not what they seem to be: their influence is only as strong as society allows it, their action is as good or bad as society views it – and it won't affect you personally so much that you couldn't do something about it.
And what is important for each of us: if something is innate, it does not necessarily have to be given by genes. Along with them, we receive a number of other influences at birth: from prenatal nutrition to epigenetic modifications of DNA, which are hereditary but are not part of DNA, and we can influence them during life. Probably even purposefully, through lifestyle or psychotherapy, research suggests, although we do not yet understand epigenetics well enough for definitive conclusions. Furthermore, genetic talents are not unchangeable. Genes do not code for human traits, but for the composition of proteins – and from intracellular processes that assemble carbon molecules into biologically meaningful wholes, it is a long way to the happiness of the whole person. Genes contributing to addictions, especially alcoholism, are well researched – and despite their strength, they have not yet turned any abstainer into an alcoholic. A study on 'genes for obesity' or 'genes for physical exercise' also shows that even the mere belief that we are endowed with a quality or less quality genetic root can act on us more strongly than the genes themselves. For people interested in the science of man, our era provides a unique opportunity for enthusiasm about breathtaking genetic discoveries that accumulate every day. Learning about genetic processes, however, does not support the assumption that through DNA research we will gradually arrive at evidence of human determination by its genetic code. On the contrary: chromosomes are increasingly mysterious and actually code for nothing; they resemble a list of instructions on how to react to specific situations. Twenty-first-century genetics thus, rather than biological determinism, supports the statement of Mirek Dušín: 'Don't smoke, exercise, and you'll be a fellow again!'
