Epigentics vs Nature vs Nurture Santina Wood ENG101 Argosy University 03/4/2014 Instructor Benjamin Atkins

Epigenetics -vs- Nature -vs- Nurture The nature vs nurture debate is still ongoing, and within this debate, the world of science and psychology are faced with two new questions. Today we find some researchers asking; "Is development predetermined at birth, by hereditary factors, or do experience and other environ -mental factors affect it?", and "Can the two work together in shaping human development and behavior?" Developmental psychologists still attempt to find the answers to these questions in order to discover the sources of growth in children's cognitive, language, and social skills. Most developmental psychologists believe that nature and nurture combine to influence biological factors playing a stronger role in some aspects, such as physical development, and environmental factors playing a stronger role in others, such as moral development. They are also beginning to acknowledge the role of a variable combination of both inborn factors and social experiences when explaining children's behavior. Scientists and Psychologists have a name for such an occurrence; epigenetics/epigenesis. In this essay, I will be presenting to my audience information on this highly, and sometimes heated debate, as well as the reasons as to why the belief of this dual influence called epigenetics is becoming more fact than theory.

For as long as there has been life, and those who question life, there has always been the one question that has yet to be answered; whether inherited genes or the environment influences and effects our personality, behavior, and development. This controversy is most recognized as the nature -vs- nurture conflict. Some believe that it is strictly our genes that affect our way of life, while others believe that it is the environment that affects us. Then still, we have some that believe both of this can, and will influence our behavior over course of our lifetime. Either way, some social scientists have been struggling for centuries to decide whether our personalities are born or made. That being said; this question still stands before us unanswered; Do early child-hood experiences have the greatest impact on the development, or are later events equally important? It is understood that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetics. The color of ones’ eyes —color of the hair, and color of the skin — as well as some diseases are all a function of the genes we inherit from the family before us. These facts have led to speculation as to whether psychological features such as behavior, personality attributes, and mentality is “wired in” before we are even born. In general, the earlier a particular ability shows the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetics. Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Bowlby's Theory of Attachment, which views the bond between mother and child as being an innate process that ensures survival. Characteristics and differences that are not observed at birth, but emerge later in life are regarded as a product of maturation and are also genetic in background. Genetics appears to account for most of the variability in susceptibility to alcoholism and addiction as well. (Schuckit & Smith 1996; Schuckit 1999) On the opposing side of this debate are those who believe that who we are and who we become is shaped by our environment, and/or life experience, and that this is as important, if not more important than genetics when it comes to the development of our psyche. This assumption is that, at birth, the human mind is a blank slate and as a result of experience, the slate is then filled. In recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to environment may itself, be the wrong question, because to some researchers it has become evident that genes do not act independently but participate in functional gene circuitries (Essex, M. S. 2013). From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning. It is how you are brought up that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological. For instance, when an infant forms an attachment it is responding to the love and attention it has been shown. Language comes from imitating the speech of others, and cognitive/mental development depends on the stimulation in the environment. This example is known as Bandura's Social Learning Theory. It states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. The idea that children learn what they see is the core product of this belief, and it has been for a very long time. Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue. What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society. What’s more this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q. It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial. All types of human behavior are a complex, phenomenon that has many sides, and human behaviors, be they good or bad, will eventually reveal themselves (or not) in a variety of ways. It is the “how much” question that assumes that every variable can be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner. The reality of this dilemma is that nature and cultural society interact in a host of different ways, and the realization of this is especially important given the most recent advances in genetics. In recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to environment may itself, be the wrong question, because to some researchers it has become evident that genes do not act independently but participate in functional gene circuitries (Essex, M. S. 2013). Another theory that seems to be a big, if not the biggest part of the answer we seek concerning the influence that nature and nurture have on human behavior, and which is the stronger of the two is the study of epigenetics. Epigenetics highlights the complex nature of the relationship between the organism’s genetic code, and the organism’s physical and psychological manifestations and behaviors. Epigenetic mechanisms are molecular events that govern the way the environment regulates the genomes of organisms. Epigenetic processes lead to individual differences in appearance, physiology, cognition, and behavior. Epigenesis occurs through biochemical processes, to which other genes, environmental exposures, experiences, and other factors contribute. (R, Lickliter 2009). Scientists are at the very earliest stages of investigating this theory, and the goal is to pry open one of nature's most challenging black boxes in order to explain how life experiences are transmuted into persistent changes in body function and behavior, and that it may be most critical during periods of rapid growth: gestation, infancy, and puberty, as well as possibly during old age, when cells have divided many times and may be "wearing out" (Szyf, M. 2013). Social environment can modify the expression of genes (Meaney, 2001), and the epigenetic effects of discrimination may also explain the violence in neighborhoods and communities with high concentrations of minority populations. Similarly, it has been suggested that epigenetic changes caused by variations in caregiving may be the mechanism behind well-demonstrated changes in brain functioning due to abuse. (Gee, G. 2012). Evidence is overwhelming that poor children suffer disadvantages as compared to their advantaged peers in virtually every arena; these include health, cognitive and social development, and mental and emotional health. Those disadvantages are clearly evident on the day poor children start school, and with each passing year, these gaps continue to grow. (Holzer; Schanzenbach; Duncan, & Ludwig, 2007). In closing, we as a society have recently been introduced to The Human Genome Project. This theory has brought about a large interest from the psychological field. The theory states that it can trace certain types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes. The reports on this are that scientists are on the verge of discovering (or have already discovered) the gene for criminality, alcoholism and homosexuality. In order for these advances not to be abused there needs to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both sides, and that it is the cultural context and the personal choices that people make that determine who they are.

References Duncan, G. (2010). Early-Childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, and Health. Child Development, 81(1), 306-325. Essex, M. S. (2013). Epigenetic Vestiges of Early Developmental Adversity: Childhood Stress Exposure and DNA Methylation in Adolescence. Child Development, 84(1), 58-75. Francis, D., & Kaufer, D. (2011). Beyond nature vs. nurture. The Scientist, 25(10), 94. Gee, G. (2012). A Life Course Perspective on How Racism May Be Related to Health Inequities.American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 967-974 Kaati, G., Bygren, L.O., Pembrey, M., and Sjostrom, J. (2007). Transgenerational Response to Nutrition, Early Life Circumstances and Longevity. European Journal of Human Genetics 15: 784-790 Lickliter, R. (2009). The Fallacy of Partitioning: Epigenetics' Validation of the Organism-Environment System. Ecological Psychology, 21(2), 138-146 Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the Biological Definition of Gene × Environment Interactions. Child Development, 81(1), 41-79. Powledge, M, T. (2011, August 01) Behavioral Epigenetics: How Nurture Shapes Nature. Bioscience, (8),588 Szyf, M. (2013). DNA Methylation: A Mechanism for Embedding Early Life Experiences in the Genome. Child Development, 84(1), 49-57.