The Genius in All of Us: New Insights Into Genetics, Talent, and IQ Read Online Free PDF Page A

located on chromosomes eventually led to the development of the modern gene theory, which holds that genes are responsible for the development of inherited traits; this conclusion was based on the finding that the presence of particular genetic factors is highly correlated with the presence of particular traits. But even though such correlations do not support the contention that genes operate deterministically, modern gene theory nonetheless retained the genetic determinism that 19th century ‘germ plasm’ theorists relied on to explain the intergenerational transmission of evolutionarily adaptive characteristics. This sort of conceptualization continued to inform theoretical biology well past the middle of the 20th century, as biologists embraced Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod’s operon model of how genes regulate development. (Moore, “Espousing interactions and fielding reactions,” p. 332.)
    Moore also notes that Johannsen recognized that development was a factor, and that they were ignoring development with their genes-only approach. (Moore, The Dependent Gene , p. 167.)
         “It’s in the genes,” we say .
       What makes Michael Phelps such an outstanding swimmer? It’s “all about gene pool,” quips syndicated sports columnist Rob Longley. “Phelps [has been] blessed with so many gifts, he is nothing short of a freak of nature.” (Longley column.)
         over the last two decades Mendel’s ideas have been thoroughly upgraded—so much so that one large group of scientists now suggests that we need to wipe the slate clean and construct an entirely new understanding of genes .
       Ironically, as this sweeping new view of how genes work has emerged, it has received little public attention. Front-page headlines still trumpet advances in gene splicing, genome mapping, gene testing, cloning, and so on. The result has been a growing public disconnect between genetic understanding and genetic reality. The public has gotten the impression that the answer to almost every question about our health and well-being can be found in our genome. The reality is a lot more nuanced.
         Not all of the interactionists’ views have yet been fully accepted .
       This book is not a dispassionate presentation of all scientific points of view. Instead, it embraces the arguments of the Interactionists, whose views I came to trust most after much reading, conversation, and consideration.
    One brief description of the running disagreement can be found in Johnson and Karmiloff-Smith, “Neuroscience Perspectives on Infant Development,” which may be accessed online via Google Books (go to “Contents,” and click).
    Another comes from Patrick Bateson and Matteo Mameli:
    Many authors writing today suppose that innateness has something to do with genes (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides, 1992; Plotkin, 1997; Chomsky, 2000; Fodor, 2001; Pinker, 1998, 2002; Miller, 2000; Baron-Cohen, 2003; Buss, 2003; Marcus, 2003; Marler, 2004). In some cases, this supposition is based on imprecise ways of thinking about the role of genes in development. To argue, for instance, that a phenotype is innate if and only if genes and nothing but genes are required for its development is too simplistic. No phenotype is such that only genes are needed for its development, since an interplay between the organism and its environment is required at all stages of development. (Bateson and Mameli, “The innate and the acquired,” p. 819.)
         “The popular conception of the gene as a simple causal agent is not valid,” declare geneticists Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb .
    They add: “[Geneticists now] recognize that whether or not a trait develops does not depend, in the majority of cases, on a difference in a single gene. It involves interactions among many genes, many proteins and other types of molecule[s], and the environment in which an individual develops.”
    Also: “The idea that there is a gene for adventurousness, heart disease,