call me jaded Report post Posted March 6, 2006 Interesting discussion from the Schafer report: Parents Can Counteract 'Environments' Created By Children's Genes By Sharon Begley for Science Journal. http://www.sarnet.org/counter.htm Sigmund Freud had been dead for four years before a scientist proved in 1943 that DNA carries genetic information. It was probably just as well. The founder of psychoanalysis surely would have rolled over in his grave if he'd seen how the genetic revolution played out when it comes to understanding human behavior. As tough as neuroscientists have been on Freud -- replacing his quaint notions of ego and id with neurotransmitters and brain circuits -- geneticists have struck the unkindest blow, linking depression, neuroticism, impulsivity, sexual orientation and more to people's 25,000 or so genes. The complicated tapestry of the mind woven by Freud, a respected neuroscientist in his day, has been reduced to a four-letter genetic code. But when it comes to child development, Freud is back. Or at least psychoanalysts and their focus on interactions between parents and children are, and in a way that few foresaw. The childhood experiences that so riveted Freud affect the expression or suppression of gene-based personality traits for a fascinating reason: Genes create environments. "We analysts actually have a place at the table of genetics," David Reiss, director of psychiatric research at the George Washington University Medical Center, told the annual meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association last month. He is leading an ambitious study of 310 (so far) adopted children. He and colleagues are, first, identifying whether the adopted babies are bubbly and all smiles, or solemn and dour. Next, they are observing how the adoptive parents respond to the children. This response is the "environment" the babies' (presumably) gene-based traits create. The goal is to see whether the parental response alters expression of the traits. Even the preliminary findings of the study, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health, will ring true to parents. Some kids seem to emerge from the womb with a jolly disposition. Others seem congenitally cranky, refusing to crack a smile no matter how clownishly you act in an attempt to make them giggle. Because solemn babies aren't as much fun as giggly ones, many parents respond to them more impatiently, coldly and even harshly, particularly if the parents are under stress. In a very real sense, the child's innate disposition -- solemnity -- elicits a certain parental behavior -- harshness and lack of warmth. Genes, in other words, create an environment. This one-two punch can lead to the worst outcome, says Dr. Reiss. Studies hint that when solemn babies reach school age, they have a greater chance of developing conduct disorders, especially oppositional behavior. These are the kids who become bullies and firebugs. They also have a higher risk of anxiety disorders, which can pave the way to depression and substance abuse. But the new research suggests that none of this is inevitable. If parents resist responding to a dour baby with harshness, says Dr. Reiss, the genes that underlie solemnity in infancy and oppositional behavior in the teen years may go quiet. + Read more: http://www.sarnet.org/counter.htm [see responding letters below.] . . . LETTERS On Counteracting Genes "The childhood experiences that so riveted Freud affect the expression or suppression of gene-based personality traits for a fascinating reason: Genes create environments." So children's genes create environments' and 'parents can counteract the genes created by environments'? Sounds like nonsense to me! You are right, in what sense can one prove that the behaviour is genetic? If so, how can that 'gene expression of the particular gene be altered by the environment/response of the parents' be shown? "...geneticists have struck the unkindest blow, linking depression, neuroticism, impulsivity, sexual orientation and more to people's 25,000 or so genes. The complicated tapestry of the mind woven by Freud, a respected neuroscientist in his day, has been reduced to a four-letter genetic code." This kind of research is based on testing if adopted babies are bubbly and all smiles, or solemn and dour and observing how the adoptive parents respond to the children. New research suggests... 'if parents resist responding to a dour baby with harshness, said Dr. Reiss, the genes that underlie solemnity in infancy and oppositional behaviour in the teen years may go quiet.' Also said Dr. Reiss. "Genes are fully expressed in some social environments, while in others they never got expressed." Yes, a hopeful message that genes are not destiny.! -N.E. . . . Letter to the WSJ In her February 24th, 2006 WSJ article, "Parents Can Counteract 'Environments' Created by Children's Genes," Sharon Begley wrote that geneticists have linked various genes to "depression, neuroticism, impulsivity, and sexual orientation." However, subsequent research has failed to replicate any of these findings. As I show in my new book, The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes, and in my previous book, The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope, the past 20 years have seen many highly publicized, yet subsequently unsubstantiated, gene-finding claims for psychiatric disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizophrenia, and for psychological traits such as personality and intelligence. In fact, many years of fruitless gene-finding efforts in psychiatry and psychology led Kenneth S. Kendler, a leading genetic researcher in psychiatry, to write in the July, 2005 edition of the American Journal of Psychiatry that the "strong, clear, and direct causal relationship implied by the concept of 'a gene for .' does not exist for psychiatric disorders. Although we may wish it to be true, we do not have and are not likely to ever discover 'genes for' psychiatric illness." The ongoing fruitless search for "behavioral genes" may lead to a reassessment of currently-ascendant genetic theories of human behavioral differences. These theories are based mainly on the results of twin and adoption studies which, as I have argued, are subject to bias and a reliance on untenable theoretical assumptions. Although Begley incorrectly implied that genes for psychiatric disorders and personality have already been found, most researchers continue to believe that these genes will be discovered soon. In the future, they may be compelled to conclude that they do not exist. - Jay Joseph, Psy.D. [jayjoseph2@aol.com] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malika Report post Posted March 7, 2006 Hi call me jaded <'> I am a believer in genes implication in human character being the strongest influence, this does not remove the parents responsability just the sens of guilt, what ever the tendency of a child if the parents give a sens of approval or disaproval the child will take it on board but some fundamental aspect of his character will remain. I mean may be a child who would have some tendency to addictive substance would end up on cigarets or heroine according to the environment. What I mean is that the environment influence cannot change the persone character but can curve it what can change the character is the change in the body chemical balance and this can be connected to the environment to a certain extend. I have somebody I know well who has non-identical twins and the difference in character is very obvious one is always calm and content the other is more wingy and get upset very quickly find difficult to sleep and much more like her bigger brother who seems to have ADHD the response from the mother respective to the twins has been very similar and overall quite tense and stressful, but still the calm twin remained calm and the more agitated one remained more difficult. I think frankly that many psychologist psychanalist, are worried to lose their grip on patient (and money) if the genes theory is increasing however they could become more like counselling people helping them to deal with their difficulties taking into account their character and their situation.. The eodipien complexe seems to me now something so remote ( I always found it unsound and a kind of charlatanism) just coming from mythologic beleive. When the Freudien and Bethelein staff will be over with some good scientific discovery I surely will be rejoicing I think their theory have created so much unecessary pain that it makes me angry. Malika. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
