Message-Id: <v01510102b096a8237692@[205.134.240.142]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:27:39 -0800
To: pinhole@exploratorium.edu
From: bcomet@sirius.com (Burt C. Kessler)
Subject: Re: Naive question (2 cents' worth)
Dear Richard,
My training is mostly genetic. I don't understand what you mean by
"organic". One way to look at the role of genes is that they establish
potentials. Environment, "nurture", determines to what extent these
potentials are reached. This applies to both physical and mental traits.
It appears that genes set predispositions, or susceptibilities to various
diseases, temperaments, intelligences. Some of these predispositions are
so strong that only extreme environmental factors will alter them, others
require environmental reinforcements in order to mainfest. A gene for
extreme shyness is strongly supported by a number of pedigree studies.
However, extremely shy people can learn to overcome their shyness with a
consistent supporting environment. Without it the shyness persists.
Cancer genes predispose individuals to certain cancers. Yet most require
environmental triggers before the cancers actually form. In the absence of
the appropriate triggers the individual remains cancer free. The degree to
which genes are expressed when present is described by the concept of
penetrance. Not all genes are 100% penetrant. Not everyone who carries a
particular gene shows its effects. In this light, school environment and
role models can do much to affect the expression of any gender specific
predelictions that may persist in the gene pool. I believe that a much
more potent effect is created by discrimination in hiring and assignment of
positions, glass ceilings, and the limiting effects of other peoples'
expectations on women in science. Our expectations do affect our students.
Our prejudices can limit their futures.
Burt C. Kessler
>Dear Pinholers,
> Being more aligned [by training] with the social scientists, I have
>some spots of confusion in my understanding of the current 'nature vs
>nurture' thread amongst y'all. The general understanding seems to be that
>"nurture" is equal/analogous to socialization; and from the discussion so
>far, folks seem to be saying that "nature" is equal/analogous to genetics.
>My question: are there other possibilities for nature--for example, are
>organic differences "genetic"? Or are they in opposition to genetic
>differences? (For the statisticians out there: Is there a heritability
>threshold that must be crossed before something can be described as
>"genetically-based"? Would 1% heritability be enough?)
>Still mulling all of this stuff,
>El Troll
>
She who laughs lasts.