‘Its not me, its my genes’

It is an expression that has become staple of the modern day era, and is used in the most nonchalant of ways. However the idea that one is solely a victim of their hereditary genes is as dangerous as it is wrong. A decade of new evidence calls for a much greater understanding of our own biology that includes an appreciation of environmental and psychological factors and their large effect on the expression of gene.

Genetic determinism has become hugely harmful to our society individually and as a collective: driving a large range of big Pharma products and creating false causes for certain ailments physical and mental. It has reduced us to mere biochemical machines. Our abilities, looks and health depend solely upon inherited mechanism. Our being is made of processes which are supposedly half chance, that give rise to the proverbial genetic lottery. Further leading to the commonplace belief that we are slaves to our own biology. This current dogma would have you believe that we are just a consciousness with no control over the outcome of our physical embodiment: victims of our own bad (or good) luck so to speak, giving rise to a lack of responsibility for the state of our own health.

Now before I start, I am not going to sit here and argue with mainstream biology, far from it. However, I will outline how certain biological accomplishments have been used to manoeuvre our understanding of our biology down a largely tangental direction that is hell-bent on emphasising nature over nurture, hugely underestimating the environmental dimension and its effect on our biology.

It began with Darwins ‘theory of evolution’. Its prevailing idea being that hereditary traits were passed down from generation to generation and those with better survival qualities were better equipped to survive. His works heavily suggest that nature not only prevails but dominates nurture. It is a debate that has been raging between academics for centuries that swung heavily in the favour of the former.

Towards the end of Darwin’s life however, he wrote in letter in 1888 to Moritz Wagner ‘the greatest error which I have committed has been not allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environments ie food climate etc independently of natural selection … when I wrote the origin, and for some years afterwards, I could find good evidence of the direct action of the environment; now there is a large body of evidence’ (Darwin 1888). With it, this incessant belief that nature is key reigned supreme due to the success of his work, with the enviable outcome of environmental factors taking a back burner. His theory and its implications have pervaded so many parts of human culture outside the field of biology that is hard to begin to quantify its impact as an idea on us.

The second nail in the coffin for nurture in terms of genetics and biology occurred was Watson’s and Crick’s discovery and subsequent revelation of DNA’s genetic code, leading to the human genome project and a huge belief that we had discovered the epitome of biological understanding and with this knowledge we had cracked mother nature’s biological code. This moved most biologists to the extreme side of the spectrum of nature rather than nurture, specifically on the cellular level. With the revelation of DNA and its code and the belief that DNA controls biology, it and genes became the definitive masters of our fate.

This lead to an idea coined as the ‘Primacy of DNA’, an idea (still taught) that defines the flow of information in biological organisms. It states the flow is only unidirectional: DNA at the top and the protein/cell at the bottom. For those who aren’t biologically minded, proteins are the molecular building blocks that provide for the cells structure and behaviour (ie the healthiness and overall workings of our body). In layman’s terms, the primacy of DNA dictates that DNA is the supreme ruler in how our biology is expressed and by consequence we are just a casualty of our inherited genes.

The ‘Veni, Vidi, Vici’ of DNA’s biological dominance is however hugely reputed by modern scientific progress. Studies in the last decade have shown that it is environment not an emergent property of the gene itself (DNA) that activates the expression of genes which make up our physical biology. This means that, we, and our environment have much more control over the healthiness and expression of our biology than previously thought. This relatively new field, christened epigenetic (latin for ‘control above genetics’), has found that environmental influences (emotions, stress, nutrition) can modify genes without changing the blueprint. This literally means that psychologically and environmentally our actions play a large part in the control over our own genetic health. So how come we are regularly taught that our affliction is still just an unfortunate consequence of our biology? Or told that our mental state is the unfortunate consequence of a faulty biomechanics mechanism out of our control?

Genetic determinism is a dogma that still pervades in educational scientific books and worse in social conscious awareness, even though DNA is now understood to only be a part of the mechanism that produces the outcome of our physical biology. Regardless, constant genetic fear-mongering in newspapers still gives people the impression that their problems are inherently fixed to their biology with no fixable solution. These news headlines linking genes to an illnesses portray a fear mongering world driven by the half chance of the genetic lottery. The truth is scientists rarely find one gene that causes traits of illnesses. In fact studies show only 2. percent can be explained by defective genes. Common illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes come from complex interactions among multiple genes and environmental factors, not just the DNA you receive from your parents.

An aspect consistently confused in these articles is correlation and causation. This may sound pedantic to the layperson but is a key distinction. Highly misunderstood amongst the non-scientific community, but imperative knowledge for the scientific one, correlation only states that two things seem to be linked, not that one actually causes the other. Causation on the other actually stated that one aspect directly causes another. An easy way to explain this concept on a biological level is through the analogy of a car: with the car being one’s own biology, and the key that started said car being the gene. In this scenario the key is only correlated to when the car ignites, but is not the causing factor in making it move. Although the key ignites the car it is not the object that causes the car to move. Along the same vein, Genes aren’t activated till something causes them to be, and it is the environment and how we treat our body that is the proverbial key in the car that causes the illness. The key doesn’t cause the illness itself!

We need to start taking responsibility for the state of our health and let go of this belief that we are genetic time bombs that need big Pharma and invasive medical preventions to save us. This fear has lead to a field of medicine and big Pharma products that are not only unnatural to our biological system but cause more damage than what they aim to prevent. Genetic determinism lays right into the hands part solution -big Pharma drugs that treat symptoms and not the cause.

Every-time a chemical drug is introduced into the body to correct function A, it enviably throws off function B, C or D. These side effects can be medically and physically hugely damaging, and when you take them you are putting your trust into a market that is out to make more money from you rather than be interested in your general health.

A re-balancing needs to happen within our understanding of our biology. The equilibrium needs re-adjusting heavily in nurture’s favour. The fundamental truth, so easily caste away, is that cells operations are primarily moulded by its interaction with environment not its genetic code. Genetic defeatism, based on at least a decade of research, should be a thing of the past. And if genetics has moved on, so must we.

References-

Darwin, F., Ed. (1888). Charles Darwin: Life and Letters. London, Murray.