Thanks Mike as of course genes don't act in isolation. As with all diseases and various traits, we could be born with a predisposition but certain experiences usually are necessary to "turn on that gene." Clearly there are exceptions to prove this rule. To use a fairly non-controversial example of such, PBS on Frontline had a special on Parkinson's where David Iverson discussed how he, his brother and his father all had Parkinsons and how they each were coping. But as Iverson and other experts in the field make clear, for the vast majority of folks who develop Parkinsons, there seems to be no apparent genetic origin as far as they can determine. But there is evidence that toxins in our environment significantly contribute to whether a person does or does not fulfill his genetic predisposition as well as lifestyle. Both Muhammed Ali and Michael J. Fox experienced relatively serious brain concussions that might have contributed to the onset of Parkinsons.
I am continually baffled and frustrated at this ongoing search for that "magic bullet" in our genetic makeup to understand the origins of various disorders as well as healthy, productive qualities. The general rule in today's political climate seems to be that assume a disorder has a genetic cause unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. And the really sad catch 22 is that folks don't even look for contributions of early experience as that's seen as "blaming," which is nonsense. It's simply acting as a scientist who is interested in determining the possible contributions to a behavior. For many years we were mislead in understanding human behavior due to our willingness to trust authoritative opinions over empirical data. I feel we have returned to that very unfortunate trend. Since biology now "rules," we feel it's acceptable to rule out well conducted studies in the 70's and 80's that revealed the importance of early experience (you know, it's called brain plasticity) in favor of a perspective that is culturally senstive--i.e., it was predetermined. Joan [email protected] > Sounds eminently possible to me. > > > > For some reason people often forget that genes don't act in isolation. > This > forgetfulness manifests itself especially when they "find" the "language > gene" or the "homosexual gene" etc. And aren't the associations found > usually correlations? > > > > --Mike > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Jim Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Is it possible that all brain components necessary for language >> (presumably >> there are many?) might individually be found in different species but >> that >> the unique combination necessary for language only occurs in humans? And >> does an association between a particular gene and specific language >> dysfunctions necessarily mean that the gene primarily serves a >> linguistic >> purpose? Genes important for sequential actions, for example, >> presumably >> would disrupt sequential linguistic functions (e.g., articulation) as >> well >> as other sequences of behavior that have similar demands for ordered >> responding. >> >> Take care >> Jim >> >> James M. Clark >> Professor of Psychology >> 204-786-9757 >> 204-774-4134 Fax >> [email protected] >> >> Department of Psychology >> University of Winnipeg >> Winnipeg, Manitoba >> R3B 2E9 >> CANADA >> >> >> >>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 29-May-09 8:05 AM >>> >> In the NY Times Nicholas Wade has an article on the role that >> a gene (FOXP2) has in language usage. He points out that this gene >> attracted attention when a defective version of it was found in >> a London family that had problems in articulation and aspects of >> grammar. FOXP2 is found in other species but in a somewhat >> different form. Chimpanzees and mice have it and Wade describes >> some recently published research that tansplanted the human >> version of FOXP2 into mice. Did the mice begin to speak? Will >> the IRB permit similar work with chimpanzees? Things that make >> you go "Hmmmmm...". >> >> Wade's article is available at the following addresss: >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/science/29mouse.html?_r=1&ref=science >> >> The original research article which was published in the journal Cell >> by Wolfgan Enard and about 50 co-authors is available at this site: >> >> http://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(09)00378-X >> >> Hmmm, maybe language isn't such a unique human capability after all? >> >> -Mike Palij >> New York University >> [email protected] >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
