This is an interesting comment on the article of the link. As the commenter pointed out, usually only the link between certain genes and risk of problems from negative experiences is noted in such studies. The idea of “plasticity genes” makes sense of the high percentage of people who experience depression at some point in their life. If the genes were solely negative, they wouldn't be so common. I have seen other hypotheses about this, but this one makes the most sense.
Some time in the past, I read of a study on men who inherit a certain gene that makes them resistant to learning from punishment. The researchers noted that if these boys had abusive parents, they were likely to end up in prison. If they had nurturing parents, they were the stuff of explorers, astronauts, etc.
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/guest-column-mugged-by-our-genes/#more-313
Increasing evidence is beginging to indicate that the GXE interaction you have described may actually mischaracterize these processes. And this is because the so-called “vulnerability genes” that seem to make certain individuals more likely to succumb to problematic functioning (e.g., depression) in the face of adversity (e.g., negative life events), appear also to make people carrying these same genes more likely to BENEFIT from supportive experiences, including the simple absence of adversity, than those not carrying these putative “risk alleles”. This suggests that the disproportionate focus on adversity, genes, and psychopathology may have led to mischaracterizing what may actually be “plasticity genes” that make some individuals more susceptible to environmental influences–for better and for worse, depending on the nature of the environment they experience, not just for worse when they encounter adversity. Email me and I would be happy to share work documenting this.
Jay Belsky (j.belsky@bbk.ac.uk)
— Jay Belsky
No comments:
Post a Comment