Blair Waldorf, while bossing around her epsilon minions to further her socialite agenda in a recent Gossip Girl episode, proclaimed a dire need for a clone in lieu of her incompetent apostles. A clone is simply an asexual genetic reproduction of an existing specimen. Even with identical duplicates of her genes, what's to say B that you won't just end up like D...Dolly?
Cloning, though posing several ethical and technical issues, is an interesting case study for assessing the never-ending seesaw of nature and nurture. If you were to genetically replicate yourself, do you think you could really replicate you.
Operation CopyCat in 2001 to create the first pet clone started from nuclei extracted from the ovarian cumulus cells of the feline Rainbow. Rainbow is a calico or tortoiseshell cat meaning she has one orange XB and one black Xb allele for hair coloration resulting in a mosaic coat of brown, black, orange, and white. The embryo with Rainbow's genome was implanted in a surrogate mother and at Texas A&M, CC (CopyCat or CarbonCopy) was born....with grey and white hair. As Rainbow's clone, CC has both an XB and Xb. Even accounting for X-inactivation it is odd CC doesn't have a speckle of orange hair. Scientists also observed differences in physique and personality: Rainbow is said to be "shy and chunky" while CC is described as "slender, playful, and curious." Post-natal genetic analysis confirmed the identical genotypes of Rainbow and CC. Wasn't the whole idea of the clone to get a Xerox copy? Conventional genetics no longer apply; since identical genotypes don't translate into similar phenotypes, there is something else to account for.
This is my personal impression of genetics-
Genes are like a l p h a b e t s. Some letters are more critical and used frequently, others are replaceable in other combinations yielding similar or word-altering results. Some letters are pronounced differently depending on what letters are next to them. Some expressed in only very rare or peculiar circumstances. The way the letters are arranged, pronounced, emphasized (or kept silent) is dependent on the people, location, time and innumerable variables of context. The ultimate goal of this, like any language, is to convey an idea by arranging all the units in response to it's context.
Humor me with this crude example--
Take two groups of letters: 1) y z z x r v a x u 2) l i o a l c e s t
The only letter these two groups has in common is 'a' and from first glance it appears as if there aren't many feasible word options from 1 yet you can extract two words from these groups that have similar meanings: 1) vary and 2) oscillate.
Now take another set: i n s p e
With those same five letters you can spell two very different words-- penis or spine (...or even snipe or pines for that matter). Our letters may be limited but the sentences, paragraphs, and novels we write are limitless.
If I didn't make it clear with my terrible example, my point is simply that genes, against popular conviction, are not the be all and end all nor are they even the limiting reagent we attribute them to be. So why blame the genes? Is it just our consolation for our own laziness and shortcomings? An explanation for undecipherable phenomenons?
Or is it simply that we don't want to take responsibility? If we disregard genetics, it would mean that every minute decision we make-what we do, who we interact with, what we eat, how we think- especially in the early years of life could completely alter every morsel of our existence. That's a lot of pressure. Too many ramifications. Clearly the reality isn't so absolute and genes are obviously an important determining factor in differentiating me from Lebron James (only looks, not jumper) but even physical attributes like eye color or height may not be entirely explained by genetics. How can you explain two blue-eyed parents having brown-eyed offspring? Or short parents having very tall children? Environment isn't just who, what, where. It is how. Environment begins from the moment of conception. And compounds.
Mozart, da Vinci, Einstein, Michael Jordan and others are often cited in support of exceptional genes due to exceptional talent. Does exceptional practice have no exceptional value?? "Mozart was bathed in music well before his birth, and his childhood was quite unlike any other. His early achievements -while very impressive, to be sure- actually make good sense considering his extraordinary upbringing. And his later undeniable genius turns out to be a wonderful advertisement for the power of process" writes David Shenk in The Genius in All of Us. Born into a family with an overeager musical composer and teacher as a father, Mozart was smothered with music prior to birth. After birth, he was immersed in his father's attempts at creating a musical genius of Mozart's older sister and eventually Mozart. Mozart showed technical musical skill equivalent to adults of the time from a very young age but it wasn't until his late twenties that he produced extraordinary original compositions. Isn't it more likely that Leopold the tiger dad and Wolfgang's incessant practice and exposure to music were the key factors in his success rather than a string of genes giving him musical talent? Mozart was a genius but unlike Gaga, I doubt he was just born that way.
The key to characterizing achievement as a unique talent or simply a powerful process lies in reproducibility; if you can generate levels of high merit from an initially mediocre situation you demonstrate achievement potential independent of innate ability. This is exactly what Anders Ericsson and a team of psychologists assessed; a random college student SF was selected for memory bootcamp. SF demonstrated an initial memory capacity of 7 digits, the average performance for a college student. After numerous weekly 3 hour training sessions, SF was able to recite 80 digits from short-term memory. When questioned about his ability, SF declared that he simply changed the way he formed new memories by associating them to older memories. It isn't what you practice, it's how. Regardless of the approach, high levels of performance are able to be developed and don't seem attributable to any unique innate giftedness. If through weeks of training high levels of performance can be achieved, why is it so unbelievable that Mozart was also a product of effort? It is easier to be lazy. We each owe it to ourselves to give it our best shot; by attributing greatness to some exceptional genetic quality we never actualize our highest potential.
As a scientist I don't underestimate the importance and contribution of genes in the development and functioning of our species I simply think every detail of our environment matters more than we acknowledge. As such complex creatures how can we oversimplify. However, this discussion like most philosophical ones is entirely fruitless; Psychologist Donald Hebb responded to the "question of 'Which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?' by asking in response, 'Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?' " All I can really say is --we should allow the possibility of infinite possibilities to empower us to be our absolute best rather than make excuses for accepting mediocrity.
Be careful what you wish for B....haven't you heard of Jekyll and Hyde?
xo xo
Cloning, though posing several ethical and technical issues, is an interesting case study for assessing the never-ending seesaw of nature and nurture. If you were to genetically replicate yourself, do you think you could really replicate you.
 |
| Rainbow (left) getting frisky with CC (right) |
Operation CopyCat in 2001 to create the first pet clone started from nuclei extracted from the ovarian cumulus cells of the feline Rainbow. Rainbow is a calico or tortoiseshell cat meaning she has one orange XB and one black Xb allele for hair coloration resulting in a mosaic coat of brown, black, orange, and white. The embryo with Rainbow's genome was implanted in a surrogate mother and at Texas A&M, CC (CopyCat or CarbonCopy) was born....with grey and white hair. As Rainbow's clone, CC has both an XB and Xb. Even accounting for X-inactivation it is odd CC doesn't have a speckle of orange hair. Scientists also observed differences in physique and personality: Rainbow is said to be "shy and chunky" while CC is described as "slender, playful, and curious." Post-natal genetic analysis confirmed the identical genotypes of Rainbow and CC. Wasn't the whole idea of the clone to get a Xerox copy? Conventional genetics no longer apply; since identical genotypes don't translate into similar phenotypes, there is something else to account for.
Genes are like a l p h a b e t s. Some letters are more critical and used frequently, others are replaceable in other combinations yielding similar or word-altering results. Some letters are pronounced differently depending on what letters are next to them. Some expressed in only very rare or peculiar circumstances. The way the letters are arranged, pronounced, emphasized (or kept silent) is dependent on the people, location, time and innumerable variables of context. The ultimate goal of this, like any language, is to convey an idea by arranging all the units in response to it's context.
Humor me with this crude example--
Take two groups of letters: 1) y z z x r v a x u 2) l i o a l c e s t
The only letter these two groups has in common is 'a' and from first glance it appears as if there aren't many feasible word options from 1 yet you can extract two words from these groups that have similar meanings: 1) vary and 2) oscillate.
Now take another set: i n s p e
With those same five letters you can spell two very different words-- penis or spine (...or even snipe or pines for that matter). Our letters may be limited but the sentences, paragraphs, and novels we write are limitless.
If I didn't make it clear with my terrible example, my point is simply that genes, against popular conviction, are not the be all and end all nor are they even the limiting reagent we attribute them to be. So why blame the genes? Is it just our consolation for our own laziness and shortcomings? An explanation for undecipherable phenomenons?
Or is it simply that we don't want to take responsibility? If we disregard genetics, it would mean that every minute decision we make-what we do, who we interact with, what we eat, how we think- especially in the early years of life could completely alter every morsel of our existence. That's a lot of pressure. Too many ramifications. Clearly the reality isn't so absolute and genes are obviously an important determining factor in differentiating me from Lebron James (only looks, not jumper) but even physical attributes like eye color or height may not be entirely explained by genetics. How can you explain two blue-eyed parents having brown-eyed offspring? Or short parents having very tall children? Environment isn't just who, what, where. It is how. Environment begins from the moment of conception. And compounds.
The key to characterizing achievement as a unique talent or simply a powerful process lies in reproducibility; if you can generate levels of high merit from an initially mediocre situation you demonstrate achievement potential independent of innate ability. This is exactly what Anders Ericsson and a team of psychologists assessed; a random college student SF was selected for memory bootcamp. SF demonstrated an initial memory capacity of 7 digits, the average performance for a college student. After numerous weekly 3 hour training sessions, SF was able to recite 80 digits from short-term memory. When questioned about his ability, SF declared that he simply changed the way he formed new memories by associating them to older memories. It isn't what you practice, it's how. Regardless of the approach, high levels of performance are able to be developed and don't seem attributable to any unique innate giftedness. If through weeks of training high levels of performance can be achieved, why is it so unbelievable that Mozart was also a product of effort? It is easier to be lazy. We each owe it to ourselves to give it our best shot; by attributing greatness to some exceptional genetic quality we never actualize our highest potential.
As a scientist I don't underestimate the importance and contribution of genes in the development and functioning of our species I simply think every detail of our environment matters more than we acknowledge. As such complex creatures how can we oversimplify. However, this discussion like most philosophical ones is entirely fruitless; Psychologist Donald Hebb responded to the "question of 'Which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?' by asking in response, 'Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?' " All I can really say is --we should allow the possibility of infinite possibilities to empower us to be our absolute best rather than make excuses for accepting mediocrity.
Be careful what you wish for B....haven't you heard of Jekyll and Hyde?
xo xo
