Are we our genes? A large part of the so-called “scientific community” continues to support this view, albeit using statistical tricks. DNA is our “book of life,” written with just 4 words (the bases): it’s not difficult for decoding professionals—that is, not only those involved in “mapping base sequences” but also those matching specific pieces of these sequences (genes/genotype) with traits and behaviors (phenotype)—to insist that this is how things stand. Even more importantly, and somewhat differently, this remains the prevailing social belief in contemporary societies: it’s our genes’ fault—for this or that.
The theorem of genetic determinism is much older than the “mapping” of a small portion of human DNA at the end of the 20th century. It is even much older than the “discovery” itself (partly erroneous, as has begun to be proven) of the double helix by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. It may be shocking, but it doesn’t even occur only in biology or genetics: certain ideas precede the (often fabricated) “scientific” discoveries which supposedly “prove” the former. The origin of genetic determinism can be traced to ideas about heredity from the 18th century. It was the (then) rising bourgeois class, politically and ideologically, that extended inheritance, from generation to generation, of material wealth, to bodies and minds: the son of a successful merchant or banker could only be, from birth, the successful successor, also a successful merchant or banker; equally intelligent, equally capable. To the extent that, thanks to the invention of the microscope, cellular division of the fertilized egg became observable towards the end of the 19th century, the “location” of this contractual act between parents and their descendants was found: in the primordial cells.
The economic significance of material inheritance was understandable for the emerging bourgeois class. Inherited material assets should be increased (through the addition/accumulation of new ones) and not destroyed. In a sense, they were sacred. They were also precisely measured and recorded; something that was clearly evident in dowries and prenuptial agreements (“genetic dowry”: another concept / proof of the origin of genetic determinism). The political significance of transferring strict, measurable, “sacred” inheritance from the field of material property to that of “human identity/quality” should not be underestimated. The bourgeois ideology had to break free from cobblestones. On one hand, from the belief in “blue-blooded” kings; where “blood” represented aristocratic endogamy that maintained the superiority of royal regimes. On the other hand, from the belief in divine predestination, in “fate” one way or another, which burdened one generation (of bourgeoisie) after another with uncertainty. The bourgeois class had to bring its “fate” down from heaven to earth, and specifically into its households. On the other hand, it had to prove that its own (collective and individual) body was sufficient for its perpetuation, and moreover superior to the (collective and individual) body of the aristocracy and royal houses. In other words, bourgeois reproduction/renewal had to have the strictness of a bodily contract. The announcement of the laws of heredity by monk Gregor Mendel in 1864 was the absolutely correct and absolutely necessary “discovery.” Finally, “the development and usage instructions” for each subsequent generation (of descendants) had the same (law-like) strictness as material inheritance. What every bourgeois family should henceforth take care of was the “proper matching” in their children’s marriages. The correct recipe for the union (: cooperation) of ova and spermatozoa…
It is understood that just as inheritable was (ought to have been) human quality/health on behalf of the civic order, so equally inheritable was (ought to have been) the “sickness” of the “lower classes.” Eugenics was not a mistake, an exaggeration of bourgeois ideology. It was the “natural” political consequence of the “laws of heredity” that it initially crafted for its own sake, and when it finally prevailed politically and ideologically, it extended to everyone.
If biologists (and later in the 20th century geneticists) appeared who would support that the evolution of every human organism is to a large extent random; that inherited characteristics are of little importance; that if the merchant’s child is raised by wolves, he will not become the “merchant of the jungle” but a little human-wolf, these scientists would destroy the contract of recognition of their scientific credibility. And, therefore, they would disappear from the foreground. As the techno/scientific eye and spirit progressed deeper and deeper into the cells, seeking the “secrets of life” (just as it progressed deeper and deeper into material objects seeking the “secrets of nature”…), it could not but discover what it was looking for: the processes of determination. The discovery – of – the – structure – of – DNA by Crick and Watson in the middle of the 20th century and the mapping – of – base – sequences at the end of it, two successive stages in this epic descent into the microscale of life, served what was necessary. Not just the discovery of the “secrets.” But, mainly, the confirmation that these are inherited.
Until the old temptation acquired the appropriate tools: they are not simply inherited but (if needed…) corrected. Or improved.
are we our genes?
It is simultaneously funny but also revealing. The certainty regarding linear correlation between gene (or group of genes) and behaviors or characteristics became a must long before it was “proven” – in the sense given to proofs by scientific ethics. Even worse: this correspondence has not been proven! And as the scientific research eye continues its descent into ever smaller sizes and scales, within cells, it becomes increasingly unlikely that it will ever be proven… This is the most recent biological, genetic “truth” on the subject; and yet, for reasons we will indicate below, the dominant ideology does not “sweat.”
In an interview with him, in September 2008, in the magazine Super Consciousness, Bruce Lipton, a biologist-geneticist, among other things a researcher in Stanford’s medical school, said among other things:
Question: The century-old model of genetic determinism is slowly but steadily being replaced by the new model of epigenetics. What is epigenetics, and what is the difference between it and genetic determinism.
Bruce Lipton: When DNA was discovered as the hereditary material, in the middle of the 20th century, the prevailing belief was that our genes are blueprints and that these blueprints self-regulate and ultimately determine the structure and function of every human being. This is [in short] the model of genetic determinism, or “control through genes,” and indeed for 100 years the prevailing belief has been that life is genetically controlled.Question: Why is the distinction between epigenetic and genetic determinism important?
Bruce Lipton: Their difference is significant. The fundamental belief called genetic determinism essentially means that our lives, including our physical, psychological and emotional characteristics, are controlled by our genetic code. This view creates the idea of victimization of people: since our genes control the functions of our lives, then our lives are determined by things beyond our ability to change them. This leads to the victimization that diseases that appear within families have been caused by the transmission of certain genes. Laboratory research data shows that this is not true.
When we believe that we are victims of this kind, we automatically believe that we need someone to save us. We accept, that is, that someone else will save us from ourselves. This is a bad situation, which serves the medical community.
While, therefore, the view of genetic determinism has been revised in recent years, the bad thing is that these revisions are only recognized among researchers; the new views are not made known to the wider public. The media continue to assert that “a gene is responsible for this,” “a gene is responsible for that.”Question: You say, therefore, that when journalists refer to publications by cellular biologists and geneticists, from top scientific journals such as Nature and Science, they continue to interpret them through the prism of genetic determinism, reinforcing the mistaken idea that scientists will save us from our genes.
Bruce Lipton: In reality, “we read the secret of this gene” is more unreliable than the “we read the stars” of the old developed astrological systems.Question: What does it mean, then, that gene expression is not static?
Bruce Lipton: Epigenetic control supports that environmental information changes the action of genes, without changing the DNA code. This remains the same, but its expression1 changes. Each individual gene, due to epigenetic regulation, can produce 30,000 different variations of its expression.
The scientists who undertook the work of the “Human Genome Project” thought they would find 150,000 genes, because their research model was based on the assumption of genetic determinism, according to which each gene controls one human characteristic. Since proteins are what shape our physical and behavioral traits and we know of at least 150,000 such proteins, what they expected was to find 150,000 genes: one for each protein, according to their model.
Eventually, however, they found only 23,000 genes. From that point on, we realized that each gene can produce many protein variations. So, in order to understand the vast variations of genetic expression, one must consider the full range of possibilities and potential outcomes.
…
For example, once the basic human form is formed, even during the embryonic stage, its development follows information from the environment. Obviously, the egg and sperm are the foundation. But they do not determine whether a baby will be born in Bosnia, Zimbabwe, or Iowa. Each of these different environments requires a different physiology for survival. When survival is threatened, the body’s physiology changes to deal with the threat. Environmental influences are crucial in shaping the expression of genes that have already “worked” to create the human body.Question: So, how do we trigger the expression of our own genes, not as their victims but as masters of our fate?
Bruce Lipton: The brain is the key factor. It reads signals from the environment, interprets them, and then shapes the body’s chemistry, which controls genetic expression in cells. The mind’s interpretation is crucial… because it is based on knowledge gained through experience. For example, if as children we learned that X is dangerous, then every time X appears in our environment, the mental interpretation will cause the brain to release specific neurochemicals that control cellular behavior and gene activity, thus producing a protective response.Question: What you are saying sounds circular: our environment affects the activity of our genes, which in turn affects the production of proteins in our body, which in turn affects our health and quality of life, which in turn affects our environment. I think that sometimes we get trapped in such circular processes that ultimately control our lives. How can understanding how our body works and that we can influence genetic behavior affect us?
http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/interview-dr-bruce-lipton
Bruce Lipton: First of all, the new knowledge about how perception controls biology means that we are active participants in controlling our health and behavior. Our ability to actively control our senses, understanding, and environment obviously impacts our lives, as opposed to the old belief system that we are victims of forces beyond our control. Moreover, as we live here and now, the active cultivation of consciousness is the way to create the life we want.
…
We should retain from Lipton’s statements his admission: genetic predetermination is increasingly becoming techno-scientific heterodetermination in our lives; since “the experts—and only they—know” and “the experts—and only they—can intervene.”
Otherwise, the discovery of epigenetic factors (which are not secondary but determinative) does not mean that the technoscientists of this “paradigm shift” in genetics have found out what these factors are. So far, they (claim to) know two or three ways of external (with respect to DNA) influence on gene expression. One is called methylation. The other is the action of non-coding RNA (ncRNA).
However, this very theory throws genetic determinism and the historical certainties of heredity into Tartarus. A “specialist” in a different field, Pierre Magistretti, a neurobiologist and professor at the University of Lausanne who also served as president of the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENS), notes in the book Traces of Experience (our emphasis):
… The concept of plasticity calls into question the old distinction between organic and psychic causation of mental disorders. The existence of plasticity overturns the assumptions of the equation, to a point where we can even conceive of a psychic causality capable of shaping the organic: the same could be observed regarding the issue of epigenesis, at a time when the Human Genome Project is producing knowledge that increasingly limits genetic determinism.
Franscois Ansermet, Pierre Magistretti, The traces of experience, University of Crete Press 2015, 2016.
Indeed, the expression level of a particular gene can be determined by the specific characteristics of experience, demonstrating the importance of epigenetic factors in fulfilling the genetic program. Moreover, within the gene’s operational system, there are mechanisms intended to leave room for experience—mechanisms that play their role in fulfilling the genetic program; ultimately, the individual appears to be genetically predisposed so as not to be genetically predetermined!
…
With a different occasion we have noted that genetic determinism was (and remains!) a very good idea for commercial and ideological use; however, it was dangerous from an institutional point of view. Certainly for a long (unknown how long) period of time. Western civilization has been formed with great intensity around the idea of freedom; even if in practice freedom (freedoms) is manageable and susceptible to changes in definitions. The freedom of will is fundamental not only for ideas but also for institutions. The market economy is based on the freedom of will… The law is also based on the freedom of will. Only because someone could NOT commit that or the other injustice (based on their moral choice) does it make sense for them to be punished, to repent, to be re-educated (in prison) so as to be “reintegrated” into society. The freedom of will supports responsibility: if someone is genetically predetermined to be violent (for example), how can any responsibility be attributed to them for it, and what is the point of punishment and rehabilitation?
It is clear to us that modern versions of genetic determinism, equipped with abundant DNA and genes, were too simplistic to prevail absolutely. Therefore, while the matter was launched commercially and ideologically, the more prudent techno-scientists adopted a statistical dualism, based on probabilities: yes, there is genetic predisposition for this or that, but the (social) environment also plays a role. This moderate approach, which one can easily encounter today, simply aims to preserve genetic pretexts. It does not mean that the (whatever) environment affects and determines genetic function. But that it can prevent the manifestation of one or another behavior; even though the X or Y gene has performed its normal (and expected) function. As if we say: the “anger genes” do produce anger, but the “good manners” of the environment do not allow its expression; or they moderate it.
The epigenetic approach does not say this. It says that what are considered linear functions of genes are, simply, a phantom. An (ideological) construction. If each gene has 10, 100 or 1000 alternatives, among which is the possibility that its function may be completely suppressed (another recent finding by technoscientists that causes chills in their certainties), then nothing can be attributed to it with certainty.
As if the discovery of this unknown (and chaotic) continent, of epigenesis, was not enough, there came an entirely new and unexpected one, to perhaps deliver the graceful blow to genetic predetermination; certainly among specialists. According to a very recent publication in the journal Nature Genetics, the way in which DNA is “packaged” inside the cell affects its function!
What happened? Firstly, something technological: the ability to observe DNA in three dimensions—and not as a two-dimensional line. Thus, as the “thread of life” is folded and refolded many times (and not laid out lengthwise), base sequences (and therefore genes) that are distant from each other from a linear perspective are actually situated side by side topologically. The researchers (from the medical school of Case Western Reserve University) discovered that topologically neighboring sequences (the corresponding genes) influence each other’s activity. Consequently, genes that have traditionally been associated (through conventional genetic determinism) with various illnesses (such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and at least six other autoimmune disorders) are expressed differently, influenced (in an as yet unknown manner) by their “neighbors.”
This particular study did not reach a definitive conclusion as to whether these “neighbors” play a role regardless of who they are, or whether there are specific “neighborhood relationships” that have certain outcomes. However, it is significant: beyond what is called in epigenetics the natural and/or social environment that acts through the conception and consciousness of genetic “predispositions,” there is yet another factor, this time an external one, that influences gene expression. And this is the (random?) “paternal” and “maternal” contribution of DNA…
the ideology
While these things are happening in laboratories and in techno-scientific publications, the absolutely dominant ideology for social use remains unshaken. It is easy to identify its supports; and we should say a couple of words about them.
From the side of the health trade, the matter is obvious. One cannot sell uncertainty (even if such is the cutting-edge techno-scientific situation!) while the division of labor and its social role organize the opposite: the certainty of the specialist. If health specialists admit they are ignorant, then serious rifts will be provoked throughout the entire social construction.
Even more so if, beyond the authority of geneticists, there are also business profits. Companies that sell “knowledge and predictions through the analysis of your dna” make good money. What would they do if it were learned that they are fooling around?
More interesting, however, are the socio-ideological foundations of genetic (or any similar) determinism; why did populations come to believe that “the truth of life” lies in DNA and its decoding, overlooking the fact (which was obviously not particularly highlighted) that at the time of the celebratory announcement of the infamous “mapping,” in the late ’90s, only 3% (!!!) of human DNA had been studied, and the remaining 97% was considered “junk”? Why do they believe in the existence of a “Source of Causes” which not only they cannot access, but, even worse, enslaves them?
It seems that the greater part of primordial populations finds exhausting what is called life, if by that word we mean smaller or larger confrontations, attractions and repulsions, continuously, with a large number of indefinite factors. “Natural” and/or social. The armor of the Self (therefore life under conditions) also includes the rejection of much of this natural and/or social uncertainty. It is as if our species, despite its “evolution” and its “development” (technological certainly), prefers, by majority, its own cave. Only that since this does not exist in the natural sense, it is constructed psychodiagnostically. As a “cocoon”.
Rejecting life’s uncertainty means assigning (to others) the production of certainties. Genetic determinism was one such certainty-for-the-experts, arriving at the right time for proto-cosmic societies: when their basic concern was making money and consuming. The breastplate was an armor; but it remained “chrysalis.” This particular “Source of Causes,” which was called neither God, nor Fate, nor Chance, but dna / gene, was convenient. Because it pleased the eye in a perspective each could imagine for tomorrow: that these microscopic causes could be changed, like spare parts, either by curing or improving. But even if this proved distant, surely these microscopic causes would serve as excuse: as in the fable of the frog and the scorpion, I’m sorry for stepping on your throat, but “it’s in my nature.”
We could argue that genetic determinism was (and continues to be) the “physiocratic” theory/ideology corresponding to postmodern capitalism in the 21st century—to suppress and confine what emerged rebelliously, liberatingly, for a brief historical moment back in the ’70s: everything is social / everything is political. No—says the convenient answer. Everything is genetic! There exists a ultimate “natural unit,” the gene, which acts on its own; which is hereditarily transmitted; which is technically manageable… And that’s all there is to it!
That is why both epigenetics and gene topology remain far from the production and reproduction of the dominant ideology. And they may remain there for a long time. Unless a way is found to exploit them. Either commercially or disciplinarily. Then perhaps it will be learned that in order to ideally express our precious genes, we need the X environment and their Y “three-dimensional arrangement”…
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #07 – 10/2016
- “Expression” of a gene is the (bio)chemical reaction, at the cellular scale, which is assumed to correspond to it; which results in the production of some protein. ↩︎