DEPRESSION, DYSLEXIA, violence, obesity, homosexuality: these are among the human attributes for which a “gene” has been “found” in the last two years alone. Notice two things about the list: first, they are mostly (not all) unhappy afflictions; and second, they are all without exception minority characteristics (meaning relatively few people have them).
Human genetics need not be this way. The really interesting genes are the majority genes, that ones we all share, the ones that make us human. Those listed above are just the mutant versions of universal genes. My dream is that by the millenium human genetics will no longer look just for strange versions of genes, but for the normal and happy genes themselves.
Many universal genes are also shared by chimpanzees and some by other animals: the gene for hemoglobin, for instance, is similar in us and in worms. The most fascinating genes are those to all people and unique to us. And of these one in particular catches my imagination: the neoteny gene.
Nobody has found the neoteny gene, so it may not even exist. But I bet that it does, and that it is one of the most important ingredients in the recipe for making a human being. The gene distorts the development of the animal so that it retains the characteristics of a baby even when mature. We look and behave more like baby chimpanzees that we do like adult chimpanzees. We are hairless, big-brained, small-jawed, playful and willing to learn. We are neotenized apes.
Of course, we are more than that, too: we are also upright, large-molared, vocal-chorded conscience-stricken apes–all no doubt influenced by other uniquely human genes. But it is the neoteny gene that is probably the simplest and most momentous, and may be one of the easiest to fine. It is a development gene, which means it will probably have a homeo-box–a kind of easy-to-read license tag–on the front.
Moreover, I suspect that the neoteny gene spread throughout our species by the strange and newly understood form of evolution called sexual selection. The gene carries little survival advantage, but instead it improves sexual attraction. Even since we abandoned the pure promiscuity of chimpanzeelike societies, and took the forming families instead, we placed a premium on youth in our sexual partners–younger partners live longer and so rear more young. Neoteny genes were helpful because they effectively lie about age. By making us look more like babies, they make us more attractive to the other sex, so they enable us to have more babies, so they spread.
Of course, I could be wrong.
GENETICS IS, obviously, all about inheritance. Its greatest and most forgotten truth, however, is that inheritance is not all about genetics. Prince William, future king of England, will wear the crown (well, perhaps) because he receives it from his father. His ears will stick out for roughly the same reason. Ears, though, are coded in the genes in a way that crowns are not. That is why, although some Americans may carry the Royal Ears from a Hanoverian ancestor, all are safe from having to use them to support any regalia.
“The Bell Curve”–the best seller by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein–shows the confusion that arises when inheritance and genetics are assumed to be the same. Stripped of qualifications, the book’s argument is simple and enticing. Poor people (particularly poor black people) score lower on IQ tests than do rich; IQ scores run in families; class and race differences in IQ must therefore be due to genes.
But why restrict the debate to intelligence? The Bell Curve Fallacy can be used to explain other things–politics, for example. Suppose we measure conservatism with an RQ score–a Republican Quotient. Indisputably, conservatism runs in families; so it must be strongly heritable, on some measures as much as is IQ. Rich people score higher than do poor and blacks overwhelmingly lower than whites. The huge sums spent by right-wing propagandists to improve black RO have apparently been wasted.
This logic makes politics perfectly clear: conservatism must be coded in the genes. Modern technology means that we should soon find the Conservative Gene itself.
What will it look like? Many genes are full of dull and repetitive DNA sequences that reiterate the same empty message. some of the most unprogressive organisms–the newt, for example–are packed with such DNA. Will CG-1 be like this? Once found, it can be cloned and inserted into other creatures. Human-growth-hormone genes have already been introduced into pigs, making them grow fatter than before. CG-1 could be equal assistance to those who habitually, stuff their snouts into troughs.
All this is non-sense, of course. Political differences are due to learning and culture rather than DNA. The same is largely true of intelligence. If genes were all that mattered, the rich would not send they children to private schools. You can improve IQ far more easily by spending money on education than by tinkering with genes. Unfortunately, this argument is simple and makes sense–and no book with such a message will be a best seller.
