"In rats."
"The gene for alcoholism?"
"Didn't hold up."
"What about the diabetes gene?"
"So far," he said, "we've identified ninety-six genes involved in diabetes. We'll undoubtedly find more."
There was a stunned silence. Finally, one aide said, "If no gene has been shown to cause behavior, what is all the fuss about?"
Professor Garfield shrugged. "Call it an urban legend. Call it a media myth. Blame public education in science. Because the public certainly believes that genes cause behavior. It seems to make sense. In reality, even hair color and height are not simple traits fixed by genes. And conditions like alcoholism certainly aren't."
"Wait a minute. Height isn't genetic?"
"For individuals, yes. If you're taller than your friend, it's probably because your parents are taller. But for populations, height is a function of environment. In the last fifty years, Europeans have grown an inch every decade. So have the Japanese. That's too fast for a genetic change. It's entirely an effect of environment - better prenatal care, nutrition, health care, and so on. Americans, by the way, haven't grown at all in this period. They've shrunk slightly, possibly because of poor prenatal care and junk food diets. The point is that the actual relationship of genes and environment is very complicated. Scientists don't yet have a good understanding of how genes work. In fact, there's no general agreement about what a geneis. "
"Say that again?"
"Among scientists," Garfield said, "there is no single agreed-upon definition of what a gene is. There are four or five different definitions."
"I thought a gene was a section of the genome," someone said. "A sequence of base pairs, ATGC, that codes for a protein."
"That's one definition," Garfield said. "But it's inadequate. Because a single ATGC sequence can code for multiple proteins. Some sections of code are basically switches that turn other sections on and off. Some sections lie silent unless activated by specific environmental stimuli. Some sections are active only during a period of development, and never again. Others turn on and off constantly throughout an individual's life. As I said, it's complicated."
A hand went up. An aide for Senator Mooney, who received substantial contributions from drug companies, had a question. "Professor, I gather yours is a minority opinion. Most scientists wouldn't agree with your view of the gene."
"Actually, most scientists do agree," Garfield said. "And with good reason."
When the human genomewas decoded, scientists were startled to find that it contained only about thirty-five thousand genes. They had expected far more. After all, a lowly earthworm had twenty thousand genes. That meant that the difference between a human being and a worm might be only fifteen thousand genes. How, then, could you explain the huge difference in complexity between the two?
That problem vanished as scientists began to study the interactions among genes. For example, one gene might make a protein, and another gene could make an enzyme that snipped out part of the protein and thus changed it. Some genes contained multiple coding sequences separated by regions of meaningless code. That gene could use any of its multiple sequences to make a protein. Some genes were activated only if several other genes were activated first, or when a number of environmental changes occurred. This meant that genes were far more responsive to the environment, both inside and outside the human being, than anyone had anticipated. And the fact of multiple gene interactions meant there were billions of possible outcomes.
"It's not surprising," Garfield said, "that researchers are moving toward what we call 'epigenetic studies,' which look at exactly how genes interact with the environment to produce the individual we see. This is an extremely active area." He started to explain the intricacies.
One by one, the congressional aides finished eating and left. Only a handful remained, and they were checking messages on their cell phones.
Neanderthals Were the First Blondes
Stronger, Bigger-Brained, Smarter Than Us
Genetic mutations for hair color indicate that the first blondes were Neanderthals, not Homo sapiens. The blonde gene emerged sometime in the Würm glaciation, perhaps in response to the relative lack of sunlight in the ice age. The gene spread among Neanderthals, who were mostly blonde, researchers say.
"Neanderthals had brains one-fifth larger than ours. They were taller than we were, and stronger. They were undoubtedly smarter, too," says Marco Svabo, of the Helsinki Genetics Institute. "In fact, there is little doubt that modern man is a domesticated version of the Neanderthal, as the modern dog is a domesticated version of the stronger and more intelligent wolf. Modern man is a degraded, inferior creature. Neanderthals were intellectually superior, and better looking. With blonde hair, high cheekbones, and strong features, they would have appeared as a race of supermodels.
"Homo sapiens - skinnier and uglier than Neanderthals - would naturally have been attracted to the beauty, strength, and intelligence of blondes. Apparently a few Neanderthal women took pity on the puny Cro-Magnons and bred with them. It's a good thing for us. We are lucky that we carry blonde Neanderthal genes to prevent our species from becoming hopelessly stupid. Although, we demonstrate plenty of stupidity anyway." He said that pretending blondes were stupid was "a dark-haired prejudice designed to deflect attention from the real problem of the world, which is dark-haired shortcomings." He added, "Make a list of the stupidest people in history. You will find they are all dark-haired."