Student number: 10034286
Module Number: G105431
Module Title: Child Development
Module Leader: Caroline McLachlan
“It is now generally accepted that
development occurs through an interaction
of biological factors (genetic
programming) and social factors (the
quality of the environment)”
With reference to reading, research and
professional experience, critically explore
this position.
Page 1 of 20
Student number: 10034286
Professors are inclined to attribute the intelligence of their children to nature,
and the intelligence of their students to nurture. Roger Masters (Ridley, 2003)
Historically, there have been arguments as to how the individual develops
dating back to the fourth century B.C. and Plato, who stated that “we came into the
world equipped with innate knowledge”, whereas Aristotle argued that “we had to
learn all that we are”. (Anon, 2003) In the 17 th Century John Locke saw babies as
“tabla rasa”, blank sheets on which experience would write, (Pinker, 2006, p.2) but it
was Darwin’s evolutionary theories that stoked the fire of debate on human nature
with earliest claims by nativists like Gesell “that the course of our development was
largely dictated by genetic factors”. (Keenan, 2002, p.10) In the late 1920s social
factors dominated thinking so that John Watson could argue that given twelve
healthy children he could randomly choose one and train them to become “any type
of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief”. (Keenan, 2002,
p.11) Colt asks whether humans are merely “squirming lumps of figurative putty” in
the hands of parents and the environment or whether they are so programmed by
their genes that their parenting, or the environments they are exposed to, scarcely
matters. (Colt, 1998) Pinker states “I don’t think anyone who’s had more than one
child believes that children are indistinguishable lumps of putty waiting to be shaped.”
(Rakoff, 2002) and Thomas Keenan seems sure that extreme views have passed:
Today, most developmental psychologists recognize that nature and
nurture both play an important role in development. Rather than
discussing nature versus nurture, we commonly talk about the interaction
between nature and nurture. (Keenan, 2002, p.11)
De Waal in his article “The end of nature versus nurture” asks, “Is human
behaviour determined by genetics or by environment? It may be time to abandon the
dichotomy” (1999), but later admits that “we remain as far removed as ever from a
sophisticated understanding of the interplay between genes and environment“. He
believes that the pendulum has swung from nature to nurture back to nature again,
and indeed an article published in “Life” in 1998 stated categorically that, “a wealth of
new research has tipped the scales overwhelmingly towards nature” (Colt, 1998) This
opinion seems overconfident when other psychologists and researchers have put
forward many differing views on the role of genes and the environment.
Page 2 of 20
Student number: 10034286
In 2001 Craig Venter was the source for a story in the Observer newspaper with
the headline, “Environment, not genes, key to our acts” (Ridley, 2003, p.1). Venter
owned a company that was mapping the Human Genome and was astonished to
discover there are only 30,000 genes not the 100,000 predicted saying “there are not
enough genes for biological determinism to be right. The wonderful diversity of the
human species is not hard wired in our genetic code. Our environments are critical.”
(Ridley, 2003, p.1).This was an ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction to the findings of the
Human Genome Project rather than based on any research. Ridley took a more
measured view of the whole subject of genes and the environment stating, “It no
longer makes any sense to talk of ‘nature versus nurture’ or ‘genes versus the
environment’. When it comes to human development, the two are inextricably
intertwined.” (Ridley, 2004, p.38).
In considering what factors influence development consideration should be given
to its definition. Aldgate uses Mussen’s definition - the “relatively enduring changes
over time in physical and neurological structures, thought processes and behaviour”.
(Aldgate et al, 2006, p.17-20) Aldgate views the environment as important, stating
that “there are interactions between children and the context in which they grow up
which will influence their development” (Aldgate et al, 2006, p.20) and believes any
definition has to involve progression and increasing complexity, but it is this very
complexity that has led to the simplification of development into a few important
categories: social, physical, intellectual, communication and emotional. (NCMA,
2006) One way to consider development is as the epigenesis from genotype to
phenotype, and this would “includes all the forces that lead to the phenotypic
expression of an individual’s genotype”. (Gottesman and Hanson, 2005, p.266-267)
The scope of this essay does not allow for a detailed investigation of each area of
development and examples have been chosen to highlight current thinking as to the
influence of genetic programming compared to social factors in development.
Individuals inherit 50% of their genes from each parent and some behaviour is
accepted as innate because it is universal, found at the same stage of development
across many cultures. The majority of normal babies roll over, sit up, start walking
and acquire language at roughly the same stage of their development. However,
even at this basic function level Keenan points out that the social environment of the
Page 3 of 20
Student number: 10034286
child has an influence. He points out that West Indian babies walk earlier than those
in the USA as a result of their mothers using a cultural based routine that encourages
early walking. (Keenan. 2002, p.75) and it is also known that babies in some South
American tribes walk later because parents “discourage early motor activity”. (Byers,
2003, p.587) Despite such anomalies there are still a few biologists
who see the child …like a robot, programmed at conception, fine-tuned
during pregnancy and launched into the world as a sophisticated genetic
machine without a mind of its own” (Anon., post 1999, p.253)
but those who hold such views would probably agree that who an individual becomes
is not totally influenced by their genetic programming.
Many illnesses or conditions have their root in genetic abnormalities, such as
autism which was recently discovered to be the result of tiny anomalies in the genes
of children, and has a moderately high heritability - “a child whose sibling has ASD
has an estimated one in twenty chance of developing the condition”. (Rose, 2007,
p.11) However, a caution was added by Paul Meehl whose work investigated
schizophrenia, and who warned that just because it is known that someone’s genetic
makeup contains the sequencing for something like autism or mental illness, does
not mean that in every circumstance they go on to develop that illness or that if it
does develop it will do so in the same way in each person. (Gottesman and Hanson,
2005, p.269) A colleague’s wife had a family history of mental illness, although she
herself did not suffer from it. Her eldest led a normal life, married and had children,
whereas the second child developed depression in her mid-twenties and killed
herself aged 29. Their family environment was the same, the children’s up-bringing
similar, apart from position in the family and gender. The oldest, a boy, went to
university and became independent whereas the girl stayed at home and took an
office job. It seems that the propensity was there and the environment may have
fostered it, in other words there may be more at work than just a faulty gene.
Jay Joseph vehemently opposes the idea that psychiatric illnesses and other
conditions, such as autism or ADHD, are the result of genetic programming. He
points out that in the late 90’s it was possible to find research that supported the fact
that ADHD was a genetic condition, or was caused by the environment or was the
result of the interaction between the two. (Joseph, 2000, p.540) He argues that twin
studies are flawed because it is impossible to estimate the influence of genes
Page 4 of 20
Student number: 10034286
compared to that of the environment and believes basing results on an assumption of
an “equal environment” in the case of identical twins is untenable as no environment
can be equal.
Genetic transmission then is at the centre of the nature nurture debate. Some
traits - eye colour, height, hair colour - are causally related to a particular gene, but in
complex behaviours many genes may be involved. (Keenan, 2002, p.86) It is difficult
to assess the influence of the environment compared to genes in the production of a
particular behavioural trait and this is what the field of behaviour genetics attempts to
do. It considers heritability, that is, genes received from biological parents that result
in genetic programming, which is the starting point of our physical appearance, and
possibly of our intelligence, temperament and personality – “behaviour genetic
research has established reasonable evidence that many aspects of our
temperament have a genetic basis”.(Keenan, 2003, p.193) Gerhadt points out that
“what appears to be innate temperament may already have been influenced by the
pre-natal environment” (Gerhadt, 2006, p. 171) and Bouchard in looking at twin
studies found there was an estimate “of genetic influence of just over 40 percent” but
that “estimates of shared environmental influence” were just 7 percent. (Ceci and
Williams 1999 p.100) D. Davies asks,
If I can inherit brown eyes from my father, why can’t I inherit say his
impatience? But the logical implication – that there might be a gene ‘for’
impatience – seems absurd. It’s likely to be a subtle interplay between
biology and environment. (Davies, 2000, p.328)
Gottesman and Hanson warn that it is simplistic to “suggest the phenotype is the sum
of environmental and genetic effects”, and that the individual is more than just “two
parts genes to three parts environment plus a pinch of luck”. (Gottesman and
Hanson, 2005, p.266)
Much of the support for the dominant influence of genetic programming comes
from the study of heredity commonly based on research working with identical and
fraternal twins. The assumption is that twins will have been influenced by the same
social factors. Monozygotic (MZ) twins have the same genetic programming, whereas
Dizygotic (DZ) twins share only 50% of their genetic material. “Correlations between
these pairs enable investigators to estimate the contribution of genetics” (Ceci and
Page 5 of 20
Student number: 10034286
Williams, 1999, p.183) rather than that of the environment. Intelligence has been a
major focus for such studies. Ridley tells us:
It cannot be right to say that… intelligence is caused by… genes: … you
cannot become intelligent without food, parental care, teaching or books.
Yet in a sample of people who have all these advantages, the variation
between who does well in exams and who does not could indeed be
down to genes. (Ridley, 2004, p.77)
Ridley believes the comprehensive education system means all have the same
education and yet some succeed whereas others do not and this brings the role of
heredity into sharp relief. The writer’s sibling achieved a few CSE’s and never had a
career, whereas the writer is a post graduate student having had a teaching career.
They shared the same parents, were brought up with the same values and had equal
access to the same education. It is possible that the father may have been academic
but had no educational opportunities or perhaps some unknown in the environment
acted as a catalyst on the cognitive development of one child. Sometimes there is no
obvious answer and it may be some random mutation of the genetic programming
gave intelligence where none should have been inherited. Gray and Thompson state
categorically that “variations in intelligence and brain structure are heritable, but are
also influenced by factors such as education, family environment and environmental
hazards.” (Gray and Thompson, 2004, p.471)
There are conflicts of interpretation of research such that Gould states
unequivocally that “there is no reliable evidence for intelligence as a unitary rankable,
genetically based, and minimally alterable thing in our head” (Gray and Thompson,
2004, p.471) but this flies in the face of research carried out by Thomas Bouchard
and his team in the 1990’s Minnesota study. He gave cognitive ability, intelligence
tests to both MZ and DZ twins raised apart and found a high correlation of 0.69
amongst MZ twins, similar to findings of MZ twins raised together. Deary in reviewing
Bouchard’s work concludes:
The ‘apart’ twins share only genes. The ‘together’ twins share genes and
common (family) environment. What can we conclude, then, if we find
that the ‘apart’ and ‘together’ twins are just about as alike on intelligence?
The conclusion is that the … common environment has a negligible
effect. Both types of twin pair share only the fact that they have identical
genes, so the genes seem to be important.. (Deary, 2001, p.73 -74)
Deary says this leaves us with the unpalatable conclusion that family upbringing has
very little affect on intelligence level, a sweeping generalisation, though he does
Page 6 of 20
Student number: 10034286
qualify this statement by noting that twins have the same prenatal experiences, that
adoption families would probably have been similar to the original families and that
some twins raised apart may have spent some of their early years together.
Bouchard believed that “being placed in the same environments made only a tiny
contribution to the intellectual similarity of the identical twins reared apart,” (Deary,
2001, p.77) and J. Healy admitting that “the natural pace of responding and the
speed of carrying out activities – seems to be genetically determined,” believes this
would affect how a child responds to education. Furthermore, research by Loehlin on
intelligence of adopted children, their birth mothers, their adopted mothers and the
non-related siblings in the adopted family, found that the adopted child’s intelligence
correlated closely with the birth mother but that there was little correlation between
the adopted child and the adoptive mother and siblings. (Deary, 2001 p.83-84) One
family, known to the writer, adopted two boys from different families. The adopting
parents, a GP and a lecturer, gave both boys every possible educational advantage
but although the oldest has done well his unrelated sibling failed to get the necessary
grades for university at A-level. There is then overwhelming evidence that genetic
programming plays a major role in the development of intelligence.
Counter arguments against the genetic view were proposed by the American
Psychological Association responding to Hermstein and Murray’s book, “The Bell
Curve” published in 1994. One of the book’s “theoretical linchpins is the high
heritability of IQ” (Lemann, 1997) and Hermstein and Murray indicated that not only
was intelligence genetic but that there were racial differences in intelligence between
blacks and whites that could not be changed by improving the social environment.
Neisser and others response was that “there is not much evidence on this point, but
what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis” (Neisser et al, 1995, p.24)
They point out that “intelligence is the joint production of genetic and environmental
variables. Gene action involves a (biochemical or social) environment; environments
always act via structures to which genes have contributed”. (Neisser, 1995, p.25) It
seems logical that social factors have an important part to play in the development of
intelligence, whether this is the early intervention programmes or formal schooling, as
average IQ’s are increasing from year to year and this can only be as a result of
improved living conditions, better information on nutrition etc. (Neisser, 1995, p.25)
There seems to be some disagreement then as to the degree of interaction between
Page 7 of 20
Student number: 10034286
biological and social factors as far as intelligence is concerned but Meadows
suggests, “it should be unnecessary to point out that even if a trait is strongly
heritable [such as intelligence], there can still be environmental influences on how the
genetic programming proceeds” and concludes that “strictly, both direct and indirect
genetic affects depend on both genes and environment working together in complex
ways” and doubts there is “much to be gained by using simplified models of ‘how
much’ can be attributed to one or the other”. (Meadows, 2006 p.240) Slee and Shute
in considering brain structure argue that young children have “far more synaptic
connections in the cerebral cortex than in adulthood” and state
experience determines which of these are retained and which lost;
furthermore it is difficult to explain the great complexity of
interconnections in the human brain as being determined purely by a
limited number of genes (Slee and Shute, 2003 p.39)
In the 1950’s Chomsky challenged the prevailing view that language was
acquired based on a child’s social environment, believing that every child was born
with an innate language acquisition device that helped him/her quickly acquire
language and the rules of grammar. He based this on research that showed all
children acquired language in a similar way, babbling initially based on the language
heard,
acquiring
individual
words,
pairing
them
up
with
a
pronoun,
overgeneralisation, and eventually extending sentences. Bruner concluded that
Chomsky’s ideas were “plainly insufficient in the light of....research” (Deutsch, 1987,
p.19) and now it is more generally accepted that “all children…have an innate
predisposition to develop nonverbal and verbal communication skills” (Buckley 2003
preface) It seems that communication skills are generally considered to be the result
of the interaction between biological factors and the social factors. So DohertySneddon can write
Babies are born into a social world. They come well equipped with innate
foundations of social and communication skills. These allow them to
begin discovering how to communicate with other people right from birth.
Social experiences also teach children culture-specific rules about nonverbal behaviours that are operationalised in the display rules they will
later adopt. (Doherty-Sneddon, 2003, p.212)
Buckley too acknowledges that even though there is this innate predisposition it is
“the socio-cultural and linguistic environment that plays a significant part in
determining how children use these skills” (Buckley, 2003 p.1) Babies are born with a
preference for their mother’s voice – they will have been hearing it in the womb for 5
Page 8 of 20
Student number: 10034286
months - and much early non-verbal communication will be in response to social
stimuli of adults around.
Research by F.M. Spinath et al with twins found modest genetic influence for
language acquisition but noted that although they “focused on the interpretation of
the genetic results of [the] study, the greatest effect on language disability and ability
in early childhood is shared environmental influence”. (Spinath et al, 2004, p.452)
Keenan writes of the “interactionist views” that “reconcile biology and the
environment” and are “concerned with the interplay between environmental and
biological factors in the process of acquiring language”. (Keenan, 2002, p.151) He
would acknowledge a predisposition to acquire language but stresses the
“importance of the social support of parents and the social context” (Keenan, 2002,
p.152) So it is that adults will expand on children’s sentences (recast) and correct
mistakes that children may make, and this will give feedback to children who will
“gain valuable experience with more complex forms of speech”. (Keenan 2002,
p.152) One little boy in playgroup had poor language skills but with the help of
speech therapy, extra input by playgroup staff and parents willing to work with the
child he overcame his problems and is now an articulate young man. There has been
criticism of the view that language and communication are the result of the interaction
of biological and social factors. Some would still hold to the Chomskian view of
language acquisition. deVilliers and deVilliers work, reviewed by Keenan, criticised
the idea that parents would help children acquire more complex speech as they
found that parents did not commonly give feedback to children on whether their
grammar was appropriate. (Keenan, 2002, p.152 -153) It was also found that in some
cultures there was little interaction between children and adults, yet children still
acquired language at “similar rates to children in cultures” where there was greater
interaction. (Keenan, 2002, p.152 -153)
Having reviewed the development of intelligence and communication the
involvement of genetic programming is not in doubt but the definition and role of
social factors should be considered. Rutter says “ask first whether or not there is
robust evidence that environments truly do have effects” and points out that
behavioural geneticists and even protagonists of that viewpoint
have scoffed at the notion that rearing environments make much of a
difference other than when the environments are obviously extreme and
manifestly damaging. (Rutter, 2006, p.93)
Page 9 of 20
Student number: 10034286
Byers believes that
When people think of a child’s nature, they typically focus on the
biological characteristics with which the child enters the world. When
they think of the child’s nurture, they focus on the child-rearing
experiences provided by parents, caretakers, and other adults. (Byers,
2003, p.572)
But the social factors to be considered are not just parental influences on the child,
Byers goes on:
Children develop within a personal context of other people: families,
friends, neighbours, teachers, and classmates. They also develop within
an impersonal context of historical, economic, technological, and political
forces, as well as societal beliefs, attitudes, and values. The impersonal
context is as important as the personal one in shaping development.
(Byers, 2002, p.586)
With cognitive development different cultures place a different emphasis on which
skills and knowledge will be acquired, so that aboriginal children develop superior
spatial skills as their lives will depend on being able to “trek through the desert to
distant oases” (Byers, 2003, p.587) Research also shows that where there is poverty
there is likely to be academic underachievement, hence the efforts to improve the lot
of young children by the provision of an early education in the USA and UK. Byers
points out in places like Japan and Sweden where there is little poverty children from
the wealthiest families achieve more academically than from poorer families but the
difference is much smaller.
Social mores also has a part to play Davenport looks at Bandura’s study with
young children and quotes him as saying, “most of what young children learn is the
result of observation and modelling.” (Davenport, 2001, p.108) Rice and Haralambos
state that “people are social beings” and that others around them in society exert an
influence on the way they think, feel and behave.....Children are taught to obey from
an early age – they are told “what to wear, how to eat and drink, how to go to the
toilet” (Rice and Haralambos, 2003 p.209) Children imitate from an early age and
Bandura’s work shows that peer influence and modelling on significant adults can
have a strong influence on development. Byers suggests that socialisation dominates
human society and uses the term “omnipresent” for social influence believing
humans are adept at teaching others but also at learning what those around us are
trying to teach. (Byers, 2003, p.583)
Page 10 of 20
Student number: 10034286
Research has shown that poor nutrition or drug abuse by pregnant women
can have a detrimental affect on the foetus at certain phases in their pregnancy: the
“prenatal environment affects intelligence and premature birth can impair it” (Gray
and Thompson, 2002, p.477) Studies by Huttunen and Niskanen showed the affects
of maternal stress on the foetus after the loss of the father. Their work found that
such a loss at a critical period of development “permanently influences the mode of
behaviour and the temperament of the human child” and led to psychiatric and
behaviour disorders. Pathik D. Wadhwa and colleagues also found that “maternal
stress and stress hormones influence fetal brain development”. (Ceci and Williams,
1999, p. 24 - 31) Similarly with poverty during pregnancy and in the early years this
has a serious impact on the development and growth of a child. The National Centre
for Children in Poverty published an overview on the subject. They estimate in 1997,
2.5 million poor children face a greater risk of impaired brain
development due to their exposure to a number of high risk factors
associated with poverty (NCCP, 1999)
There is a period in utero and within the first year when the brain is “most able to
respond to and grow from exposure to environmental stimulation.” (NCCP,.1999).
Greenough, Black and Wallace have shown how “neural circuits require input from
the environment in order to begin growing”. ((Keenan, 2002,. p.82) If at this time
nutrition is poor, or the mother is suffering from depression or else there is exposure
to toxins in the environment, or if a pregnant mother practices substance abuse, then
neurons are stunted and there is a lack of brain cell development.
This critical period for brain development is seen in other areas of
development and highlights the very important interaction of social and biological
factors. The critical period for acquiring language if missed will result in the child
being unable to grasp the intricacies of grammar even though they might develop a
limited vocabulary. The study of feral children has highlighted this critical period and
in the Channel 4 Bodyshock series research with Oxana, Genie and Peter showed
the terrible affects of social deprivation:
A baby's brain is largely determined by genetic potential; babies arrive
pre-wired to execute a number of survival strategy reflexes, like crying
when hungry. But a baby's brain also comes with networks of connected
brain cells (called neural networks) that have no specific function. How
these will later function depends largely on sensory input. As a result of
repeated experience, specific neural networks are formed and
Page 11 of 20
Student number: 10034286
strengthened. Others undergo a kind of pruning, whereby connections that
haven't been strengthened by experience are eliminated. (Roach, 2007)
Peter, discovered at 4 years of age after living with dogs, seems to have the best
hope of acquiring language and grammar, whereas Genie, despite incredible
progress after living in a world of silence for 12 years will never be able to speak
normally. It is known from Harlow’s monkey studies and Bowlby’s work that maternal
deprivation at an early age can affect the development of a child leaving them unable
to form relationships with others. Even auditory and visual development relies on
experience - children with an uncorrected strabismus never develop depth
perception. (Byers, 2003)
New ideas with regard to the nature nurture debate continue to emerge
and one recent theory is that the genetic programming causes an individual to seek
out particular environments. Aldgate, in considering Schaffer’s work, talks of children
being able to “actively select and shape environments that are appropriate to their
own characteristics”. (Aldgate, 2006 p.26) The related work of Murray and Andrews is
illustrates “how the newborn child is an active actor in his or her world”, whilst
Lansdowne sees children as acting “as a source of expertise, skill and information for
adults and contribute towards meeting their own needs” (Lansdowne, 2001, p.93,
cited Aldgate, 2006, p.27). Scarr’s believes that genes can influence the environment
in three ways: passively, parents provide the kind of environment “supportive to the
child’s genotype”, (Keenan, 2002, p.84) so it is that musical parents produce musical
children. Secondly, the genetic makeup of a baby may make adults respond in a
particular way, so that a baby who has an easy going temperament and smiles
frequently will have adults responding in a positive way which will reinforce the
baby’s behaviour and “strengthen the genetic predisposition” (Keenan, 2002, p.85) –
Scarr calls this the “evocative relationship” between genes and environment. Thirdly,
she believes genes can “effect the environment in an active way” such that children
will “seek out environments which are compatible with their genetic make-up.”
(Keenan 2002 p.85)
Further, Scarr believes there is some role for the environment in “promoting
phenotypical behaviours” but points out that in reality environments are similar for
many individuals, and that genes rely on the existence of that environment for their
Page 12 of 20
Student number: 10034286
expression, so that given a normal child and a functional family wherever he is raised
he will turn out to be the same sort of person. Such theories emphasise the influence
of genetic programming but are not generally accepted. Baumrind countered that “all
non-abusive environments above the poverty line are not equally facilitative of
healthy development”, (Slee and Shute, 2003, p.36) nor did she believe Scarr
allowed for cultural differences in upbringing. However, it has been said by Judith
Harris that today’s parents generally give more hugs and smack less but questions
whether children are any the better for it: “Are they happier and better adjusted than
they were in the earlier part of the century? Less aggressive? Less anxious? Nicer?”
(Ceci and Williams, 1999, p.85) but this does not allow for other changes that have
taken place in society over the last fifty years.
Alternatively, Gottesman’s theory is that genes do not fix behaviour in a rigid
fashion but establish a range of possibilities which depend heavily on environmental
circumstances, (Keenan, 2002, p.85) thus one child’s cognitive ability will be poor in
an impoverished environment and only slightly better in an enriched environment,
whereas another child with poor cognitive development may perform significantly
better in an enriched environment. In opposition Gottlieb is convinced that genes
play a much less deterministic role than is suggested, (Keenan, 2002, p.85) and his
proposal is that genes and the environment engage in a process of coaction in which
genes, environments and other levels of behaviour such as neural activity all
mutually influence one another. (Keenan, 2002, p.85)
In conclusion Keenan supports the idea of an interaction between biological
and social factors:
research has shown clearly how genetic factors serve to restrict the range
of possible courses that development can take, while at the same time we
have gained an ever more sophisticated understanding of how
environments exert a tremendous influence on development, both
supporting and restricting it (Keenan, 2002, p84)
However, much of the literature reviewed shows overwhelmingly that individuals are
the product of their genetic make-up and that environments are sought that fit in with
that make-up. Byers questions how is it that young children can become “skilled
perceivers within the first six months” when even powerful computers have trouble
dealing with perception? How can young children move from one or two words at a
year old to complex grammatical sentences at 4 years of age? How can they so
Page 13 of 20
Student number: 10034286
quickly appreciate what it means to stand in someone else’s shoes and empathise?
She tells us that “evolution seems to have provided us with specialized learning
mechanisms that ensure that virtually everyone will quickly and easily acquire
abilities that are important to survival.” (Byers, 2003, p.585)
It cannot simply be said as Colt does that “genes don’t make men gay or
children timid”, there is still not enough information. (Colt, 1998) It is possible that
babies are born with genetic propensities towards certain kinds of behaviour and the
evidence on obesity supports this. The work that has been done by biologists
suggests a gene mutation in individuals that means Leptin is not produced in the right
quantities - this tells an individual when they are full. In an age where poverty
abounds and food is scarce this will have no affect on a population, but where
poverty has been reduced, where food is available in plenty, then obesity will
increase. (Colt, 1998)
In total contrast to the idea that genes dominate development Steven Pinker,
writing in 2006, makes his contribution to the debate by stating “the blank slate is not
ancient history, but continues to be influential” and quotes a prominent 20 th century
social scientist who maintains “the human being is entirely instinctless.” (Pinker,
2006, p.2) Slee and Shute argue that
while it is generally accepted that genes and the environment interact to
produce developmental change, controversies continue about the relative
role of each and how far development can be modified by environmental
change (Slee and Shute , 2003, p.43)
and Miller among others stresses the need for a more culturally aware approach to
looking at environmental influences. (Slee and Shute, 2003, p.43) Gottesman and
Hanson appreciate the complexity of the task in attempting to understand the
influence of the environment on genetic programming:
the expression of any one gene is embedded within a biological system
influenced by a multitude of other genetic and environmental influences;
concepts of gene regulation (expression) and epigenesis are now
essential for understanding development. (Gottesman and Hanson,
2005, p.265)
Page 14 of 20
Student number: 10034286
This complexity means that whatever our genotype the type of person an individual
becomes, (phenotype), say Gottesman and Hanson, is not a foregone conclusion
and there may be many different phenotypes possible.
The actual phenotype will depend on the influence of the individual’s
other genes and on the specific contexts of environments experienced
among a wide range of environments. (Gottesman and Hanson, 2005,
p.268)
They go on to consider that an individual may choose an environment that is attuned
to their genotype and so establish a correlation between the two, rather than an
interaction whereas Byers would argue
The genotype contains instructions that specify the rough outline of
development, but all particulars are filled in by subsequent interactions
between the genotype and the environment (Byers, 2003, p.581)
Having reviewed current literature and research it is difficult to find a
consensus of opinion. There would be some agreement on the fact that genetic
programming has a role – whether it is to predispose the individual or to dictate his
phenotype and it seems most would accept that social factors do play a part in
human development, but there is as yet no general agreement and more research
needs to be done in this field. Gottesman and Hanson conclude “the concept of
gene-environment interaction, however defined, is difficult to apply in studies of
human development.” (Gottesman and Hanson, 2005, p.266)
5475 words
Page 15 of 20
Student number: 10034286
References
ALDGATE, J. et al., 2006 The Developing World of the Child London: Jessica
Kingsley
ANON., 2005 The Bell Curve Wikipedia [online] Available from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve [Accessed February 27 2007]
ANON, post 1999, Unit 4: Human Growth and Development (unknown publisher)
[Class handout]
ANON., 2003 Who do we think we are? New Scientist [online] 17 May, 178 (2395),
Available from
mhtml:file://C:\Documents%20and%20settings\User\Desktop\EBSCOhostwho%20do.
mht [Accessed February 27 2007]
BRAZELTON, T.B. AND GREENSPAN, S.I., 2000 The Irreducible Needs of Children
Cambridge: Perseus
BUCKLEY, B., 2003 Children's Communication Skills: From birth to five years
London: Routledge
BYERS, M. ed., 2003 How Children Develop New York: Worth
CECI, S.J. AND WILLIAMS, W.M. eds., 1999 The Nature-Nurture Debate: the
Essential Readings Oxford: Blackwell
COLT, G.H. AND HOLLISTER, A., 1998 Were you born that way? Life [online] April,
21 (4), Available from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid+115&sid=53777de7-425a-4f02-84
[Accessed January 27 2007]
DAVENPORT, G.C. (2001) An Introduction to Child Development London: Collins
Page 16 of 20
Student number: 10034286
DAVIES, D., 2000 Everybody has parents The Lancet [online] 355 (9200), Available
from
http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_cluster=thela
ncet&search_text1=everybody+has+parents
[Accessed February 27 2007]
DEARY, I.J., 2001 Intelligence: A very short introduction Oxford: University Press
DEUTSCH, W., 1981 The Child's Construction of Language London: Academic Press
DE WAAL, F.B.M., 1999 The End of Nature versus Nurture Scientific American
[online] 281 (6) Available from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=117&sid=9db2fc28-f1b3-4c7cb788-9118668e0cac%40sessionmgr7 [Accessed January 27 2007]
DOHERTY-SNEDDON, G., 2003 Children's Unspoken Language London: Jessica
Kingsley
GERHADT, S., 2006 Why Love Matters Hove: Routledge
GOTTESMAN, I.I. AND HANSON, D.R., 2005 Human development: Biological and
Genetic Processes Annual Reviews 56 pp263-286. Available from
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org [Accessed February 27]
GRAY, J.R. AND THOMPSON P.M., 2004 Neurobiology of Intelligence: Science and
Ethics Nature Reviews (online) 5 (June 2004), 475 – 480 Available from
https://pantheon.yale.edu/-Sc139/files/GT_2004_NRN.pdf [AccessedFebruary 27
2007]
JOSEPH, J., 2000 Not in Their Genes: A Critical View of the Genetics of AttentionDeficit Hyperactivity Disorder Developmental Review [online] 20 539-567 Available
from www.jayjoseph.net/files/Not_in_Their_Genes.pdf [Accessed April 10 2007]
Page 17 of 20
Student number: 10034286
HEALY, J.M., 1994 Your Child's Growing Mind Revised ed. New York: Doubleday
KEENAN, T., 2002 An Introduction to Child Development London: Sage
LEMANN, N., 1997 The Bell Curve Flattened Slate [online] 18 January, Available
from http://www.slate.com/id/2416 [Accessed February 27 2007]
MEADOWS, S., 2006 The Child as Thinker 2nd edn. London:Routledge
NCMA 2006 Introducing Childcare Practice (Homebased) Diploma in Homebased
Childcare Unit 1 Handout 3a
NEISSER, U. et al., 1995 Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns Stalking the Wild
Taboos [online] 7 Aug., Available from
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html [Accessed February 27 2007]
PARRY, V., 2007 Boys will be girls The Times Body & Soul Supplement 3 February
p.2
PINKER, S. 2003 The Blank Slate The General Psychologist [online] 41 (1) Available
from http://www.apa.org/divisions/div1/news/Spring%202006/GenPsychSpring06.pdf
[Accessed April 8 2007]
RAKOFF, D. 2002 The Way We Live Now: Questions for Steven Pinker The History
Boys [online] 15 Sept., Available from
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B12FC3C550C768DDDA00894D
A404482
[Accessed February 27 2007]
RICE, D., HARALAMBOS, M. (2003) Psychology in Focus
London: Causeway
Press
RIDLEY, M., 2004 Nature via Nurture London: Harper Perennial
Page 18 of 20
Student number: 10034286
RIDLEY, M., 2003 Genes are so liberating New Scientist [online] 17 May, 178
(2395), Available from www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg [Accessed
February 27 2007]
ROACH, K., ed., 2007 Bodyshock: Wild Child [T.V. broadcast] 18 February [online]
London: Channel 4.com Available from
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/wild_child/fear.html
[Accessed April 6]
ROSE, D., 2007 Tiny Anomalies that Keep Autism in the Family The Times 19
February p.11
RUTTER, M.J., 2006 Genes and Behaviour: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained
Oxford: Blackwell
SLEE, P. AND SHUTE, R.,2003 Child Development: Thinking about Theories
London: Arnold
SPINATH, F.M., PRICE, T.S. et al., 2004 The Genetic and Environmental Origins of
Language Disability and Ability Child Development, [online] 75 (2), pp 445-454
Available from
http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.14678624.2004.00685.x?journal
Code=cdev&volume=75&issue=2 [Accessed February 27 2007]
SYLVA, K. AND LUNT, I., 2001 Child Development A First Course Oxford: Blackwell
Bibliography
DICTIONARY.COM [online] Available from w.w.w.dictionary.com [Accessed April 6
2007]
ANON., 2005 The Bell Curve Wikipedia [online] Available from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve [Accessed February 27 2007]
Page 19 of 20
Student number: 10034286
WEATHERS, H., 2006 Abigail and Brittany Hensel: an extraordinary bond The Daily
Mail [online] 31 December Available from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=425736
[Accessed March 7 2007]
PARRENAS, J., 2000 Nature Versus Nurture Lesbian News [online] 26 (3),
Available from http:/web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=104&sid=235fcb71af5b-4204-9f0 [Accessed February 27 2007]
LOPEZ, K., 1999 Study Suggests Maternal Stress and SDtress Hormones May
Influence Fetal Brain Development News Uk Chandler Medical Center [online]
Available from www.uky.edu/PR/News/MCPRNews/1999/maternal%20stress.htm
[Class handout]
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1973 The Nurture and Nature of Behaviour San Francisco:
W.H. Freeman
Page 20 of 20