In psychology and other sciences and social sciences, there is a significant debate regarding the importance of nature versus nurture. This debate focuses on the influence of genetics and hereditary versus the environmental factors that surround the upbringing of an organism. Some scientists believe that genetics is the predisposing factor in the development of an organism. Other scientists, however, argue that the environment in which the organism grows determines the outcome. Some scientists, however, recognize that both hereditary and environment may influence the eventual outcome of an organism. This debate is often used in conjunction to gender identity and sexual preference. It has also been used to debate criminal tendencies in individuals. Because of the topics it entails, such as gender identity, it often creates significant controversy and debate among the supporters of all theories.
This is not a new debate among scholars. However, since it is a difficult concept for either side to support completely, the debate is ongoing. Scientists in support of nature stress the genetic basis for the entire development of the individual. For instance, some individuals are predestined to develop diseases such as Huntington’s chorea later in life. The individual may live a completely healthy lifestyle. However, it does not matter if the individual follows a healthy diet and exercise regime; the individual has the gene for Huntington’s chorea and will develop it regardless. This clearly indicates how strong the genetic code is in the person. Proponents of the nurture debate argue that an individual’s upbringing is crucial in the development. If an individual is repeatedly exposed to specific stimuli, the person will develop traits in response (Dowling, 2004, pp. 32-35).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Nature Versus Nurture".
The debate is extremely controversial because it is often used to discuss gender identity and sexual preference. It is also used to discuss criminal tendencies. For groups and individuals who argue that homosexuality is a “sin,” the discovery that the person has no control over being homosexual would create difficulties. This is also true for criminal tendencies. For instance, if an individual is the son of a rapist, some believe the son will have the tendencies of the father. However, others believe that upbringing will teach the person right from wrong. If a propensity for rape or other criminal activity was inherent in the individual, the person could argue that the he or she is not responsible for his or her behavior (Dowling, 2004, pp. 32-36).
While this debate extends back to Plato, it is consistently renewed due to ongoing research. This research includes studies in neurobiology and the molecular structure of the brain. It is discusses the new research in the field of neuroplasticity, a concept that the brain can constantly change over the life span of the individual. A 2003 article by Krubitzer and Kahn focuses on the molecular nature of the brain and how this impacts the nature versus nurture debate. Specifically, the authors discussed how certain features of the human brain are genetically based. The study is a review in format. Certain aspects of the brain, such as cortical domain and cortical field specification, are genetically mediated. Additionally, “changes in peripheral morphology that regulate patterned activity are also likely to be under genetic control” (Krubitzer & Kahn, 2003, p. 33). The authors recognized that early in the debate, there was little methodology that could test the genetic basis of the brain. As a result, the debate was relegated to the domains of psychology as a field. Neurobiology could not examine the topic without the ability to determine the genetic basis for specific brain structures. Advances in science and technology have clearly changed this. Many of the structures and formation within the human brain are now shown to be genetic in nature. Despite this, the authors do not negate that environment may play a role in the development of specific traits. The authors conclude that both environment and biology likely impact the development of an individual. Recent research in neuroplasticity indicates that the brain has a constant ability to adapt and change the neural pathways. Changes in neural pathways can change the structure and function of specific areas of the brain. “However, exactly how neural changes translate into global changes in behavior is not known” (Krubitzer & Kahn, 2003, p. 36).
Another study focused on the public policy aspect associated with the debate. This study was published in 2004 in the Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. The author explores the background of the debate and its philosophical roots. He also explains the recent debate within the last several decades. Particularly interesting is the assertion that the strong belief in environment led to significant publicly funded programs. Head Start, an educational program for children from disadvantaged homes, resulted from the belief that environment was the most important aspect of childhood success. These programs, in turn, created a backlash. Studies increased on the genetic aspect of behavior. The author hopes that the newer studies can bring a compromise to these two areas.
The author also explores the variance in the study of nature versus nurture. He asserts that the studies on environment and genetics “employed different ways of aggregating measures of behavior in order to estimate gene and environment effects. By doing so, they have asked different questions, but the debate has failed to capture these nuances” (Dodge, 2004). This most certainly creates difficulties when seeking an accurate comparison of the importance of both sides. Dodge (2004) also contends that the debate most determine what its overall goal is. Should the debate focus on specific events or personality traits? He believes this will eventually decide how public policy should be decided. Programs, such as Head Start, are public policy programs. The future conclusions of the debate may also create other similar programs.
While the first study clearly focused on the science of neurobiology as the basis for discussion, the second study recognized that this debate has an impact on public policy. Essentially, one study reviews the scientific aspects of the debate, while this study focused more on the political aspects of the issue. The first study was much more scientific in nature. It explored the neurological aspects of this debate. It formulated a concept regarding why the current and future medical advances allow for a greater discussion on this topic. The second study acknowledged that this is a contentious debate for a reason. It also acknowledged that there are philosophical aspects of the debate; for instance, John Locke’s tabula rasa clearly influenced the debate. This article also recognized that there is a strong interaction between genetics and the environment. For instance, if an individual is genetically predisposed to cancer, an unhealthy diet will likely exacerbate this genetic disposition. The author discusses several ways in which this debate interacts with public policy. One important way is the education of the child. The researcher proposes that education is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, he believes that gifted children should be singled out for special enrichment. The author also believes that disadvantaged children deserve special enrichment as well. He argues that each child should be given the environment which will allow the child to flourish at his or her highest level. The author concludes that both nature and nurture should be used when formulating public policy (Dodge, 2004, p. 426).
Obviously, this debate is a contentious one. Individuals who believe in mind-body dualism are likely to recognize that not everything in human behavior stems from the environment. Behaviorists, however, do believe that an individual is born with a tabula rasa and as such, responds only to the environment. Newer research, as discussed, recognizes that neither is the complete story. Likely, genetics and environment interact together in the development of the individual. It is also important to recognize that this debate does have public policy implications. Notably, the field of education needs to recognize the importance of both nature and nurture. It is likely that this debate will continue. However, with advances in technology and science, specifically imaging studies, new research will continue to emerge.
- Dodge, K. A. (2004). The nature-nurture debate and public policy. Merrill-Palmer quarterly (Wayne State University. Press), 50(4), 418.
- Dowling, JE. (2004). The great brain debate: nature versus nurture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Krubitzer, L., & Kahn, D. M. (2003). Nature versus nurture revisited: an old idea with a new twist. Progress in neurobiology, 70(1), 33-52.
