Evidence- Footnote 91,
On page 278, Shenk discusses the research done by Terman with 1500 schoolkids with his proposal that "the most successful children were endowed with elite genes propelling them to lifelong success" (p. 278). However, because on page 279 it is noted that the "group was mostly middle class and mostly white", is his proposal an incomplete claim? Can it still be considered a valid study to point out the success of those 1500 students when as later noted, two students that were NOT accepted into his study went on to earn Nobel Prizes? Recall the gene expression we learned about, and whether the claims of the "elite genes" can be accurately pinpointed. On the opposing side to Terman, David Henry Feldman believes that just an IQ alone in childhood cannot determined the success of a student (p. 280). Which side seems more persuasive? Which side can be considered more accurate?
Shivani Thakker (shivanithakker1357@gmail.com)
Terman's proposal is definitely incomplete.His experimental group is not nearly diverse enough. As Shenk explains, "They [genes] interact with the environment in a dynamic ongoing process that produces and continually refines an individual (p. 16)" Therefore, Terman's experiment does not take into account environment at all. Some might disagree with Shenk's statement and claim, like Treman, that elite genes are, in fact, the crucial factor in determining success. Shenk provides the example of the Jamaican sprinters who dominated the 2008 Olympics. He explains that although 98% of Jamaicans have a protein called ACTN3 that "drives forceful, speedy muscle contractions (p 101).", "82% of Europeans have it as well", yet the Europeans did not do nearly as well as the Jamaicans. Therefore, it cannot be elite genes that are the sole cause of success later in life. This means that Terman's claim is incomplete because it does not take into account the effect of the environment on success.
ReplyDeleteWhile this is still a valid study, the results of Treman's experiment indicate that his hypothesis about correlation between "elite genes" and success in not valid. As Shenk explains of the students in Treman's group, "the group has produced no great muscial composer", followed by, "and no great creative artist (p 280)." Had the students truly been "superior" they would have exhibited not only ability to take I.Q. test well but also creative talent. Likewise, had his hypothesis been truly accurate the two students who won the Nobel Prize's would have been a part of the study. Therefore, Treman's hypothesis is incorrect.
As we learned in Chapter 20 by using DNA microarray assays we are able to determine the not only which genes are transcribed by the body, but also how strongly they are expressed. This allows researchers to determine the role of specific genes in the body in order to maintain homeostasis.
Although, it may seem possible to determine "elite genes" with new technology, it is important to note that Treman’s hypothesis was proved wrong and shows that so called “elite genes” are not the key componenet of success. Furthermore, we must not forget to take into account the role of epigenetic inheritance As we learned in Chapter 18, changes in the epigenome can be passed on to future generations. Also, as Shenk explains "histones that protect the DNA and keep it compact" (which are part of the epigenome) can be altered by the environment (p 159-p158). An experiment conducted by Professor Martin Howard and Professor Caroline Dean at the John Innes Centre, determined that epigenetic memory is the reason that “organism(s) can create a biological memory of some variable condition, such as quality of nutrition or temperature.” In their experiment they determined that plants are able to “remember” when to flower so that, “pollination, development, seed dispersal and germination can all happen at the appropriate time.” They determined that it was the modified histones that determined when to cause the plant to flower by turning genes on and off. Therefore, these genes which are passed on to the next generation make genetic makeup even more random and are a result of the environment, not solely "superior genes".
Based on this evidence Feldman's argument is most convincing because although genes play a role in determining success, Treman fails to acknowledge the importance of the environment on the development and eventual success of an individual.
In agreement with Sid’s conclusion, Terman’s proposal regarding “elite genes” is incomplete and relatively false. The experiment was flawed from initiation. Terman did not use a standardize test in order to “weed out” the brightest and most intelligent studies, rather he “enlisted teachers to help make the first cut” (Shenk 278). This then creates a class of students that are primarily rich and white, generically predetermining them to have access to be involved in this project. These students also did not have the said “elite genes” that Terman argues. Take, for example, the Nobel Prize. In the 1500 students that were part of Terman’s study, none continued on to win this acclaimed award. Conversely, two students that were rejected for not having the “elite genes” won the Nobel Prize. Not to be all negative, many of Terman’s students did achieve greatness in poetry, science, and inventing.
ReplyDeleteA glaring feature that Terman’s experiment lacked was the belief in the effects of environment on genetic expression. Of course the greatest example of this lies in Mozart. Many people of his day and historians today will believe (given they knew the word) that Mozart had “elite genes”. This fact may very well be true; however, his achievements owe a large amount of credit to his extraordinary upbringing. Mozart was given such an extraordinary upbringing. Mozart received “everything that Nannerl got – only much earlier and more intensively” from his father, a music teacher that “was centuries ahead of his time” (Shenk 62). Mozart went on to be one of the most praised composers of history for his excellence at such a young age. While his “elite genes” may have been a part of it, his training affected him equally as much.
“Elite genes” do not matter unless they are expressed. It is quite arguable that everyone has these “elite genes” somewhere in their genome, but they are not “turned on” in every individual. People have approximately 34,000 genes, but “genes matter only if they are expressed, or turned on” (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=125453661&SrchMode=2&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1334187070&clientId=15232). For example, “stress impairs the immune response”. Arguably, this could not be limited to just the immune response. Stress or other factors from early development could feasibly turn on the “elite genes”.
Determining which genes are being expressed has become greatly more available with the invention of microarrays. As previously stated, microarrays can be used to determine which genes are being expressed and the intensity of the expression. This feasibly could translate into assessment of the activation of certain genes that could relate to “elite” students and intellectuals. Alternately, the concept of “elite genes” is quite unrealistic. The fact that “lifestyle can alter heredity” dictates that epigenetic influences are key in expressing the “elite genes”.