More to the human condition than genes alone An Alternative View By Pat Bateson 27 June 2000 The sequencing of the human genome is a staggering scientific achievement. But it is very far from being the definition that would enable us to understand all aspects of human nature. It is more like a cook's larder list – knowing the list does not tell us what can be done with the ingredients. The starting points of development include the genes. But they also include factors external to the genome and the social and physical conditions in which the individual grows up. You would not realise this from the language used by some scientists and the media today. Hardly a week goes by without a new and supposedly direct link between genes and human characteristics being reported: intelligence, criminality, homosexuality, feminine intuition – all are said to have their particular gene. The language of a gene "for" a characteristic is very muddling to a non-scientist. While genes obviously matter, even a cursory glance at humanity reveals the importance of each person's experience, upbringing and culture. Humans learn from experience and from others – education and culture make a big difference, whatever the genetic inheritance. Individuals are not like Japanese paper flowers that open out in water. Nor is their genome a blueprint; adults are not merely expanded versions of the fertilised egg. Genes do not make behaviour patterns or physical attributes. Genes make proteins. These protein products of genes do not work in isolation, but in an environment created by local conditions and other genes. The post-genomic phase will be to study how all this happens. The processes involved in behavioural and psychological development have certain similarities to cooking – the raw ingredients and the manner in which they are combined are important. Timing also matters. The raw ingredients represent the many genetic and environmental influences, while cooking represents biological and psychological development. Nobody expects to find all the ingredients as separate, identifiable components in a soufflé. Similarly, nobody should expect a simple correspondence between a gene and aspects of an individual's behaviour or personality. The best that can be said of the misleading opposition of nature and nurture is that it provides a framework for uncovering a few of the genetic and environmental ingredients that generate differences between people. At worst, it simplifies in ways that are fundamentally misleading. Children play an active role in their own development. To some extent each individual chooses and shapes its own physical and social environment. People differing in ways that relate to differences in their genes may also pick certain environments in which to live. By their own actions people experience the world in different ways. In rotten conditions, the consequences can be disastrous for individuals and society. We must know how to prevent this. My own view is that the hard sell of the benefits of the Human Genome Project results will produce well-justified sales resistance. If that leads to a concerted attempt to understand what really happens as a child grows up, then science will be back on course. Professor Pat Bateson is Provost of Kings College, Cambridge, and co-author of Design for a Life, published by Cape (ÂŁ14.95)