Nature, Nurture and the Power of Love
Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT:
Leading edge research in cell biology reveals that “environmental signals” are
primarily responsible for selecting the genes expressed by an organism.
This new perspective is in direct contrast with the established view that our
fate is controlled by our genes. The new emphasis on nurture
(environment) controlling nature (genes) focuses special attention on the
importance of the maternal environment in fetal development. In addition
to the established role of maternal physiology, it is now recognized that
maternal behaviors and emotions profoundly impact the child’s physical
development, behavioral characteristics and even its level of intelligence.
The
history of human civilization reveals a recurrent preoccupation with the notion
of duality. Black and white, positive and negative, male and female,
winner and loser and of course, the ever controversial, good and evil.
Interestingly, even the nature of "duality" itself led to a
fundamental splitting or duality of human civilization—East and West. In
Eastern philosophy, all aspects of duality are recognized as representing an
underlying unity. All is One, but from that One
springs all of our perceived dualities.
In
contrast, Western civilization is entirely based upon a philosophy that
emphasizes the distinct polarity inherent in dualism. Our preoccupation
with duality becomes quite volatile when we assign values to the polar
extremes, especially the values of right and wrong. Polar views create
"sides’ and the sides usually compete to provide justification in support
of their stance.
Even
the consequences of the resulting competition over dualistic points of view can
be dualistic. Competition may become destructive, especially when its
resolution leads to physical combat such as wars and revolutions. At other
times, the competition over polar points of view are quite constructive, when
resolutions lead to intellectual and technical advances.
One of
the more recent and most profound examples of a conflict resolution that
advanced humanity is the Quantum Revolution of 1925. Prior to that event
scientists vied over the fundamental "nature" of the units comprising
the universe. Were they comprised of matter or of energy? Matter
was characterized as being composed of discrete particles, while energy was
perceived as intangible waves. Western logic emphasizes the dual,
mutually exclusive, nature of these two states of existence. Particle or
wave, but not both! The stunning and "illogical" resolution in
quantum theory is that the elemental units of nature were both particles and
waves. This fundamentally "Eastern" conclusion emphasizing
"unity" of polarities rocked the scientific world and profoundly
changed physics, chemistry and the fate of Western civilization.
Interestingly,
the concept of an inherent unity within "dualism" never fully
penetrated the biological sciences, which still maintains a penchant of
perceiving the biosphere in dualistic philosophy. Nowhere is this dualism
more exemplified than in the ongoing debate between Evolutionists and
Creationists. On the surface, evolution and creation represent mutually
exclusive processes—polarizing concepts.
Now,
some seventy years after the Quantum revolution, major dualistic biological
concepts are beginning to resolve themselves as parts of whole, a unity.
One such resolving biological dualism concerns the impact of nature versus
nurture in the structural and functional expression of living organisms.
Those polarized on the side of "nature" invoke the concept of genetic
determinism, the idea that a plant or animal’s characteristics and behavioral
traits are defined by the genes at the moment of conception (i.e., internal
control). The opposing polarized view endorses the role of
"nurture," which recognizes environmental experiences play an
essential role in shaping the characteristics of living organisms (i.e.,
external control).
Such an
argument becomes profoundly important when we consider the role of nature and nurture
on human development. The supporters of "nature" suggest that
characters of human physiology and behavior are genetically predetermined at
conception. They argue that the fate of the child can only be influenced
by the external environment as it relates to the availability of nutrients.
Obviously, malnourished fetuses are physiologically compromised and may not be
able to fully express their genetically "predetermined" fates.
Such a perspective suggests that the developmental fate of the fetus is impervious
to all environmental influences, except for those related to nutritional
management. Conventional medicine emphasizes the provision of nutrition
as essentially the sole role of the mother in (in utero) human development.
The
alternative perspective, supported by a large number of lay people and a small
contingency of scientists, extends the role of the mother in development.
These "nurturists" contend that maternal attitudes and emotions have
a fundamental impact on the developmental expression of the fetus. Until
recently, this perspective has received little or no attention by conventional
scientists that consider the fetus develops within a "closed"
environment (the placenta), "isolated" from the mother’s experiences.
A
resolution between the dualism of nature and nurture is illustrated in the case
of the claims made by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in their book, The
Bell Curve. These authors stirred up the nature/nurture controversy
recently when they invoked the naturists’ party line to declare that human
intelligence is determined by the genes. Their contention was that
intelligence is based upon breeding and the world is dividing itself into a
polarity of an intelligent and a less-intelligent population. Their racist
hypothesis, which raises the specter of Nazi Germany, devalued the role of
environment and concluded that "we" are victims of genetic fate.
Fortunately,
Murray and Herrnstein’s conclusions have recently been challenged by Bernie
Devlin and co-workers who recently published their scientific assessment in the
prestigious journal Nature [1]. Their studies revealed that intelligence
was only about 34% based on genes (nature), with a whopping 66% based upon
environmental factors (nurture). Devlin’s findings are highly relevant
since they emphasize the significance of the prenatal environment as one of the
primary factors influencing intelligence. Such results are more in line
with the "quantum" idea that biological expression represents both
nature and nurture.
While
the views of scientists are beginning to change, the mass of researchers still
cling to biological concepts founded on the now outdated principles of
Newtonian physics. Though seventy years late in recognizing the new
principles of quantum physics, the philosophical foundation of conventional
biology is beginning to radically change. Leading edge research in the
field of cell biology now reveals that the naturists’ dogma concerning genetic
determinism is no longer valid.
Biochemical
studies show that genes are "not self-emergent," that is, genes are
not capable of turning themselves on or off [2]. Consequently, if a gene
can not regulate its own expression, then genes can not be invoked as the
"controllers" of organismal expression. Rather than being "self-emergent,"
gene programs are controlled by "environmental" signals. The
dogma of genetic determinism is giving way to a concept that recognizes living
organisms as "dynamical systems," ones that are capable of actively
reprogramming gene behaviors to accommodate environmental changes.
Another
recent and radical change in perspective concerns the conventional neoDarwinian
view that the gene blueprints can only be modified by the process of
"random" mutations. Based upon the revolutionary studies of geneticist
John Cairns published ten years ago, science is now considering the role of
"adaptive" mutations [3, 4]. Cairns’ hypothesis, which is now
acquiring recognition, reveals that through "instructive"
interactions with the environment, organisms as primitive as bacteria, can
actively rewrite existing genetic programs to accommodate
environmentally-induced stresses. Consequently, organisms are far from
being genetically determined, for they may actively select, or in some
instances, even rewrite gene programs as they experience and interpret
environmental stimuli.
The
malleable aspect of gene expression is an extremely important point in terms of
fetal development. In the uterus, the fetus is in a constant state of
"downloading" genetic information required for human development,
growth and protection responses. The cytological structures and molecular
pathways required by cells to effect these processes are programmed by DNA
"blueprints" known as genes. The complete set of gene
instructions, known as the genome, is principally localized in the cell’s
nucleus. Within each nucleus there are two complete sets of genes, one
full set derived from each parent. By mixing and matching specific genes
derived from each of the two sets, individuals may exhibit a widely ranging
repertoire of structural and physiological characteristics.
In
spite of the overt genetic differences in characteristic traits within and
among the divergent species in the biosphere, ALL biological organisms, from
bacteria to humans, share one biological behavior: the will to survive.
When the life of any organism is compromised, it will enact behavioral programs
that will enable it to stay alive. This fundamental drive for survival,
built into every organism, is referred to as a "biological
imperative."
The
behaviors that collectively provide for organismal survival may be conveniently
subdivided into two functional categories: behaviors supporting GROWTH and
those supporting PROTECTION [5]. Growth-related behaviors include activities
associated with seeking nutrients and supportive environments for personal
survival and the seeking of mates for species survival. Protection
behaviors are those activities employed by organisms to avoid harm.
Growth
behaviors are associated with the character of attraction. organisms are
"attracted" toward elements of the environment that support their
life (e.g., food, water, air and mates). In contrast, protective
behaviors are most frequently associated with repulsion. Protection
responses to life threatening stimuli are generally characterized by avoidance
reactions. When confronting an inescapable life threatening situation, a
fleeing organism may turn and become the aggressor. For example, a rat
will take flight from a dog. When backed into a corner with no other
recourse, that same rat will lunge at the dog and fight for its survival.
In humans, the activity of the adrenal system is most important in controlling
the protection-related flight or fight reactions.
In
single cells, growth and protective survival behaviors can readily be
distinguished by observing the cell’s motility. Cells expressing
growth-related behaviors move toward (attraction) life sustaining environmental
stimuli. In contrast, cells expressing protection-related behaviors move
away from (repulsion) life threatening stimuli. Stimuli that does not
influence organismal survival results in an indifferent response. At our
level of perception, the behavior of single-celled organisms appears to be
"digital," they either move toward specific positive (+) stimuli or
away from specific negative (-) stimuli.
Recent
studies on molecular control mechanisms support this "digital" nature
of regulating behavior. It has been recognized that cells possess
"gang" switches, which actively shunt growth pathways into protection
behaviors in response to threatening environmental stimuli [6, 7]. Growth
and protection appear to be mutually exclusive behaviors in single cells;
apparently, individual cells can not be in growth and protection at the same
time. A similar growth/protection behavior occurs in regard to the
function of the micro vascular network in humans. Blood vessels can
either support nutrition or inflammation (protection), but cannot provide for
both functions at the same time [8].
The
duality of survival behaviors in multicellular organisms, including humans,
essentially reflect those exhibited by single cells. As you may recognize
in your own life, humans gravitate to (attracted toward) positive
life-supporting stimuli, while they move away from (repelled by)
life-compromising stimuli. Rather than the "digital" (on/off)
nature of the response as observed in unicellular species, the additive
responses of the individual cells comprising multicellular organisms create
behaviors that are more "analog" or "graded" in their
expression. The more relevant a stimulus is to the organism’s survival,
the more polarized (either + or -) the resulting response. In humans, the
extremes of the two polarities might appropriately be described as LOVE (+) and
FEAR (-).
As with
every living system, the selection of growth or protection programs by the
fetus is based upon its perception of its environment. The environment
perceived by the fetus is the maternal blood from which it receives nourishment
and "information." Nourishment is derived from the metabolites
transported in the mother’s blood. Environmental "information"
is provided by signal molecules, such as hormones, neuropeptides and cytokines
(immune-related "hormones"), which also circulate within the maternal
blood.
It is
important to note that the environmental information observed by the fetus was
not primarily intended for the fetus. The blood-borne information signals
were deployed by the maternal nervous system in response to her perception of
her environment. These signals, which directly impact growth and
protection behaviors, were intended to regulate maternal organs, tissues and
cells. If the mother’s nervous system perceives that the environment is
threatening to either her or her fetus’ survival, it will release informational
signals that will engage a protective response and prepare her for flight or
fight. When the system’s valuable energy resources are directed toward
promoting protection behaviors, growth behaviors must necessarily compromised.
These
blood-borne information signals not only affect the maternal system, for the
same signals cross the placenta and profoundly impact the genetics and behavior
of the developing fetus. Initially, one might think that free passage of
maternal signals through the placenta represents a "defect" in
Nature’s mechanism. Far from being a design flaw, the transfer of
maternal environment-related signals to the fetal system is Nature’s way of
providing the baby with an advantage in dealing with the world it will soon
enter. The old axiom, being forewarned is being forearmed, is appropriate
to apply to this situation.
Through
the maternal system’s ability to relay environmental information to the
developing offspring, the mother’s perceptions directly impact the selection of
gene programs that may enhance the survival of her offspring, and ultimately
that of the species [9]. The down side of the story is that through a
"misperception" of her environment, a mother can negatively impact
the survival of her child. For example, a pregnant woman in an abusive
environment will continuously relay distress signals, which would shunt
resources from growth-related behaviors to protection-related behaviors, in
both herself and in her fetus.
As has
recently been established environmentally directed maternal influences may
impact more than just the subsequent generation. An observation referred
to as the "grandmother effect" reveals Dutch women who were on
starvation diets during the famine of World War II, produced smaller than
normal
babies. Interestingly, this pattern of stunted growth continued
into the next generation [10]. There are now many examples of how
maternal observations of environmental exigencies profoundly alter the growth,
phenotype (physiological expression), sex ratios and even the sexual maturation
period of their offspring, all in an effort to ensure the survival of their
species.
The
conclusions that can be drawn from science’s leading front is as follows:
Biological behaviors can be scored as growth-promoting or protection-related.
The metabolic investment required to support protection responses comes at the
cost of compromising growth. Selection of growth and protection behaviors
is a dynamical process that is actively mediated by the organism in response to
perceived environmental signals. Signals engendering threats of survival,
that is fear, shunt growth mechanisms. Signals relaying the existence of
supportive environments, those emphasizing love, encourage the selection of
growth-related genetic programs. These decisively important love/fear
signals are relayed to the fetus via the blood-borne molecules produced in
response to the mother’s perception of her environment. Since the
offspring will spend their lives in the same or essentially the same
environment as they are born in, developmental "programming" of the
neonate by the mother is of adaptive value in species survival [11]. This
is Nature’s equivalent of a "head start" program.
As we
stand on the doorstep of the new millennium, we are releasing limiting ideas
and replacing them with knowledge that will facilitate the survival of the
human race. One important part of that new vision is the turning away
from the old Darwinian notion of the "survival of the fittest" and
the adoption of a new credo, the "survival of the most loving!"
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=nature+nurture+human+development+bruce+lipton&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
No comments:
Post a Comment