What Your G-nomes Say About You

It’s true. You’re lawn sculptures can reveal a lot about of your personality:



Entrepreneurial



Worldly



Industrious



Cheeky

I'm kidding. This post is about how advances in human genetics are helping us better understand the way we behave.

Though genetics research is fairly young, scientists have already isolated the genes that would predispose people to a host of diseases, among them Alzheimer’s and leukemia. And since researchers connected the gene BRCA-1 to breast cancer, some young women who are positive for the gene have chosen to remove their perfectly healthy breasts.

These tests are rightly prompting people to take preventative measures to protect their health, but they also beg the question, how much about ourselves should we know, and how far should we go to prevent the inevitable?

The genetic research is not all health related. Look at geneticist Dean Hamer's research on the so-called "God Gene" that predisposes people to faith. Hamer's conclusions aren't so clean cut, of course. He also tried to isolate a gene determining homosexuality, but the scientific community has widely deemed sexuality too complex to be determined by either hereditary or external factors alone.

Regardless of inconclusive research, as Olivia Judson points out today on a NY Times blog, it won’t be long before we ask scientists to stop being oracles and start playing God.

Several weeks ago the National Academy of Sciences published a new study about a gene that has been linked to monogamous behavior. By asking Swedish men how often they kiss or spend time with their significant other, the researchers found that Men with one particular variant of the gene scored lower on the test and were statistically more likely to have marital troubles and commitment issues.

Well, a gene test for this one certainly could have saved Carrie Bradshaw some trouble. She might at least have spent less time screening her phone calls if she could screen her men for the “Commitment Gene.” Maybe Miranda was right when she announced, “I'm sorry, but if a man is over 30 and single, there's something wrong with him, it's Darwinian.”

At the very least, this study lends a whole new meaning to the phrase, “It’s not you, it’s me.”

But besides weeding men with low-commitment genetics out of the dating pool, Judson shares another admittedly mischievous thought on the gene: “Could such restlessness be cured one day?”

In other words, could a man chose to take—or be coerced into taking—a pill that would alter his brain chemistry and make him less likely to cheat or get cold feet? Now there’s a thought both serendipitous and scary, especially for young singles who might not be looking at marriage as the holy relationship grail it once was.

Actually, I wonder why they didn’t include women in the study—we’re just as prone to serial monogamy and sleeping around.

The idea of being able to predict and even manipulate someone’s behavior based on their genome is compelling, but the ethical implications are significant-—an evolutionary conundrum of “to be or not to be” proportions. It's the Roamin' Gnome in the undiscovered country. Mix in some Frankestein references and you have my 12th grade English curriculum. I’m curious how science and ethics will intersect in the future as more people face the whips and scorns of genetic-dependent decisions.