This sounds exciting, but suffers from the same flawed causal reasoning that seems to appear in anything in the news that starts: 'Gene found for...'
If a gene (or gene complex) 'causes' creativity, then it only does this in the case of some normalised background context.
To say that X causes Y, is always relative to some background conditions. Scientific experimentation and statistical analysis both rely on this to make assertions about causes. Experimentation by fixing background conditions (replication and control), and statistical analysis by (hopefully) sampling a sufficient number of cases that we can assume that a X does cause Y under all conditions. Both have their problems (ie. Do the constrained conditions of the experiment generalise? Was the sample really representative of the population?)
Applying it to this case: A child with a 'normal' gene for this type of creativity will, if raised in a impoverished environment, NOT be creative. Calling the gene (network) the CAUSE, is to ignore completely ignore a long chain of developmental resources that are equally essential in producing our creative human being.
Moreover, in a evolutionary context, it is obvious that the cultural resources (education, socialisation etc.) available now are not the same as were available in proposed evolutionary environment in which this mutation (or set of mutations) was proposed to have engendered this sudden creative ability. So the background conditions in which the malfunction is taking place are not the same as those conditions under which the mutation took place: The selective environment was not the same as the current experimental environment - so we cannot assume a similar cause/effect relationship.
And even more importantly: our current cultural environment is dependent on learning (the passing of information in a non-genetic way), and this ability, more than likely, is dependent on the same creative (linguistic) abilities that this gene is supposed to produce. So we have genes creating enviromnents which produce the selective environment for further genetic changes. Towhit: A complex feedback mechanism which incorporates genetic change as part of the equation NOT some simple Gene causes Trait mechanism.
This doesn't mean that this stuff is boring, or hopeless. But the claims of causal genetic primacy oversimplify the evolutionary history.
I recommend Lewontin's 'It ain't necessarily so' to anyone that wants an elucidating take on the endless genes-as-causes reporting present in the headlines.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds exciting, but suffers from the same flawed causal reasoning ...'
that seems to appear in anything in the news that starts: 'Gene found for
If a gene (or gene complex) 'causes' creativity, then it only does this in
the case of some normalised background context.
To say that X causes Y, is always relative to some background conditions.
Scientific experimentation and statistical analysis both rely on this to
make assertions about causes. Experimentation by fixing background
conditions (replication and control), and statistical analysis by
(hopefully) sampling a sufficient number of cases that we can assume that a
X does cause Y under all conditions. Both have their problems (ie. Do the
constrained conditions of the experiment generalise? Was the sample really
representative of the population?)
Applying it to this case: A child with a 'normal' gene for this type of
creativity will, if raised in a impoverished environment, NOT be creative.
Calling the gene (network) the CAUSE, is to ignore completely ignore a long
chain of developmental resources that are equally essential in producing
our creative human being.
Moreover, in a evolutionary context, it is obvious that the cultural
resources (education, socialisation etc.) available now are not the same as
were available in proposed evolutionary environment in which this mutation
(or set of mutations) was proposed to have engendered this sudden creative
ability. So the background conditions in which the malfunction is taking
place are not the same as those conditions under which the mutation took
place: The selective environment was not the same as the current
experimental environment - so we cannot assume a similar cause/effect
relationship.
And even more importantly: our current cultural environment is dependent on
learning (the passing of information in a non-genetic way), and this
ability, more than likely, is dependent on the same creative (linguistic)
abilities that this gene is supposed to produce. So we have genes creating
enviromnents which produce the selective environment for further genetic
changes. Towhit: A complex feedback mechanism which incorporates genetic
change as part of the equation NOT some simple Gene causes Trait mechanism.
This doesn't mean that this stuff is boring, or hopeless. But the claims
of causal genetic primacy oversimplify the evolutionary history.
I recommend Lewontin's 'It ain't necessarily so' to anyone that wants an
elucidating take on the endless genes-as-causes reporting present in the
headlines.