-->
To add to the nature vs nurture debate, scientists have
mapped chemical changes that occur in the brain when exposed to violence in
childhood. Will genomics uncover
genes or gene combinations that predict violent behavior, and can this
technology be used to prevent or limit exposure to violence for people who are
genetically predisposed? Is it
ethical to target people that may never commit violence by altering their
environment in response to their genomes?
I was surprised to learn from this article that the negative and violent experiences that people witness and suffer in their childhood can physically alter their brain. Not only does it physically alter the brain but the expression of certain genes is changed as well. I didn't know there was a certain part of your brain that inhibited aggressive impulses and maintained normal social interaction, and that that part of the brain could be physically altered due to trauma. It is not surprising to me though that the experiences altered the gene expression. This discovery could help those who are more aggressive potentially be better understood in a social and cultural context. The fact that antidepressants were found to help is also a plus. Hopefully in the near future they can find an easier and more affordable way to reverse the negative gene expressions and help repair the orbitofrontal cortex.
ReplyDeleteAs they continue to map the human genome, light will be shed on gene combinations that predict violent behavior (among many other things). I think that the focus should not be the search for these genes, but rather the improvement of life and environment for those who are exposed to violence in childhood. The can of ethical worms that is opened up with "targeting" people based on their genes is akin to the film "GATTACA", in which children are engineered to have optimal genetic makeup. If a fetus is determined to have this particular disposition, would society be obliged to make sure they grow up in a nice, violence-free environment? If that fetus has the propensity for violence in general, would the parents be obliged to abort it? Similar to last week's article, I think that genetics should be deemphasized and the focus should remain on the social environment/nurture side of the coin.
ReplyDeleteThe researchers also are considering the reversal of these physiological changes - a much better "nature" approach to these types of situations. The importance of the emerging science/concept of epigenetics is highlighted by this article - not only are nature AND nurture important for human development, but also "nature" can be changed by "nurture" and vice versa. I'm also excited to see what role antidepressants play in further research. The class of drugs has already been somewhat of a "magic bullet" for a number of physiological afflictions.
I think it is possible for the discovery of genes or genes combinations that predict violent behavior but it will take a lot of resources and regulation to specifically prevent or limit exposure to violence for the people are genetically disposed. This can lead to evaluating households/families and isolation from them if the family is not giving the best environment for the child. It would not be ethical to do so because weighing the benefits of the child, having him or her stuck in a different environment with less freedom may be more harmful than them being inclusive in the environment like everyone else. It may actually be more time efficient to work towards a better environment for everyone to lessen the violence. In regards to this article, it talks more about the physical damage of child trauma but it also mentions at the bottom of the article that there is research on reversing the physical change. I think that this will be very helpful for people who had childhood situations such as a car accident or early death of a family member. This makes me think back to the film we watched in class, "The Ghost in your Genes", and in addition to reading this article, it makes us think more about the possibility of child trauma and how that can affect the genes and can pass it on through generations.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this will have any repercussions for the criminal justice system in the U.S. I’ve always been curious about whether very violent individuals (such as infamous serial killers and people who have shot civilians at places like theaters and schools) commit violent acts because they have some sort of violent gene which makes them “born to be a killer,” or if they were raised in a violent environment which caused psychological trauma and made them more likely to hurt others. In the future, if researchers find a way to reverse the brain alterations rather than prescribe people with antidepressants later on, I wonder if we could prevent some of the violence that occurs in the world. If there were some way to prevent the brain alterations, or if those with already-altered orbitofrontal cortexes were treated with antidepressants, perhaps violence overall would decrease since that person would be better able to inhibit their aggressive impulse.
ReplyDeleteI’m also curious to see how the researchers defined a stressful environment sufficient to cause psychological trauma in the rats. Could the psychological trauma as measured by the researchers truly be compared to the complexity of psychological trauma experienced by survivors of child abuse? There are so many ways that trauma can manifest its effects in a variety of people, depending on that person’s individual characteristics and methods of managing the stress. There are also a variety of types of abuse which may cause the trauma (physical, emotional, mental, sexual, neglect).
If doctors begin prescribing antidepressants in children who experienced trauma, I’m concerned about the ethics of such a scenario. Would children have to go on antidepressants for the rest of their lives, simply to prevent socially unacceptable aggressive behavior which may eventually become very violent behavior? Although people who have experienced psychological trauma early in life are more likely to express violent behavior later on, that does not mean all people do. How would people be targeted for going on such prescriptions, and would it be fair for survivors of trauma to bear the side effects of antidepressant medications? Perhaps rather than seeing psychological trauma as a diagnosable medical condition causing changes in the brain, it could be seen as more of a “disorder” which would be better handled with therapy.
Even if certain “aggressive genes” were identified, it would be highly unethical to screen people genetically at birth or prenatally in order to see if the child may be more prone to violence. That would be a new form of eugenics. I’m concerned that infants may be aborted simply for this potentially violent genetic trait. As with every test, there is a chance of false positives- what would happen if a parent chose to abort their child or give it up for adoption, thinking the child may have this genetically undesirable trait when it reality he or she does not? I also do not think it is ethical for people to intervene on the family unit in order to change the environment of a child with an “aggressive gene” in order to prevent violence. No child should experience psychological trauma from abuse. We should focus on preventing child abuse in all populations, rather than rushing to prevent it in people who may be genetically more prone to the negative effects of abuse.
I was not too surprised to read scientific findings which suggest that childhood exposures to violence and stressful situations lead to anger control issues throughout adolescence and adulthood. As the article indicates, when a person with a normal orbitofrontal cortex is faced with a stressful or negative experience, he/she learns how to deal with the situation and suppress negative impulses. But, if a child is exposed to traumatic events, epigenetic factors may influence the expression of genes that suppress anger. In addition, scientists have isolated the genes (and their variants) associated with anger suppression which is very exciting. While I think that the social environment is important to the possible recovery of trauma in patients, searching for gene combinations that make people more prone to epigenetic factors is equally as important.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that is certain is that current mood stabilizing medicines and psychiatric therapy do not work for everyone. Perhaps for these populations, the gene variations or epigenetic factors that influenced gene expression are not the same. By discovering more variations, perhaps there will be therapeutic medicine made, tailored to each person based on individual gene/gene alteration.
Although tailored mood stabilizing medicine may help patients already afflicted, the best way to prevent gene expression alteration is to limit exposure to violence for all people, instead of just those that are predisposed. That way, if there is an epigenomic link to anger, people predisposed to anger will still have normal functionality, in terms of dealing with stressful situations. This is easier said than done because of the violence in media and video games, as well as the domestic or even sexual abuse which is harder to prevent. While it is possible to target those predisposed to violence, altering the environment for all seems to be a more plausible solution. And for those who are already afflicted, tailored medicine and therapies will be there to aid in their recovery and functionality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJamie Shaw
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very interesting discovery. I figured that there was some type of impact on the child's brain as it was growing, if it was exposed to a violent household at an early age but I had no idea what that area might be. I was interested to learn that we have an area of our brain that controls aggressive behavior, I did not know that existed. I think this is a very interesting discovery, but not necessarily one that needs to be pushed to the limits like some of my peers have suggested. I think that forming a violence free society by removing/altering these individual's genes or aborting them isn't very necessary. I do, however think we should continue to focus on the nurture side of the debate because that is an incredibly important aspect to how a child develops and how he/she turns out.
I think that if we were to find out that a child has the gene to become a violent person, that the environment they will be growing up in should be considered and the parents should be educated about the finding and given resources on how to handle this, and resources if they encounter questions during their child's growth. While I don't think it is altogether necessary to remove the child from his/her parents, the parents should be mindful that their child has this predisposition and be careful not to exacerbate it by creating a violent environment and instead emphasizing that violence is not the answer. As many of my peers have stated before, and is well known, a person can supersede their genes, and just because they are genetically predisposed to a condition, it does not warrant that that is that person's fate.
Professor Camen Sandi and his team found a very interesting link between a child's exposure to violent behavior and physical changes in the brain that make it more likely for the growing adult to display a similar aggressive behavior. Male rats were used in this study, leading Sandis team to find genetic variants in the individual rats that were exposed to high stress situations, likely caused by the over-activation of the part of the brain that regulates emotional reactions, the amygdala.
ReplyDeleteI think that this study should be given considerable attention, as we further discover the simultaneous effects of nature and nuture that make up the phenotype. Evolution of humans have been based on what the is exposed to as a whole, and further developed to facilitate their existence in that environment. Just as the Japanese people have developed extra copies of a gene for starch-disgesting protein because their diets consist of a substantially larger amount of starch in their diets, it would be equally fair to assume that people exposed to a certain behavior will develop a response to it over time, especially when a child is at his/her most crucial point of development.
A further focus of the MAOA gene inhibitor is exactly what should be the primary focus of this study, because if it can in fact "renew cerebral plasticity", anti-depressants could change the anatomy of the entire human brain, and we need to limit the amount of unnatural drugs we are putting into the purest form of natural humans.
I like the connection my classmate brought up about the similarities of stress being in your genes and the video we watched in class, "The Ghost in your Genes". It demonstrates how dangerous a violent upbringing can be not only on one's kids, but on their kids, and many more generations. I would also have to agree with the comment that although this research could help us help children in abusive living situations, we can't necessarily conclude that that is the best option in every circumstance. We have to be careful when we use the information we have to try and help others.
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that one's brain physically changes from long term exposure to violence. This makes me skeptical of not just abusive parents, but other violent exposures like fighting/killing video games, violent movies, and other media that portrays violence as normal or casual. Would this be included in what would physically alter a child's brain, making them more tolerant of guns and other forms of hurting others? If so, we as a society need to be really careful as to what we are showing our youth. I'm not trying to say we should never teach a child what a gun is or ever show them how to hold a knife, but just the glorified idea of violence can sometimes get out of hand, in my opinion. Just something to consider when viewing what goes on in our media.
I will be curious to learn more about the research they have on the anti-depressants that can actually reverse this change in the brain formation. Things get very complicated when talking about the relationship between emotions and the scientific structure of the brain. However, because they can be so closely related, it is very important research that could lead to great discoveries that could help many people.
Alexandra Kramer
DeleteThis article presents some interesting findings on genetic links to violent behavior. While I do not think it would be ethical to target people who have aggressive behavior genetic markers and alter their environment, it could be useful for people who are exhibiting violence in their current environment. Screening people for these aggressive genes could be viewed as a form of segregation, a way of weeding out the bad from the good. However, these genetic markers could show that an individual’s violence has an environmental basis and could be used in developing treatment plans to help these individuals get away from their current environment that is triggering these genes. Furthermore, the article discusses future uses of medicine for people with these violent genes who exhibit the violent behavior. This research could help develop medication for people who cannot control their violent behavior through therapy alone.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting to learn that violent and negative experiences that people suffer in their childhood could actually alter their brain physically. It was also very interesting to learn that not only did these psychological stress cause an alteration in the brain, but it increased the level of MAOA gene expression and this alteration is linked to an epigenetic change. I knew about how a terrible childhood could impact people growing up, but I didn’t know that it wasn’t just a psychological thing, but a physical thing, where the brain and genes are affected. I’m not sure though, that there is a specific gene combination that predicts violent behavior though because it just seems too, I would say, too crazy to believe that there is an actual on and off switch in everyone for every emotion, where the gene expression is the on and off switch. I do believe it, that certain levels of certain chemicals in our body will trigger certain emotions, but I guess I just never thought of the one about violence. I do believe that somehow, these psychological stress did increase something in our body to trigger an increased level of MAOA gene expression. I’m not sure though if there is technology that could prevent or limit exposure to violence for people who are genetically predisposed. I wouldn’t be surprised if they do come up with treatments for it, since at this day and age, we’ve already come up with things like antidepressants. It would also be interesting to see what would happen if they do develop something that can reverse the physical changes in the brain that causes violence in a person; especially would they use this treatment, if it were to be discovered, on very violent people like criminals. It also does make me wonder, just what would this world come to then? Would we all just kind of live in a nonviolent world? Would we use this treatment on everyone, if it were to be discovered? Regarding if it is ethical to target people who may never commit violence by altering their environment in response to their genomes, it would be unethical if the person is not willing to expose themselves to the alteration. It would be ethical if the person was willing and this was for research. But if a treatment was discovered and for some reason it was required for everyone to get the treatment to prevent violence from occurring, that would probably be unethical since it might be against people’s own will.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this is a very interesting discovery, but it makes me wonder a lot about whether this is possible or not and what might come about next from this discovery.
This article was really interesting to me, especially the possibility of maybe being able to reverse the changes in the brain after childhood trauma to prevent aggression in the future. After watching many episodes of Law & Order and CSI, I’ve seen the instances where a person is convicted for murdering or raping another individual but it is later brought out that their childhood was made up of abuse, abandonment, or aggression. This potential MAOA gene could not only positively impact individuals but society as well. With the decrease in aggression from those with traumatic childhoods, the level of violence in an area could decrease dramatically.
ReplyDeleteI think that genomics will uncover genes/gene combinations that will predict violent behavior just because so much more has been understood about genetics after the Human Genome Project. This article reminded me of the video we’ve been watching in class “Ghosts in Your Genes” as well. An individual isn’t just made up of his phenotypic genes and environment, his family history and past plays a large role as well. With this realization, I think that technology can be used to prevent or limit exposure to violence for people who are genetically predisposed. Looking at family history, physicians may be able to find out if a child has had a family history of aggression or violence and could potentially use that knowledge to “screen” the child in a way to prevent the aggression from being passed on.
But the question of ethics is a difficult one. When would these children be “screened”? And what if they don’t want treatment because they feel as though they are not aggressive at the moment? It would definitely be unethical to try and force treatment on someone. Of course right now, the testing was only done in rats so there is still a long way to go before the MAOA gene can make a difference in humans. But I think that once more testing is done, this discovery could dramatically change our society.
I really like the usage of media examples in your blog post! I wonder if Law and Order SVU ever had a case where Dr. Warner found an MAOA gene in an offender!
DeleteI agree that people who are exposed to trauma in childhood are affected long term. The scientists in the article believe exposure to such trauma at an early age can alter the brain along with causing psychological effects. However, I am not sure as to whether or not genomics will uncover a gene or a combination of genes that lead a person to be violent. I believe that even if this were possible it could lead down a slippery slope. I do not think it is necessary to search for a genetic explanation for violence. I agree with my fellow classmates that the nurture side is something we can directly influence and is extremely important. If we were to identify specific genes that make a person violent, yes we could target people that are genetically predisposed but there are ethical issues with this. Identifying people with this apparent violent genetic makeup may lead to a less violent world but it is difficult to predict whether or not these people will ever display violent characteristics. Just because a person has a gene does not mean they are destined to display the characteristics of that gene. I believe that the environment plays a very important role in the triggering of these genes. If a child is discovered to have a violent gene then we could focus on educating the parents to provide a nurturing and non-threatening environment. However, this discovery may not be as helpful as we would like it to be. Identifying the people that carry the violent gene could lead to stereotypes forming when there is no guarantee this person will even commit a violent act. We also do not know if changing a person’s environment will prevent them from displaying violent characteristics. Overall this could lead down a very slippery slope and could lead to genetics favoring what we consider non-violent and valued characteristics. We do not know if identifying genes that predict violent behavior is even a possibility and what the aftermath of this discovery would be.
ReplyDeleteI think that it’s amazing how much science is advancing. I think it’s interesting that perhaps, we can tell if a person is predisposed to having a certain behavior. And I think the possibility of reversing it is also interesting. From the looks of it, if we can tell whether a person has experiences a trauma depending on which part of the brain is activated, then I do think that eventually after a lot of research and carefully looking at gene sequences of those who’s orbitofrontal cortex is activated and those whose are not, we can find the genes that will show who is predisposed for violent behavior (if it exists, of course). It may not predict the violent behavior in the sense, that if the person has those genes then they will definitely show violent behavior. But, like with diseases, just because a person has a gene for a disease it doesn’t necesarily mean that tits going to express it.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that knowing that a person has a gene for violent behavior can be used to limit exposure to violence. For instance, if parents know about it, they may try to provide a calm environment, but that doesn’t mean that their children won’t see and experience violence outside of the home and there is no way to control that. I think that if MAOA, the gene inhibitor really does work and it can “reverse the rise in aggression induced by juvenile stress”, then maybe like the article said, with further research we can see if we can reverse changes in the brain. If so, then maybe we can change the predisposition to violent behavior.
But as of now, all we know is that people in violent environments are more likely to be violent themselves. And so, if their parents are violent, then maybe their parents were too. So, maybe it is not all nurture, and genetics is involved. But at the same time, I don’t think that we should alter the environments of people to see if they would commit a crime or not. I don’t think that it is ethical, because if they do commit a crime and hurt themselves or others than essentially it is our fault and we harmed them more or so, intentionally because we knew what the consequences would be.
I found this article about exposure to violence very interesting. I had always thought that exposure to violence desensitized a person to violence but I did not realize it actually altered their brain. If we can better understand what causes a person to be violent we can help people become less violent through therapy and more effective treatment plans. This article also made me think a lot about the video we watched in class. “The Ghost In Your Genes” gave us insight on how stress, famine etc. can affect a person’s grandchildren. It would be interesting to use this knowledge to see if violence is also passed down genetically from a person who has been exposed to violence. The only problem with this research would be the stigma attached. Many people may not want to be labeled as “violent” just because they were exposed to violence. People need to take more responsibilities for their actions. By labeling everyone as “violent” we may be creating an excuse for violent people to say they couldn’t help it and it’s in their genes. I look forward to seeing what future research is done in this area.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your post! People may try to use the findings as an excuse for bad behavior...some may simply be more inclined to be violent than others, due to genetics...however, it is still something that is able to be controlled by the individual. Great point about the video we saw in class...if violence is found to be passed down generation to generation due mostly because of genetics instead of simply a cycle of seen and learned behavior, that would definitely alter a lot of opinions about aggressive individuals, and help explain a lot of the feelings most violent people have when confronted (they know they are violent, don't like being violent, but feel sort of helpless about it).
DeleteAs Chin Chu above stated, I do not find it surprising that exposure to violent and traumatic effects will predispose an individual to becoming a "violent individual" in adulthood. Genomics aside, this phenomena has been well documented in the field of psychology (1). Now, with the ability to sequence one's genome and examine similarities and differences among individuals, we can see for the first time the physical evidence of the long-known psychological effect that exposure to violence in childhood has on the individual.
ReplyDeleteI do predict that genomics will uncover genes or gene combinations that will predict violent behavior. I believe that many of the findings of psychology will manifest themselves in gene and gene combinations soon to be discovered by genomics. I do NOT think that this technology can or will be used to prevent or limit exposure to violence for people who are genetically predisposed. This would require a tremendous amount of cooperation between, for example, the doctor who would order the genetic test for the "violence" gene, and Child and Family Services (who I believe is the only group who could control exposure to violence among children). Most violence exhibited toward a child, would in my opinion, be from the family. A family who is likely to be violent around their children would not seem like likely candidates to screen and attempt to "protect" their children from said environments. Also, exposure to any other violent events that happen outside of the home are completely by chance. One cannot protect his or her child from witnessing a school shooting or bad car accident. These events are not scheduled in advance and do not allow for viewer exclusion. This idea of prevention through early detection as applied to the "violence" gene seems ludicrous; though I do believe that science can make great strides in uncovering genetic markers indicative of violent behavior, I do not believe prevention or protection from exposure to violence is possible.
I do not believe it would be ethical to target people that may never commit violence by altering their environment in response to their genomes. This is an infringement of privacy on the family, and could be interpreted as an infringement of the 9th amendment, which states that other rights exist outside of those listed in the Constitution do exist. In this realm often falls the issue of privacy. Although GINA, the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act does not prohibit interventions in the home as a result to genetic data, hopefully it expands from only the realm of employment to encompass areas such as these outside of work (employment is the only realm included in GINA) (2).
(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406538/
(2) http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight=thegeneticinformationnondiscriminationactgina
I do not necessarily believe that this discovery can help “prevent or limit exposure to violence for people who are genetically predisposed.” This article truly demonstrates the thin line between nature and nurture. In many cases,the amount of violence developing youth are exposed to are accompanied with other risk factors such as poverty, housing insecurity, and a lack of education. It would be very unlikely that we can simply find children that have been exposed to violence and remove them from a situation (If it was so easy we would already be doing it with our without this discovery). It is not that simple. What this article does give us is another argument in which we can use to describe the relationship between health and environment. We can now scientifically show that a child without any other factors involved who is an environment filled with violence will continue the path of violence in the future. This would hopefully help policy makers more interested in trying to help those in low socioeconomic areas that would be most affected by this discover. In a question o ethics I do believe it is ethical to find children who have been predisposed as “violent” and pay extra attention to them by exposing them to more positive things. Again even without these findings in Genomics we would do this.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Social Determinants of Health by Michael Marmot this issue of the effects of early childhood is discussed and listed as one of the 10 social factors that determine the health outcome of an individual. Early childhood experiences lead to the choices made as an adult. Thus screening youth for these chemicals is only step one of the solution.
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/strategy/Marmot-Social%20determinants%20of%20health%20inqualities.pdf
While many of us were already aware of the fact that psychological trauma during childhood can cause negative behaviors in adulthood, it was interesting to learn how this occurs through the studies done on rats. Normally, when a person experiences a “challenging social situation,” they have a neurological mechanism to inhibit aggressive impulses and maintain normal behavior. This occurs by activation of the orbitofrontal cortex. However, in humans who have experienced psychological trauma during childhood, the activation of the orbitofrontal cortex is deficient. Additionally, psychological stress was shown to modify in the long term the expression of genes (MAOA) that are involved in aggressive behavior.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the study was the testing of an MAOA gene inhibitor (an anti-depressant) that reversed the rise in aggression caused by childhood stress. This discovery gives rise to a number of different ideas for future research on controlling aggression in individuals who have experienced childhood trauma. In my opinion, treating children who have this violent gene with anti-depressants would be unethical because it does not necessarily mean that child is destined to express this behavior. Rather than treating a child with medication as a prophylactic, we should use therapy if and when they start to exhibit this behavior instead.
This article discusses how some people may be predisposed to violent behavior. I do not believe it is ethically correct to intervene by altering people’s environments. It is highly likely that if someone has these traumatic experiences, then their future descendants might be carriers of the altered gene as well. Just because they are carriers does not necessarily mean that it will be expressed. Targeting people just because they are born with it is not fair to them, especially if their violent behaviors never actually come forth.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe it is a good thing that by finding the genetic factor causing violence, it does not seem morally incorrect to use their genome as an excuse for acting in a violent manner. I feel that nurture plays a bigger role in this case. Perhaps twin studies should have been done in which both are predisposed for the gene and one is placed in a considerably stress-free healthy environment and one grows up in a less safe, stressful environment. Both might then be exposed to a similar type of stressful situation, and someone can look at their gene expression at that moment. Although it is questionably unethical, it may helpful to make a decision in the nature/nurture debate. For people who begin to express their genes at a very young age, it may be important to take slight cautionary steps by the time they reach their critical time periods. However, that is only if they show excessive violence. Considering recent events in regards to school shootings and other acts of violence, it may be important to look for signs and act only if it seems necessary.
Lastly, it seems rather difficult to limit exposure to some people who are predisposed to be violent. In some cases, growing up in a violent environment is almost inevitable, watching people getting killed everyday. They in turn grow up thinking that violence is the norm. It just doesn’t seem logical, however, to grab a population and get them out of that environment. In those cases, the individual has to decide where to go from there.
Very similary to my response on bullying, there is a genetic predisposition that increase the chances of a gene to be expressed, an aggressive gene may never be visibly seen. Being aware of the greater chances of being a violent can allow a better chance of being properly raised. Perhaps more attention and emphasis on how to properly treat others. Although this sounds like common sense people do not share the same values in parenting. This may bring awareness to the parents in order for them to plan accordingly. Even then there is no guarantee. A person develops over many years through interactions with parents, peers, teachers, etc. There is no single cause to violence, just a chain of unfortunate events that brings the violence out in a person. There is also no single kind of violence whether it be physical, verbal, or even virtual. Boys are more likely to be involved with physical violence while girls are more likely to be involved with psychological violence. In this case the type of violence someone is predisposed to be is most likely genetic as it is clear what the common standard is as far as what gender bullies in what way. Violence is also seen to develop in younger children. This could be seen as a nurture argument because many children are susceptible to poor parenting or traumatic events that causes lashing out in the form of violence. It is difficult to say, as I'm sure this argument will continue on for many years. What can be concluded though, in my opinion, is that there should not be nature or nurture, but rather a discussion on how the two influence each other.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/nature_vs_nurture_can_you_ever_really_trust_a_pit_bull/7201/
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aqoNKILBoxAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA227&dq=are+bullies+born+or+raised&ots=QonNCLr34x&sig=Ov6gRZisiK4luNvT827jurXaufc#v=onepage&q=are%20bullies%20born%20or%20raised&f=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213498000490
When reading this article, I immediately thought back to the video we watched in class, “Ghosts in Our Genes.” The evidence from this study demonstrates a strong case for the negative effect trauma has on an individual’s orbitofrontal cortex and MAOA gene expression. While the evidence of the effects within the same generation is compelling, I cannot help but wonder about the effects trauma experienced by a ancestor could have on the MAOA gene expression of future generations and thereby the aggressive behavior of generations to come. When examining society and social patterns, one can identify vicious cycles of violence which perpetuate trauma within various populations over time. Social scientists have many theories to explain patterns of structural violence, but a underlying genetic variation caused by trauma of ancestors could offer an alternative theory to such situations.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe that the epigenetic alterations in a individual are the sole reason for violence and therefore do not think it is ethical to target people by altering their environment in response to their genomes. I think that the cognitive mind, thought formation and consciousness is still an aspect of science that is not well understood, so to intervene with genetic variations would be acting without the full picture. I do however believe that the promise of MAOA gene inhibitors for use as an anti-depressant is extremely compelling and I look forward to further exploration into such inquires.
I knew that a previously abused child is more likely to abuse others when they grew up, but I didn’t know that the change was visible in their brain. I think that the area that this information will be most useful in is education. It’s yet another reason (as if we even needed another one) not to abuse your children or your peers. These children’s brains would have developed normally had the abuse never occurred. I don’t think that screening for this change in everyone’s brain is necessary to determine if they are more likely to grow up to be a violent individual, but it could be useful in proving child abuse cases. Individuals who were abused as children could use the information presented in the article to seek treatment options to prevent possible violent behavior. But as Mary brought up, not everyone exposed to violence in childhood is destined to be a violent individual. I think much more research must be done on the topic.
ReplyDeleteIs this information going to be used as an excuse for violent behavior though? Could criminals say they cannot be accountable for their violent behavior because they had a “disability” in their brain?
I did not know that the brains of children who experience trauma are altered. It was interesting to learn that the alteration occurs in the orbitofrontal cortex in both humans and rats. This may be one determinant of violent behavior, but I believe that there are other factors involved. We know that children who are exposed to violence and/or abuse are more likely to have violent tendencies as an adult. This article proves that nature has an effect on a person’s behaviors but I believe that a person’s experiences and environment have the most weight when it comes to determining behavior and whether or not a person will be more violent than another.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is ethical to target people who may have this alteration in their brain. Just because a person has a certain gene does not mean that it will be expressed. A person who is raised in a positive environment, never being exposed to violence or trauma at a young age might have violent tendencies and a person who was exposed to trauma as a child could have this brain alteration but grow up without any violent tendencies. More research needs to be done before targeting people.
Also, Katherine brought up some great points about this gene being used as an excuse for violent behavior. I don’t think that criminals should be allowed to blame their genes or brain differences for their illegal or violent behaviors.
The nature vs. nurture debate has been ongoing for many decades now. While many traits are genetically determined, violence is one that is definitely factored by one's environment. It was interesting to read about how environmental factors such as stressful situations at a young age changed the level of the MAOA gene expressed in the cortex.
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel that may not necessarily be ethical to target someone who many never commit a crime, I think using this information would be very helpful in targeting criminals and reducing crime. Seeing horrendous acts such as the incidents at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech simply prove that the murderers were definitely not people that had "normal" levels of the MAOA gene expressed. Violent and sociopathic behavior definitely has a lot to do with how someone is raised and environmental factors, however, if these factors alternate the expression of their genes, it might be easier to spot criminals by doing either a brain scan (as shown in the study) or genetic testing.
I believe that a child you has been bullied, stressed, or exposed to violent behaviors at a young age should get tested to see if he/she has a higher amount of the gene expressed. If they do, the MAOA gene inhibitor drug could be used as mentioned in the study since it reverses the rise of aggression. I really hope that this breakthrough can maybe reduce some of the awful crime that we see today.
As others have mentioned, I was not surprised that there is a link between childhood trauma and an epigenetic outcome. Biologically, very little activity was observed in the orbitofrontal cortex of the group studied that was exposed to stress in early life. Additionally, the amygdala was over-stimulated which resulted in reduced ability to regulate negative impulses and emotional response.
ReplyDeleteThe research suggested that brain trauma in early childhood could have epigenetic implications. I believe that this is a convincing possibility and that genomics will one day be able to further narrow the scope of the gene that predisposes individuals to violence. If this is possible then it is also entirely possible to produce a technology to identify or prevent this gene sequence more easily. However, it is unlikely and not feasible that this technology will be available to all those who are predisposed.
If genes were absolute determinants of violence, it may be easier to mandate preventive or treatment measures. Since, at this point, the line between environment factors and epigenetic determinants is blurred, I believe that individuals should ultimately have the choice to be tested and treated.
Similarly to what we have discussed before, I feel that a persons genes cannot fully determine their behavior. A person’s environment has a great deal of influence. In terms of whether or not technology can be used to prevent or limit violence for people who are genetically predisposed, the article mentioned that giving those with the “violence gene” antidepressant medicine can help them be less violent. However, this does raise the questions of ethics. Should people who are found to have this “violence gene” be made to take medication that could suppress this gene? And if so, where does the line get drawn. Should all people need to be screened for this gene? Should only people who certainly have the gene be made to take medication or should we include anyone who has been exposed to childhood violence? Discovering so much about our genes and epigenetics is of great benefit, but also brings with it many questions and potentially ethical issues.
ReplyDeleteThis article was interesting because it showed the effects that a person's environment can have on their genetic expression. It's interesting to me to know that even though a person may have a gene for violence, or alcoholism, or any number of things, some characteristics or behaviors may not even be expressed because of a certain environment that person was brought up in.
ReplyDeleteLike Eva said above, I do not believe that epigenetic alterations in a individual are the only reason that a person becomes violent in life. I said this in class before, but it seems to me that as soon as we find specific genes that do have something to do with a certain characteristic or behavior, we're too eager to slap a label on it, calling it "the monogamy gene" or "the violence gene." The human experience is very complex and intricate, and personally, I believe that there are too many experiences and memories that make you the person you are, and why you behave the way you do. I think it's impossible to say a person's behavior is because of only 1) a specific gene, and 2) the exposures that change your genetic expression.
Also, as Alana said above, I do think that this is an important discovery in terms of possible forms of treatment. If we know that a specific gene has something to do with anger expression, we could think of other ways in which treatment of people with anger / violence problems could be done. Although I"m not sure which kinds of genetic treatments we could perform in order to help, it is something to think about when other forms of treatment, such as counseling, do not seem to be working.
Lastly, as many people mentioned above, I do not think it would be ethical in any way for people to be screened for these genetic factors prior unless that person was seeking possible treatment him or herself. Scanning for the gene, and possibly finding it, does not guarantee a type of behavior reaction from that person, but other people who are less informed might view it this way. They may be put through therapies and treatments for an aggression or violence problem that does not even exist yet or ever, and maltreatment of a person would all be based on something we do not know 100% about.
It's an interesting idea, but like all new discoveries, we must take more time into research, and correctly educating ourselves. we could do both great and detrimental things with this information, so hopefully we will do the research and take time in truly understanding it the best we can, in order to do the most good and the least amount of harm.
I thought this article was a great read after learning about epigenetic inheritance and polymorphisms in class. The article discusses the “level of MAOA gene expression increased in the prefrontal cortex” when the person had been exposed to aggressive behavior. Although the article does not discuss passing the trait to later generations, it would be interesting to explore this possibility after watching ‘A Ghost in Your Genes’. I do believe that children that were exposed to high levels of trauma oftentimes do become involved in violent behavior. It is great to see a scientific study that is proving this correlation in the brain. However, my issue with the study is that the researchers seemed to focus a lot on the brains of rats and did not talk much about the brains of humans. Even the picture associated with the article shows a male rat brain. Yes, there is some overlap between the species but humans are able to articulate their problems with their past and show more emotions than rats.
ReplyDeleteI researched if there were studies similar to this performed in humans. I found a study by Frazetto et al. exploring the MAOA gene in humans and the link to violent behavior. The study also found that an increased MAOA gene expression linked to more violent behavior. The study discusses the effect your environment can play on your genes and how important early childhood exposures are later in life. (1)
(1)http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000486
I don't doubt that there is a link between childhood trauma and neurological changes as the article proposes; however, I do not think that these findings should be used to predict adult behavior based on experiences in childhood because they do not set a predetermined trajectory for how we will progress through life. Experiencing abuse as a child may incline people to repeat the cycle of violence, though there is no guarantee that they will. Not everyone who experiences childhood trauma will become violent as an adult and vice versa. There are other forces of nurture at work that may deter a "predisposed" person from becoming violent. For example, someone who was abused as a child, but had a strong support network from their peers may not exhibit troubling signs of childhood trauma later in life. Human behavior is too complex to be boiled down to a single gene or exposure.
ReplyDeleteThe findings presented in this article pose interesting ethical implications. As Jeremy expressed above, this information can be potentially be used to fuel discrimination based on our genes and experiences. Will future studies on this subject cause people to abort a fetus carrying a "violent" gene? Will employers refuse to hire people who have a known history of abuse in childhood?
Because we know that not everyone succumbs to the violent behavior they were subjected to in childhood, we should be focusing on what makes those people resilient and apply the findings to others who have been faced with hardship as children.
I was also surprised to learn that the negative psychological experiences that people have in their early years can not only impact them psychologically, but physiologically as well. It does make some sense, because throughout time many of those who have gone down in the history books for heinous acts have had negative experiences as children, so it does make sense that there would be a link between the negative experiences early in life and violent tendencies later in life. It is very possible that genomics will uncover genes that predict violent behavior. This study is one of the first steps towards that discovery. However, we must be careful as to how we choose to treat those with such a gene or predisposition. I do not think it is ethical to target people that have had negative childhood experiences simply because they may have a genetic predisposition to violence. There are many things people can be genetically predisposed to, but that does not mean that they will be affected by each and every one of these predispositions. It also depends on what kind of targeting strategy we are talking about though. There could be small steps taken, such as optional therapy covered by insurance for those with this so called violent gene. However, it would not be okay to force these people into therapy or to discriminate against them purely because of their prior experiences in life. There are many people who experience traumatic events in their childhood and are functioning members of society.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this falls back on genetic predisposition and environmental influence. It is interesting to know that the brain is physically altered by non-physical violence or abuse; however, although it may indicate, as the article mentions, paths to more effective anti-depressants, it really will have no effect on children growing up in traumatic/violent households or environments. If we were able to help children in violent homes, before they were affected by them, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. Even if they didn't have the "violence predicting gene", would we leave them in the psychological stressing environment because they wouldn't turn out to be violent? Isn't that unethical as well since the children are still psychologically stressed and harmed? Perhaps a pharmaceutical application for adults with the gene would be effective in tuning down their aggressive or violent behavior; however, even if they have the gene, it can't be sure that they will develop violent tendencies. I believe there are a lot of complications to a case like this, and they cannot be answered simply as so many factors are involved with violent behavior, varying degrees of expression of violence, and the mere fact that we cannot alter past environments (which has a large influence on the development of behavior as well). Maybe, if as adults, they chose to get tested for the violence gene and take targeted medicine for it, but I believe it would have to be the choice of the patient and in no way could be required of anybody.
ReplyDeleteMost people agree with the fact that childhood trauma can be a determining factor for a childs future. There has always been a strong incidence of long term psychological problems for survivors of mental and psychological trauma. The brain is constantly changing and there are certainly genes that can be altered or "switched on" at the slightest touch. The researchers for this study successfully sought out a way to understand how the brain responds to threat and how it stores traumatic memories. In an article written in the American Academy of Experst in Traumatic Stress, researchers determined various neurophysiological and neuroendocrine responses to fear and trauma. Such experiences in childhood holds such a severe impact on a developing brain that it is sometimes hard to recover. It is no wonder why most of our predators, have a history of mental and/or sexual abuse. Although the brain is constantly developing, the majority of critical organization takes place in childhood. Like many of my classmates have mentioned, I did find it surprising to see that negative experiences not only influenced the future of a child mentally, but it actually can physically change the structure of ones brain. It is crazy to think that science has grown to the extent where we can tell if a person is predisposed to act a certain way. Although it may seem, by testing the efficacy of the MAOA gene inhibitor and the effects of an increase/decrease expression in the prefrontal cortex, the researchers have it all figured out; however I think that the idea of reversing the physical change can lead down a slippery slope. This could be helpful if used correctly, in the right environment, but once genetic engineering is started, I don't think there will be any slowing down. I agree with my classmate Jeremy, that this research (which, no doubt can be helpful if used correctly) can lead to eugenics, just like depicted in the movie Gattaca where people were genetically modified to 'perfection'. It can be beneficial to reverse the genetic effects, but I think that it would be more beneficial to prevent the occurrence all together. Of course it is impossible to cast away all violence, but I think that with the right knowledge, parents should be able to provide an environment that can limit the exposure.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aaets.org/article196.htm
I think the article is very interesting in the sense that they talk about trauma and exposure to violence being involved in the shaping of our brain, its function, and the genes that become expressed. I think this article helps support that environmental factors can affect our gene expression, and certain environments foster certain genes to be expressed. In terms of being exposed to trauma as a child rat, in this scenario, it’s almost important that the brain works in accordance with its previous exposures. A traumatized rat must express aggressive behaviors to survive and succeed in stressful future environments. I think its amazing how our brain and our genes closely connect and do what they can to ensure our survival. It truly is amazing.
ReplyDeleteA few takeaways from this article is how can we make sure that our children are not exposed to traumatic situations and how if they are can we help regulate what has become of our brains. How can we help and support these children and adults. I believe certain activities like yoga and meditation can help reset the orbitofrontal cortex, and hopefully gives these people a chance for less emotion driven responses. I’m also curious about if gene expression affects brain function or if brain function effects gene expression. I’m not sure if it matters what happens first but maybe knowing so will give us a better understanding of how to treat the situation. There is no need to ostracize people with certain expressed genes but it’s important to be able to know how to help them act according to proper societal etiquette.
My last statement is in regards to ice hockey. Professional ice hockey is a violent sport, and especially at the professional level, fighting is encouraged to settle differences. I’d be curious to look at the brains of enforcers in the NHL and see if certain genes are expressed and certain brain activity is taking place that helps foster aggressive behavior, and if they can turn it off when they are off the ice. I could imagine that it is difficult to react to off the ice altercations different than on the ice ones, especially if fighting has become the norm of your gene expression. Again just a thought!
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with what Maysam has said. Preventing this type of violent environment should be top priority, but obviously that isnt an easy task. it is interesting to see that our environment has such a strong effect on the physical development of the brain and serves to highlight just how intertwined nature and nurture really are. I think this technology could probably be used to uncover violent gene combinations but it feels too circumstantial to say that just because your genes suggest that you MAY be violent you should be targeted. Because, as always, there are other factors at play that can promote violent behavior, there could be genes linked to violence that researchers would never think of. Therefore, I feel that we should work on targeting and reducing unhealthy environments for everyone, not just those who are predisposed to be violent. Just because you arent pre-disposed to something doesnt mean you wont develop it either. Based solely on the world that we live in, one that is filled with violent video games etc, is in some way predisposed to be violent. I also think that experimenting with antidepressants, although promising, is a very risky move. Brain chemistry seems so vulnerable to any changes that I would really need to see some serious longitudinal studies before feeling comfortable with this idea.
Genomics could likely uncover genetic variants which make certain people more likely to behave in a violent manner however genetic expression is inextricably linked to environmental factors so definitively predictive screening would be impossible in the absence of environmental context. As such to isolate those with genetically based propensities towards violence would ultimately be a form of discrimination. “Sorry Jimmy, you cannot go with your friends to see the new Quentin Tarantino movie because it would modify the expression of your MAOA gene.” Would the presence of certain gene’s make one person a higher priority for protection than another? Hypothetical situation: child A has a genetic predisposition to violence while child B does not. Both are growing up in similarly abusive homes. Should child A be a higher priority than child B? No because environmental factors which both increase the propensity towards violence are present in both. The expression of the MAOA gene would be altered in child A however the activity of the orbitofrontal cortex would be modified in both children. The optimal response is to account for environmental stress related factors rather than solely addressing them for the genetically vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteScreening for genetic predispositions towards violence would be a subversive form of discrimination which would likely devolve into profiling. If you could altering the environment of those “targeted” as having genetic predisposition towards violence where would it stop? Why not screen people with a genetic predisposition towards diabetes and control their sugar intake? “Oh you would like to buy a Snickers? Sorry sir you are only allowed to purchase vegetables.” Hope you like fiber. Genetic information should be used to expedite medical intervention and improve quality of life, not to give the government license to intercede into the daily lives of citizens under the guise of the preemptive strike against future violence.
I don’t think genes can truly predict if a person is going to be violent or not. It is all about a person’s environment and what they are exposed to. This is saying that people are exposed to negative environments, which cause them to violent. However, it is not as if we want some children to be exposed to negative environments and circumstances. Most of the time this exposure unfortunately cannot be prevented. So whether genes can determine if a person is going to be violent or not, the prediction won’t be able to truly prevent the person from being exposed to negative circumstances. Would this become a test for all newborns to undergo causing them to possibly be prejudiced against because of their genes? It is not ethical to treat people differently because of their genes and what they may or may not be predisposed to do. Violence is a part of human nature and it will never be truly eradicated from society and thus this gene test just seems unnecessary. Maybe it is beneficial to understand violence and create the anti-depressants but not to treat people differently.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that stood out to me in this article was the term "psychologically stressful situations," especially when they were discussing the cohort of male rats. This is a very subjective term and it is important to define what types of experiences fall under that category. What causes psychological stress in one person may differ from its affect on another, so there is a lot of gray area. I do find it interesting though that they do link nature and nurture and discuss how one's experiences influence their genetics. However, I think more studies need to be done in order to make this hypothesis more persuasive. In addition, similarly to the article about vasopressin, this article is studying aggressiveness, which does not necessarily make a person "violent." Therefore, the way the findings are communicated should stay true to the studies real findings.
ReplyDeleteThe views expressed in this article are in many ways understandable, but have been misconstrued in others. The article speaks of "the expression of certain genes." This I can understand as being a cause for one to be more inclined to have aggressive behavior. A child may absolutely have a chemical imbalance that triggers some reaction in the brain, thus causing him or her to act in an overly aggressive manner. However, I am a big believer in the fact that it is mainly the environment and values instilled in a child at a young age that creates the way they process certain situations and then react to them. For example, if one grows up in a hostile environment from a young age, they may be either very quiet or, they may be overly inclined to protect themselves and lash out at those around them. This may unfortunately give them the label of being a "bully." However, all in all such things as genes an testosterone levels may contribute to ones aggressiveness, but i believe environment to be the primary contributor. More studies that support a genetic basis would help to sway me into believing something different.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Chris Gordon's statement/view above. There is no doubt that some individuals have certain genes and/or chemical imbalances that may lead the individual to having aggressive characteristics. The bottom line is whether these genes are expressed or not expressed in that individual. I believe the main discrepancy in this article is whether these genes are expressed through nurture or if these individuals are simply violent people from the get-go. Personally, I think without a doubt that nurture is the ultimate deciding factor whether an individual becomes violent and starts expressing aggressive behavior. Regardless of the gene, I believe that if a child is raised in a violent environment that his/her perception of rights and wrongs will be altered. However, this is not to say that all children that are raised in a violent environment will certainly be violent in the future. Looking at the media today, it is almost impossible for a child to now be exposed to some kind of violent nature whether it is in movies, video games, or music. I firmly believe that this is where the parents' responsibilities come into play. It is up to the parents to have their children truly understand that violence is not the answer in any case and to shield them from the violence and tragedies in society; to have them understand that violence is not a norm. Without this guidance, I believe a child is left to make the decision by himself of whether violence is acceptable or not based on outer sources such as the media.
ReplyDeleteI know of some kids that have grown up in violent and gang motivated towns/communities, but have matured into very mature, kind, and non-violent adults. On the flip-side, I know of some kids who have grown up in very nice and wealthy suburbs that have ultimately become violent and aggressive adults. Of course, there is a clear correlation that children who are raised in troubling and violent communities are more likely to become violent themselves in the future, but I believe this can be reversed with proper parenting efforts at a young age. In any event, I still strongly believe that although an individual may be genetically predisposed to violence, I believe that the certain gene will only be truly expressed based on the nurture factor and how well the child's upbringing is.
This was a very interesting find by EPFL Professor Carmen Sandi and the team, demonstrating for the first time a correlation between psychological trauma in pre-adolescent rats and neurological changes similar to those found in violent humans. The researchers were able to unravel the biological foundations of violence using a cohort of male rats exposed to psychologically stressful situations when young, then observing that these experiences led to aggressive behavior when the rats reached adulthood. "This research shows that people exposed to trauma in childhood don't only suffer psychologically, but their brain also gets altered," explains Sandi. Other researchers who have studied the brains of violent human individuals have observed the same deficit in orbitofrontal activation and the same corresponding reduced inhibition of aggressive impulses. This alteration was linked to an epigenetic change; meaning, the traumatic experience ended up causing a long-term modification of this gene's expression. Sandi went as far as too say, "This research could also reveal the possible ability of antidepressants.” Though that would be great, I think it is a bit too soon to make that association, or else the public will eat that statement up.
ReplyDeleteIn the words of Sheba Ebhote, “It is not that simple.” Yes, it is already well known that violent adults often have a history of childhood psychological trauma; however, I find it hard to believe that this is the best explanation for violent behavior. As Corey Best said in his post, “there is no single cause to violence, just a chain of unfortunate events that brings the violence out in a person.” I completely agree with this statement. Furthermore, I really enjoyed the example that Erica Cuevas proposed: “I don’t think that knowing that a person has a gene for violent behavior can be used to limit exposure to violence. For instance, if parents know about it, they may try to provide a calm environment, but that doesn’t mean that their children won’t see and experience violence outside of the home and there is no way to control that.” On top of this, what the parents think is a calm place for their child to grow up in, could make the child stir-crazy and possibly become violent him/herself. Environment is a huge factor in all of this, which as a side note, I cannot help but to question what exactly the “stressful environment” of the rats was in the study.
I think Jillian really hits on an important issue which calls into question the validity of these claims. The study reports the male rats are more socially aggressive after experiencing psychological trauma, and they reported lowered activity in the prefrontal cortex; they seem to be correlated, and I happen to believe that it is fairly likely that they are, however I do not believe they are as related as the article portrays. There are a number of other mechanisms in the body that control or influence social behavior,oneof them being the pre-frontal cortex (as a result of the expression of the MAOA gene as an inhibitor). There are several other factors that contribute to aggressive behavior, it is generally known that elevated levels of the hormone nor-epinephrine, which is released when an organism feels threatened, can cause defensive aggression. The article does not specifically note what type of stress was induced but if threatened a rat might interpret that stimuli as dangerous and act in defensive aggression. It is basically impossible to determine with these findings (as they do not account for other stimulating hormones and neurotransmitters that have similar effects on behavior) whether it is the expression of the MAOA gene or if it is any other molecule that is contributing to that phenotypic expression.
ReplyDeleteThis article showcases an important linkage with epigenetic changes and predisposition to certain personality traits and gene expression. I think the important thing to take from this article is its focus on the way early childhood experiences can have powerful effects on the brain and even our genetic makeup. As with other articles that we have seen predisposition does not automatically equate to direct correlation to behavioral expression. It's important to be critical with articles with claims that are still under continuing research. The research does show how experiences are internalized into our biological existence and can affect our internal makeup. I do agree that it does change certain reactions that people have behaviorally but it is an acquired and nurtured behavioral expression. Being predisposed may have affects on certain behaviors but further environmental factors are at play as well. I think from our class on research and the media with genetic research it is important to look critically at findings and not be too caught up with interpretations and claims that may seem a bit to far fetched. It is a step in the right direction for further analysis of brain reactions to external experiences and lasting impacts.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Ciccone
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very interesting that every day we are getting closer and closer to linking certain actions to our genes. It is not only our social interactions and environment that make people act in a certain way, but also our genes play just as big as a role. When reading the article I was curious what type of aggressive acts were these rats exhibiting. The article didn’t go on to future explain this but I was curious on how they differentiated a normal acting rat and an aggressive rat.
When reading this article one thing that I kept thinking about was the recent school, mall and movie shootings that have happened recently. I would be curious to see if the shooters have little activation in their orbitofrontal cortex. This could shed light on why they acted in such a way since they have a reduced ability to moderate negative impulses. Also in the article it mentioned researches have studied violent humans and have seen a lack of activation in their orbitofrontal cortex. I am curious as to what acts make a person violent, or to be deemed violent because it was not defined in the article.
In the end of the article it mentioned anti-depressants being able to reduce the aggression in violent individuals. If these violent acts are caught early enough then these anti-depressants could help many people with this problem. I have always wondered if certain people whether serial killers or people like them were born with a certain gene. How could someone be so violent and ruthless to other humans? I think this study can help explain why some people could be violent. I would like to see future articles look deeper into the association of violence and our genes.
As was said for my last blog post, I believe that violence has more to do environment versus having to do with our genetics. I do believe that genetics plays a role especially in regards to how we look, the family we are born into, as well as our abilities to learn and interact with others. However, the main reason children and people are violent is because they grow up with the mentality that violence works better than alternative solutions. Despite traumas that affect the orbitofrontal cortex, in many situations, violence is often rewarded or ignored by supervising figures. This often tells children that acting with violence is conducive to receiving what they want. There are incidences after traumatic experiences where children avert blame in situations despite using violence towards others because authority figures allow them to “get away with it”. Growing up, these children are instilled with entitlement issues and become violent when they don’t receive instant gratification. These instances soon build up and only repress the activity of the orbitofrontal cortex more and more. I experienced this first hand when I worked at Jumpstart. Jumpstart is a program where low-income families are able to get high quality education for their children with the help of college and high-school-aged volunteers. Many of these children have experienced traumatic events and were quick to act with violence. I observed that the kids that were not punished, or the kids that cried about being punished and were consoled and no longer in trouble, were way more violent than the kids that responded well to authority figures. In the end I feel like environment still plays a stronger role than genetics and causes these deficits in brain activity to occur. Based on this article one cannot assume people are born violent because the brains of violent individuals are experiencing deficits in the orbitofrontal cortex after a traumatic experience or event.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, it was found that there was a lower cognitive ability relating to increased risk for violence. Although this can be argued, the article that was attached to this blog post cannot be viewed as the “be all end all” in explaining violence has to do less with nurture and more with nature. More evidence-based research needs to be done on the orbitofrontal cortex in relation to violent individuals. A prospective study needs to be done starting with children that have experienced traumatic events and then followed into their adult-life to see if they still exhibit violent behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404054/
I agree that anyone who has experienced trauma as a child continues to be affected in different ways throughout that persons life. I never thought about the fact that one's reaction to the trauma can actually alter their brain, and in tern their genetic make up. The genetic proof of changes in the brain enforces scientific proof that people who induce abuse and trauma onto their children may have also had similar experiences as a child. I am very interested the similarities, differences, and comparisons between nurture and nature. How can we determine what comes from genetics and scientific facts or the environment a person grew up in? I believe that there are ways, other than looking at the orbitofrontal cortex, to determine why a persons trauma affects him or her later in life and how that person can move forward in a healthy way.
ReplyDeleteAlternative medicine such as Kineseology looks at how we can tap into more difficult to access areas in our psyche access by way of muscle therapy. This is done by talking to the therapist and using the different pressure points on the body. Why do we have certain trends in your personality? Why do we make certain decisions? Why do we have a certain thought process? Different therapies can be helpful for someone who had a traumatic childhood. Although the article says the genetic change in the brain can not be reversed, there are ways to work on certain traits in order to change things around. Just like those negative experiences can alter your brain, so can positive therapy and other treatment techniques if a person invests the time and energy.
Given that there has always been a link between violent and aggressive behaviors in adulthood to traumatic experiences in adolescence, it does not surprise me that there is a physical change in the brain as well. It sounds logical that a traumatic experience could activate or suppress part of the brain in the same way that stress can. Now that there is physical evidence and research out there, maybe it could help healthcare cover more costs of mental health treatments in adults. While I think there may be research that could discover whether an adolescent is predisposed to violent or aggressive behavior, I think it may be meaningless in that it may take an outside experience or event to trigger that behavior later in life anyways.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. An adolescent who shows aggressive behaviors usually had a bad childhood experience that led them to be hostile and respond to negative situations by lashing out using either physical violence or argumentation. Just because a neurological change has been shown to exist after a traumatic experience that doesn't mean that the effected person will act using violence. If a person never experiences a trigger that sets them off, then neither he or anyone else could tell if he is prone to dealing with challenging social situations negatively.
DeleteViolence has been a part of our culture for centuries. Having said that, I am not sure how helpful it would be if we were able to predict violent behavior. Even if we were able to determine who will be more likely to react in a violent manner, it would be extremely hard to determine when they will act that way. Just because someone has the gene, does not necessarily follow that they will ever engage in violent behavior. I believe that behavior is learned. If someone is exposed to violent behavior as a child or is taught to deal with their problems using violence, they are more likely to behave violently. I do not believe that genomics can uncover genes or gene combinations that predict violent behavior because I believe that genes cannot dictate how someone will behave. Their environment and social influences, also including where they were nurtured plays a huge role in how people react and deal with social situations that call for violence. Even if there is an aggression or violent gene, its just another thing to blame your actions on. For example, someone who commits murder and rationalizes it with “well its in my genes” shouldn’t be excused from the punishment for the act they committed. Honestly, there are better experiments science could spend their time doing.
ReplyDeleteThis article demonstrates how much more there is to research and discover in the field of genetics. It has always been known that children that experience traumatic situations tend to be affected psychologically, but to be able to pinpoint how our brain is altered, what part of the brain is altered, and what genes are expressed or inhibited due to said trauma is simply amazing. With this said, like others in the class such as Grace Tom have stated in their opinion, I think it is important to remember that there are many social as well as genetic factors that come into play that determine a person's aggressive nature. It would be over-simplistic to state that a person is aggressive due to alterations in the orbitofrontal cortex. Though completely related, it is not a complete determinant as to whether someone will be aggressive or not. Just because one person's orbitofrontal cortex is more altered than another person's does not mean that the first person will be more aggressive. Different situations such as varying scenarios, varying upbringings, and impulses, to name a few, would come into play as well as to whether someone were to commit an aggressive act.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, though it would be great to able to see who is genetically pre-disposed for aggressive behavior, it is very controversial due its invasive nature. It would not be screening for some sort of disease or condition, but it would be screening for the possibility of being aggressive, a possibility that does not necessarily need to be true. Still, as Mary Dawson pointed it out, it would be interesting to examine the oribitofrontal cortex of prisoners who committed violent acts to see how highly correlated their findings are. I think seeing a correlation in such a study would provide more credibility in their research and could perhaps lead to one decreasing the amount of violent criminal acts present today.
I agree with the prior comments calling into question the actual implication of this discovery. I think that environmental and social circumstances in early childhood do have the dominant effect on aggressive tendencies rather than biological differences between individuals. If a child is growing up and developing in a psychologically abusive environment, I don’t find it surprising that their brain undergoes changes. That the orbitofrontal cortex is less activated and therefore does not inhibit aggression normally or that the overreaction of the amygdala causes heightened emotional reactions seems like an evolutionary response to that prior trauma. Therefore the statement that, "this adds an additional dimension to the consequences of abuse, and obviously has scientific, therapeutic and social implications,” may be a bit overreaching. Clearly this has scientific significance for further research but it would never be ethical or socially acceptable to test individuals who experienced trauma or abuse in childhood for these changes or for increased MAOA gene expression. With that said, I think the usefulness of this study depends on the ability of MAOA gene inhibitors to be used as a treatment, for those who cannot control their behaviors or for dangerous individuals, like mentioned above. Then again, as already mentioned, it would be a drawback from this kind of scientific advances if individuals could use examples of epigenetic changes in their genome as a defense for violent crimes.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very clear that genomics will uncover genes that predict violent behavior. Genomics has already begun to do so. I do not believe that this technology can be used to prevent or limit exposure to violence who are genetically predisposed. It just does not seem like something plausible. I do not believe that it is ethical to target people who are genetically predisposed to violence by altering their environments. This also does not seem plausible. I think that in response to seeing that research has uncovered the detrimental effects that violence early in life has on a person's brain, centers that help victims of violence should be made more readily available to this people. Also, therapy for these folks should be made more accessible from a financial point of view. Instead of altering these people's environments as a preventative measure, we should make help available for them instead. I know that knowing that if something can be done to help someone avoid being exposed to violence or acting out because of exposure to it can make any researcher want to alter their environment, but that is just simply not ethical and a violation of the 9th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with screening people to see if they have genetic changes as a result to violence in early childhood. I believe that finding out that you have these changes can have detrimental effects on a person psychologically. Also, what would these people do with this type of information? There can also be detrimental effects if the results of this information ends up in the wrong hands, whether leaked by those doing the screening or by those who have the genetic changes. They can be shunned by those who find out about their genome. I fail to see any positive things that can come from this type of screening.
After reading the article, I found the research conducted by EPFL Professor Carmen Sandi and her team to be quite interesting, for they took a pre-existing notion and attempted to connect it to genetic alterations. By pre-existing notion, I mean the generally accepted belief that aggressive behavior by adults can be traced back to traumatic experiences from childhood. In rats exposed to stressful situations when younger, the team could see that the activation within the orbitofrontal cortex, and normal inhibition of aggressive behavior was diminished. When applied to gene expression however, specifically the MAOA gene tied to aggression, the claim that traumatic experiences leads to long-term epigenetic change may be going too far. The article doesn't provide many details into how an increase of MAOA genetic expression was measured, and if more expression in the pre-frontal cortex leads to more aggressive behavior. It is also unclear how aggression levels were measured "Stressful" situations experienced the rats at a young age may have been perceived differently. Certain individuals may be able to adapt to certain situations better, and in turn may live with less aggressive tendencies. Also, only a cohort of male rats was used in the study. Does this imply that genetic alterations can vary between genders, specifically regarding aggression? Finally, the article indicated that further studies can be done on the effects of antidepressants and cerebral plasticity. It was shown that antidepressants were used to reduce aggression levels in rats, but I don't think that continued use can alter gene expression. However, they may be certain negative side effects to continued antidepressant use. If they can alter certain genes for aggression, it is unknown what others might be affected. It is certainly an interesting research topic for the future.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though these findings are extremely interesting and bring about multiple possibilities regarding prevention and treatment for adults experiencing psychological difficulties due to an abusive childhood. There is no doubt that childhood trauma molds certain aspects of a person’s adulthood. It is known that violent adults often have a history of childhood trauma, but a direct link between early trauma and neurologic changes has not been demonstrated before. This article provides solid evidence for this previously conceived notion. Thus, it is evident that our genes are capable of being extremely altered by our environment and affect our actions and overall lives. Not only is the brain constantly changing due to environmental stimuli, but our genes are altered as well. This article has done a successful job of portraying that negative experiences not only influence the future of a child psychologically, but it also can impact a person to the extent of physically altering different structures of their brain. A question, and possible problem, that I ran into when reading this article was what exactly did the rats endure during childhood to be considered psychological trauma? And how do you know that this “psychological trauma” experienced by rats is comparable to the psychological trauma exhibited by humans? In addition, everyone in childhood exhibits undesirable circumstances that are a part of experiencing life, but where is the line drawn between normal and traumatic experiences. This is an easy question to answer when it comes to extreme situations, such as rape and bullying, but due to the fact that every individual is unique and reacts differently to situations, something that is traumatizing to one child may not be to another.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the possibility of being able to see who is genetically pre-disposed for the aggressive tendency, it is something that may be a good idea in thought, but not as much when translated into action. One of the reasons for this it’s invasive nature and its inconsistency. This is because everyone reacts differently to situations, and having a certain gene does not necessarily guarantee that they will engage in aggressive behaviors. It could also lead to patient privacy issues, such as whether companies would want to test for this gene in possible new employees.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777796
We have already coined the psychological occurrence of posttraumatic stress disorder as something very common after a traumatic experience: flashbacks, headaches, panic attacks, and anxiety. The article focuses on the predisposition gene and whether or not it was altered due to stress factors. It also puts value to an MAOA gene inhibitor to reduce the rise in aggression from juvenile stress. The question is, “Are people more vulnerable to being effected by trauma based on their genetic makeup?” The reality of what most genetic problems come down to is whether or not the environmental factors outweigh predisposition. Even if children have less vulnerability to trauma is it okay for them to be exposed to violent behavior? Another question is whether the violent behavior is linked to the gene and if the research being studied may be able to help in creating better anti-depressants even before violent behavior is expressed. This ties back to the past article about whether or not our children should be tested after birth for their gene expression. Would it be okay to treat children for having these certain genes only because they express the ability to have more violent behavior? Even if it was okay I think we have to reason with the idea that environmental factors could be the reason for increased physiological changes in the brain. Just like posttraumatic stress disorder can be caused after an event so can changes in the brain over long exposure of stress.
ReplyDeleteI believe we do need to explore more into MAOA gene inhibitors to work with adults and antidepressants, but to solely say some people have more predisposition than others towards aggression seems too soon and generic.
I found everyone's comments to be very interesting. The fact that this research supports a connection between childhood trauma and changes in the brain leading to greater acts of violence as an adult, is something that will prove to be very beneficial in supporting the overall idea that both nature and nurture are important to an individual's overall development. However, the fact that there are ACTUAL NEUROLOGICAL changes that can be MEASURED is pretty fascinating. I never thought that chemicals could be altered so drastically due to traumatic exposures...I imagined trauma affecting one's personality, etc. simply because of how they are used to being treated...but did not think that their behavior change was due to actual chemical changes. Like a few of my classmates, I'm not fully sure about which may actually be of greater significance...nature or nurture...as of now, I feel that both may be equally important. These findings are beneficial in that they will hopefully help spread the importance of having a positive environment for children to grow up in, but I do not think that people will be targeted(ie their environment being altered)because of their genetic makeup...it just seems way too intrusive.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be incredibly interesting. I think that it is an important step toward realizing the detrimental effects of trauma. I also think that solid evidence linking exposure to trauma and changed in the brain can be helpful in both pinpointing individuals who need help and providing effective treatments. However, I feel, as many of my classmates do, that these findings could end up being used in a negative way. These findings could lead to further stigmatization or alienation of individuals who have already experienced trauma from peers. Also using genetics to label someone as being specifically vulnerable to trauma or predisposed toward aggression could end up only causing them more trauma and pain. Placing limits on these individuals would cause even more pain and damage. I do feel that both nature and nurture have a role to play in whether or not individuals may become violent. However I feel that in regards to health officials and policies the only changes that can be made are those of a person’s environment. I think it is important to note and realize that trauma may lead to violence in order to both improve treatment of those who have experienced trauma as well as work towards social policy that helps reduce the number of children who develop in abusive and traumatic environments.
ReplyDeleteGenomics can help people to find out things about themselves that they would not have known otherwise, finding out if you are predisposed to anything from cancer to violence, but these things can create different moral dilemmas as well. Is it right to stop a child from watching a certain television show that their siblings can watch because you find that they carry a gene that makes them more likely to become violent? The violent acts that they are predisposed to have not been committed therefore they cannot be punished for them and if the child's brain chemistry is changed in childhood due to the actions of parents or other people around them, then who is really to blame here?
ReplyDeleteGenomics can help to identify this behavior but this technology cannot be used to stop people from being exposed to certain things. This idea takes away from the idea of freedom which this country holds dear. by taking these basic rights of choice away from these children you are teaching them from an early age that they are not free to choose and at this point they have done nothing to deserve that.
I think that this article was very interesting. It is interesting to see the brain changes that are a result of exposure to violence in childhood. Most importantly, I think this article stressed the necessity of providing a positive environment for children to grow up in. As mentioned above, the environment in which we are raised greatly shapes who we turn out to be. I think that encouraging positive household environments for children is important, regardless of if a child is genetically predisposed to be more violent or not. I think that it is unethical to target populations based on the presence of these genes. As in many other behaviors that have some genetic link, such as the development of alcoholism, just because a population is more likely to develop a trait does not mean that they will. I think that our genes have a large impact on our lives and development, but I think that our environments and personal choices shape us just as much, if not more.
ReplyDeleteThe nature vs. nurture debate is an underlying aspect in which we have to discuss before deciding a side to take; in order to argue about the case we must understand the genomics behind these real-life situations that seem to explain the underlying situations presented. Did you ever think that your genes could specifically describe characteristics that you are showing to us on camera right now?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like this discovery is opening up a lot of questions of whether or not this gene variant will change the way people raise their kids, whether or not it is ethical, and if there is a way for treatment. I do agree that the environment of an individual has a lot to do with violent behavior, if not more than this gene predisposition. At this point it’s hard to think of a treatment that is both ethical and successful at the same time. Like my peers would agree with, it’s hard to do this without making the individual with the said gene feel “normal” or like they’re not being attacked by isolating them into non-violent environments. I do think it’s important however, for parents to provide with the best of their ability a positive environment and to encourage nonviolent behaviors. I do believe that this research is useful to understand more of how the brain works at the time of stress, the location activity, and it’s reaction. Now we know the structures to target and that there is a link between genes and violence. But like a lot of different aspects of a human being there are many factors that you have to take into account some more important to development than others.
ReplyDeleteI believe this raises a very interesting series of answers and questions. On one hand, the drugs developed that inhibit the MAOA gene could lead to treatment and rehabilitation for individuals with anger and violence issues. This leads to the questions, when does it become too early to treat these people who are "at risk" to be more violent? Young adulthood, teenage years, toddlers? At what point can we determine what is regular development and tantrums as a serious problem or as regular development? Some people seem to experience a growing period in which they are not mature enough to express themselves without anger or aggression. If we do not give these people the chance to mature and develop on their own without the aid of drugs...what precedence are we setting for our emotional and psychological development? Does the world then become a place of quick fixes and avoidance of nurturing the human mind and spirit? I believe this research walks a fine line between true benefit and rehabilitation and control and restriction.
ReplyDeleteI find the discoveries from this article very interesting mainly for the idea that our brain can be physically altered by experiences we have in our childhood. From these findings, the first thing I can think of is how this information can be used as a defense in a trial in such a case in which violence is involved. If scientists can prove that we develop aggressive tendencies from exposures to violence as children, many people would argue that an act of aggression is not entirely their fault. I do not believe that exposing an individual to violence just for the study is ethical because this intervention can have very negative effects on the subject if this exposure does eventually cause aggressive behavior. One of the most important ethical criteria of studies is that no harm is inflicted on the subjects even if it is for the benefit of the study.
ReplyDeleteIf this information is ultimately proven to be true, I can foresee many more regulations of media, such as what children are allowed to watch, listen to or play with when it comes to video games.
I found this article to be very thought-provoking. I do not think science will ever be able to predict with 100 percent certainty all "violent" people. I think it is highly unethical to target people based on their genetic information. These people who are predisposed yet have never acted violently are being unfairly scrutinized for behaviors they may never exhibit. This is obviously a difficult debate, of course we should seek to reduce the amount of violence in the world, but at what cost? I feel that as this research continues, more debates will take place on how to reduce exposure to violence during critical development periods.
ReplyDeleteI found this information to be very interesting. It is not surprising that psychological trauma as a child can lead to violent behavior as an adult. That said, I would like to know more about the correlation between intervention after trauma or lack thereof and violent behavior. I think that children who have intervention and positive support would fare better than children who do not. In addition, I think it is important to assess there personalities and behavior before trauma. It would be interesting to do a prospective cohort on children and seeing which ones had significant trauma, intervention and went on to become violent as adults. Retrospective studies could be vulnerable to recall bias. I think more than anything this stresses the importance of intervening and supporting children who have undergone psychological trauma early to give them better chances in life.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings be back to thinking about the discussion we had in class about possible trials we could run to see if stress is passed down from parent to child. (I say the following with sincere respect and do not mean to offend anyone) It would be interesting to compare the behaviors of the children of those who experienced the Columbine shooting to those children who were exposed to the Shady Hook shooting. And more specifically relating to this article, it would be interesting to follow up with these children in 10 years time and see how they have been effected. This could be an actual study, but would definitely need to be sensitive to the emotions as they are definitely still in a fragile state. However, if the violent characteristics are seen, and the antidepressants do help, then the study would not only give supporting evidence towards this finding, but also help those who would be participating. I enjoyed this article and am interested where this new finding will take both the fields of genetics and psychology.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis article does not come to me as too much of a surprise. In my Health and Disabilities Across the Lifespan class we just finished the sections having to do with the gestation period through toddlerhood. After seeing how small factors can have serious effects on the immature but developing body of a human, it is no doubt that scientists have been able to find that the brain chemistry can actually change based on trauma that occurs early on. It seems to be a kind of defense mechanism where the mind is exposed to an environment that it needs to adapt to - not knowing what the future will hold - but is incapable of switching back.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to nature versus nurture, in this situation, I think that both are still equally important. Whether or not a child has a gene that causes him/her to more likely be violent later in life if they abused at a young age does not seem to absolutely determine that they will be violent. If a child has the gene and is abused, but for the rest of his or her life is surrounded by people who are loving caring and supportive, we cannot say that they will be a violent adult. Likewise, if a child does not have the gene, but is abused and never finds psychological rest, it is still likely for him or her to be violent as an adult. I agree with Sara and would like to see what happens with these children ten years from now. I think that the only way to have more of a conclusion is if they find this specific gene(s) in humans and conduct studies of people from multiple different backgrounds with and without this gene(s). I believe that that would give us more evidence to see the role of nature and nurture.
The conclusions made in this article are new to me, but don't surprise me. It makes sense that children that are exposed to trauma are more likely to suffer from continued psychological issues as adults as a result of that exposure. Yet it's not surprising that the effects are seen at the level of genetic expression, even. However, these findings may lead to preventative measures being put in place that need to be examined closely. Altering one's environment solely because their genetic expression may make them more inclined to commit violence or act aggressively to others is not fair. It is important to remember the nurture aspect in the nature-nurture balance of who we are and how we act. Additionally, potentially targeting people because of these predispositions is completely unethical. A person's genome shouldn't be the only thing that dictates their environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe this article further reinforces the importance of nature and nurture and how their combination affects our outcome. Certain genes may make us more likely to be aggressive, but we may not end up being aggressive in the end. At the same time, we may not be prone to being aggressive, but if our environment creates enough stress in our body to make an epigenetic change, then we may become just that. So we see this balance between the two forces, so it would be interesting to see how much stress would be needed, and if varying amounts creates varying degrees of changes in our body.
ReplyDeleteThe article also talked about using gene inhibitors to see if it could reverse the epigenetic outcome, and it was interesting that it did work. Perhaps one day we may be able to treat certain conditions with gene therapy if we can discover how it works at the genomic level, such as aggression, which would have interesting ramifications for society and how we try to control such behaviors.
I think it makes sense that childhood events maintain psychological effects on an individual. As much as genetics affect a person's brain development, certain environmental changes can of course alter a person's development as well. This article was interesting because although we all knew that traumatic events have psychological impacts on someone's behavior, I didn't realize that it caused actual changes in the brain. It definitely explains why people behave certain ways after these events and while these changes are significant, I would like to know whether these changes can be re-altered (as in rewound or "canceled out").
ReplyDeleteI don't think the nature vs. nurture issue should be debated any longer; instead we should focus on how nature and nurture affect each other. This leads to a web of possibilities and may differ for each individual. In light of that, there seems to be a way to somehow dealing with these past stressful events by being mindful of the changes that came with it (perhaps going to therapy?) instead of manipulating antidepressants as mentioned at the end of the article.