'Empathy Gene' Found

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

[size=150]Scientists identify gene that influences quality of person’s empathy[/size]

A gene that influences both the empathy people show towards others and their own responses to stress has been identified, in research that could shed new light on human psychology and disorders such as autism.
Scientists in the United States have discovered that people who inherit a particular version of a gene called the oxytocin receptor score significantly better on an empathy test, while reacting less strongly to stressful stimuli.
The findings, from a team led by Sarina Rodrigues, assistant professor with Oregon State University, and Laura Saslow, of the University of California, Berkeley, suggest a mechanism by which individuals’ genetic profiles may affect how well they recognise and respond to others’ emotions.

This may be significant for understanding autism, which is characterised by problems with empathy, as well as illuminating differences in human behaviour.
The gene, however, is not a “gene for” empathy, and most people who have the version associated with lower scores on the test are still perfectly empathtic and caring individuals.
Dr Rodrigues, indeed, does not herself have the GG version of the gene that was linked to a better ability to identify others’ mental states. “I tested myself and while I am not in the GG group, I’d like to think that I am a very caring person with empathy for others,” she said.

“These findings can help us understand that some of us are born with a tendency to be more empathic and stress reactive than others, and that we should reach out to those who may be naturally closedoff from people because social connectivity and belongingness benefits everyone.”
The study, which is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also reinforces the importance of oxytocin, a chemical that works as both a neurotransmitter and a hormone, in human psychology.

Oxytocin is already well-known as a “attachment hormone” that is widely active in the brain, and has been linked to romantic love and bonding between parents and their children. People who are exposed to elevated oxytocin levels also tend to show lower stress and higher degrees of trust in others.
In the study, Dr Rodrigues and her colleagues decided to examine the oxytocin receptor gene because of the chemical’s known associations, and links made in other research between the receptor gene and autism and parenting styles.
The gene comes in three varieties, known as AA, AG and GG, and people with the AA or AG variants are more likely to develop autism or to show less spontaneous warmth towards their children.
A group of 200 male and female college students had their DNA tested to establish their genotype for the receptor, and also took two tests. In the first test, they were played white noise through headphones to stimulate stress, while the second was a test of empathy known as “reading the mind in the eyes”.

In this task, developed by Simon Baron-Cohen, of the University of Cambridge as a measure of empathy skills, people are shown a series of photographs of pairs of eyes, and asked to judge the emotional state of the person in the picture.
On average, women score better than men on this mind-reading task, and the study revealed that people of both sexes with the GG genetic type performed significantly better than those with type AA or AG. They were on average 22.7 per cent less likely to make a mistake.
Both men and women with the GG genetic type also showed lower increases in heart rate during the stress task, indicating a degree of greater resistance to stress and anxiety.

The findings suggest that variations in the oxytocin receptor gene may affect individual differences in capacity for empathy and response to stress, though many other genes as well as environmental factors will also be involved.
“Our data lends credence to the claim that this genetic variation of oxytocin influences emotional processing and other-oriented behaviour,” Dr Rodrigues said.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s … 919399.ece
SNP Reference:
snpedia.com/index.php/Rs53576%28G;G%29

2

Great find, thanks Pandora.

3

What came first?

The chicken or the egg?

4

The rooster

5

I would say that the first causes were most likely environmental, in that the organism was forced to act a certain way that might have been against his nature, in order to keep up with the changing environment and survive. The external environment molded the genetics that followed.

Speaking of a chicken egg, though…

I’ve read recently that the asymmetrical shape of the egg is an evolved survivability trait. If the chicken egg was completely round, it would be more likely to roll away (especially for those birds that nest on high ground). The larger end on one side of the egg, and a slightly tapered, smaller end on the other side of the egg makes it want to roll in a circle, instead in a straight line. So, if the primordial chicken nested by an edge of the cliff (I don’t know if they really did), the egg would be less likely to roll off the cliff and stay closer to the nest if it was asymmetrically shaped as it is now. And who knows, maybe first eggs were indeed completely round and eventually “rolled out” of existence.

6

The gene or mutation came first. Even micro-organisms make decisions which in humans we’d consider… some form of differential treatment. As in nicer to closer kin or etc. Sharing resources with kin more readily.

As in organisms who just happened to be more empathetic survived more often, by definition it’d be genetic. The difference between someone who shares once in a lifetime and 0 times is genetic. Because of an environment empathy may be beneficial, but the selection of that empathy to increase must LARGELY be genetic, meaning it was based on genes too. The original empathetic action. (which would begin as some evolutionary strategy we wouldn’t recognize as empathy but rather some interaction between organisms.

Like dna is the building block(s) of life, if DNA (the replicator) isn’t empathetic than by definition its genetic, if the replicator is empathetic than its genetic too.

7

That’s not an answer. Ellipse the scurrilous quagmire. Go deeper.

8

I’m a skeptic when it concerns genes and the mental descriptions that is labelled to them.

How do you know a single gene produces this mental behavior or not? It’s not like genes can speak.

I’m simply not convinced.

9

I do not believe that genetic screening studies are ever very convincing when they claim the discovery of certain phenotypes due to either loss of critical or gain of toxic functioning. These phenotypes would include depression, empathy, autism, etc. – something to do with aspects of cognition, which is exceptionally difficult to screen for in the first place.

10

I concur.

11

What do you mean? almost every trait is highly heritable. Theres no doubt certain genes correlate or cause X behavior. Language disorders is one obvious example.

As far as that goes psychopathy has also shown to be inheritable. Theres real problems narrowing it down to exact genes because genes may have dozens of functions or only act X way in the presence of some stimuli, theres no real doubt they do produce or correlate strongly with behavior and that is inheritable though.

if your father dies of a heart attack before 50 the risk you will is massive compared to no history of heart disease. Some behaviors are just as inheritable.

They leave behind an evidence trail more pronounced than speech.

12

That’s an interesting point, but I think it would be even more interesting if it were possible to do a case-by-case and see if nurture is somehow involved in all of this as well.

For instance, let’s say that a person’s father had a heart attack due to clogged arteries as the result of having consumed junk food, almost exclusively, for his entire life. Does it not then reason that the child would have grown up being fed (or at least, having eaten) junk food which would then also make the child a greater candidate for heart attack risk?

So, at least in that example, it occurs to me that the behaviour which leads up to the heart attack risk is more of a learned behaviour than an inherited behaviour. I’m certain that the genetics behind these things come into play as well, but I don’t know if I would suggest that this is a matter of inheritability in every case.

13

Of course. in a hunter gatherer diet they’d be fine, maybe better than normal. but today if your father dies of a heart attack before 50, your risk is massive and not just if your a fat slob, these people can’t process even low amounts of cholesterol/fat. We’re not talking exclusively lazy or out of shape, but athletic people. or being an APOE4 homozygote massively increases risk for late onset Alzheimer’s disease in a variety of ethnic groups up to 10-30 times risk by age 75, so… yeah unfortunately genes cause shit to happen in complex ways.

myopia, is genetic but requires environment too.

Hemocromotosis is genetic right? thats not a disease for a hunter gatherer. many diseases require genetic predisposition but only occur in X circumstances, many are even beneficial in hunter gatherer societies.

You can test if your’re APOE4 homozygote and its a consideration anyone going into sports might want to think about. blows to the head if your’re APOE4 homozygote… not so good. Anyone tall and smash doorframes a lot?

the environment that causes bad diseae isn’t only fat/lazy people but even the difference between an athlete and a hunter gatherer.

14

I think Hemocromatosis can be caused by non-hereditary factors, but it’s pretty unusual.

I agree with your overall point about genetic predispositioning often being a determinant, and occasionally THE determinant. However, my point is that not only can things happen that are not genetically predisposed to happen, but things can often happen directly in opposition to our genetic predispositions.

15

Usually any result is a complex interaction of genes and environment, but you won’t find many people with the huntington’s mutation not develope huntington’s disease. Or homozygote for whatever loci causes sickle cell anemia, they’ll develope it again and again and again. Some gene mutations are a death sentence, no matter what.

16

That’s an excellent point, but life itself is also a death sentence, don’t forget.

17

Yep, because of genetics. Some plants live for thousands of years.

My point is most disease causing genes are flexible, many genes behind behavior must be just as flexible. Certain fish turn female or grow huge if exposed to X environmental stimuli, a huge feedback loop between brain, genes and the environment, thats complicated and interconnected stuff.

So in these fish we see the type of complexity in which genes the environment and the brain, interacts. Many genes or gene complexes are like that, you can’t extract single functions because many are multifunctional. But still, theres many unavoidable outcomes of certain genetic mutations… death, disease, mutation, aging.

Theres actually good reason to believe genes which give us ability in youth cause us to age. George C Williams work on aging. Convincing stuff.

18

Exactly.

19

I’m sure medical diseases like heart disease is easily traced genetically but I’m not so sure when it concerns mental behavior considering the amount of biasness on the subject not to forget also the amount of biasness on the subject where individuals are perceived to behave in a particular way as an ought.

In other words there is more objectivity in treating and tracing physical medical diseases genetically like that of heart disease than there is to approaching mental behaviors that is usually held under scrutiny under a mental form of biasness that is less objectified scientifically considering states of mind are more relative or lucid in flux in comparison to the examination of physical matter.

I do not believe that mind and matter are one subject but that of seperate fields have their own unique distinct ways of being.

I’m sure that’s the case in the study of physical matter but I do not believe the areas of mind when it concerns mental behaviour is equally pronounced.

There are too many assumptions when it concerns mental behaviour that is taken for granted not to mention too many superstitions and metaphysical metanarratives that surround the subject revolving around a form of sentimentalism where we can hardly describe studies of mental behaviours well pronounced.

20

Huntington’s disease effects behavior, massively. Twin studies show that behavior is inheritable and genetic. Looking at someone with huntington’s disease should eradicate any doubt that behavior is genetic and inheritable.

but if it doesn’t theres a whole field called behaviorial genetics, with a lot of evidence. There are genes directly linked to violence, those with them are more prone to violence, but that doesn’t make them " violence genes" they may produce nonviolent results or encourge risk taking in nonviolent circumstances.

fight/flight is a behavior, smiling is a behavior, learning language is behavior, mate choice and food aversions are behaviors, all these things ARE genetic. You can’t find X gene? It means nothing. The fact you have specialized neurological machinery to solve recurrent environmental problems, means most of behavior has a genetic basis.

Your liver breaks down toxins sometimes by adding atoms to molecules or by taking away atoms creating new compounds easier to break down, even if no one discovers the genes which allow/produce the function, it would still be genetic, caused by genes. As the whole liver is.

Human brains are specialized and all human’s have certain mental adaptations just like all human’s have livers adapted to X.