Traditionally, psychology has developed more tools for analysing the individual than for analysing behaviour in the environment context (Pervin & Lewis, 1978, as cited in Sugarman, 2001). It was usually focused either on people or on the environment as the locus of Developmental Psychology. However, there is endless debate about which factor is more important in the question of nature VS nurture (Sugarman, 2001). I agree with Poh Lau’s point of view; this is actually a “chicken-and-egg” sort of argument. We never really know the proportion of the contribution for nature : nurture; only possibly making assumptions on a case-to-case basis. Perhaps, it is the gene-environment interaction that really matters?
Personally, I believe that the answers to these arguments are usually based on the perspective of the specific field in psychology. As for psychopathology related studies, genetic predisposition by employing twin studies is valued more than other factors like the environment. For example, the genetic link for risk of developing Schizophrenia in identical twins is higher than fraternal twins (Barlow & Durand, 2005). It was also found that there were some common genetic workings across autistic traits and ADHD behaviours in a community sample of twins (Ronald et al., 2008).
Educational psychology related studies may highlight the importance of the environment. I still remember how frustrated I was when I had to deal with mischievous young adolescents aged 13-14 in a private high school. My colleague, an experienced form teacher, advised me, “You have to put up a fierce look and enforce strict rules. Only then, the students would be more obedient. Otherwise, they are most likely to behave like little monkeys.” It seemed that her suggestions worked fairly well. So, is it not that the environment shapes behaviour as much as genetic predisposition?
It is very common that the mass media misinterprets report finding by jumping to conclusions based solely on a mere general understanding of a scientific research. I believe that this phenomenon is getting more widespread especially as seen from controversial research like Auyeung et al. (2009)’s finding. A blogger who claims to be a neuroscientist, had commented that “testosterone = maleness = autism” is a simple and logical statement that cannot be absolutely right but hard to say that it is wrong as well. I agree with this idea and that Auyeung et al. (2009)‘s study has only demonstrated the link between autistic traits and fetal testosterone. After all, there was no actual autistic samples used in the research (Autism, Testosterone and Eugenics, 2009).
However, without direct access to the original studies, parents rely on the information in the mass media which result in them considering another new early screening for autism for their children which may add to themselves problems and financial burden. As such, Harrell (2009) reported that “A British researcher claims his study may lead to early screening for autism via amniocentesis”; in which Auyeung et al. (2009), the original author never really stated such a bold claim. Do we really need this even if it is true? The extra effort may bring up unwanted side-effects as amniocentesis is not a risk-free procedure. Additionally, National Vaccine Information Center (n.d) revealed that some once-healthy kids developed autistics traits after receiving one or more vaccines (e.g., Hepatitis B). It seems that we prefer to hold on to the idea that “prevention is better than cure”?
I agree with the statement that it is unethical to place Eugenics in real life practice where “the rich becomes richer, the poor becomes poorer”. However, is it fair to the people to live a relatively less fortunate life just because they inherited so-called “bad genes” and are thus condemned to suffer (for serious cases) for the rest of their lives? As what my friend once lamented to me, “I did not choose to have an incurable disease which is genetically linked. I can only accept my fate.”
References:
Autism, Testosterone and Eugenics, (2009).Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/01/autism-testosterone-and-eugenics.html
Auyeung, B., Baron-Cohen, S. Ashwin, E., Knickmeyer, R. Taylor, K. & Hackett, G. (2009). Fetal testosterone and autistic traits. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 1-22.
Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (2005). Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach(4th ed). USA : Wadsworth.
Harrell, E. (2009). A link between autism and testosterone? Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1871515,00.html.
National Vaccine Information Center (n.d). Autism & Vaccines: A New Look At An Old Story. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/newsletter/autismandvaccines.aspx
Ronald,A., Simonoff, E., Kuntsi, J., Asherson, P., & Plomin. R. (2008). Evidence for overlapping genetic influences on autistic and ADHD behaviours in a community twin sample. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 535–542.
Sugarman, L. (2001). Life-spam development; Frameworks, accounts and strategies. (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
7 years ago
