Epigenetics by Richard C. Francis and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins explore the nature of genes and the possibilities of epigenetics. While Dawkins argues that genes use humans as survival machines, epigenetics shows that gene expression can be suppressed by environmental factors. The possibility that environmental factors can alter genetic traits and modify survival strategies, as in the case of the Dutch famine, could refute Dawkins’ theory. Epigenetics goes beyond the theory of genetic selfishness and redefines the value of human existence.
The book Epigenetics was a book that introduced me to concepts that may conflict with my existing view of heredity. In the book, author Richard C. Francis presents a theory called epigenetics. Epigenetics is the idea that the environment in which an individual lives, such as famine or differences in maternal care received from parents, can cause the expression of certain genes to be suppressed and passed on to offspring. The author also emphasizes that epigenetics is an emerging field of study with potential in disease treatment and more. This expanded role for genetics made epigenetics feel even more refreshing to me.
While reading this book, I came across the concept of the “survival machine” advocated by Richard Dawkins. In his book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins argues that humans are nothing more than “survival machines” for passing on genes to the next generation. According to his book, the self-replicating genes in the primordial soup, not only humans but all bacteria, viruses, animals, and plants use genes as survival tools. Dawkins’ concept of genetic selfishness is explained by game theory and the concept of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS), represented by the hawk and dove schools of thought. Game theory deals with conflict and cooperation situations that arise when an individual’s decisions affect the interests of others, and is a way to organize and analyze strategic situations. ESS also refers to strategies adopted by the majority of the population that cannot be replaced by other alternative strategies, i.e., the optimal strategy for maximizing success. According to these concepts, game theory and ESS are used to describe the planned transmission of genes to the next generation. The argument is that genes are not passed down based on the survival and reproduction of individuals, but rather use individuals for their own purposes. Dawkins’ claim was somewhat shocking to me, and as I pondered the concept, I realized that epigenetics could be a counterexample to Dawkins’ selfish gene hypothesis.
The first reason I saw epigenetics as being in conflict with the selfish gene theory is the limitation of gene expression. According to epigenetics, the expression of certain genes can be restricted by changing the degree of methylation of genes in response to environmental influences. Methylation is currently one of the most common and well-studied epigenetic mechanisms, in which a methyl group attaches to a gene and inhibits its expression. Once a gene is methylated, it remains unexpressed within the cell lineage that contains it. However, if genes were selfish, they would have already developed ways to prevent external factors from inhibiting the expression of certain genes. By external factors, we mean things like contact with other survival machines, climate change, and other environmental conditions. If genes were selecting strategies with a high probability of survival through countless trials and simulations, the phenomenon of restricted expression would not have occurred. The possibility that genes can be modified in that restricted expression affects the survival probability of a survival machine, either positively or negatively, conflicts with Dawkins’ “survival machine” theory. Thus, epigenetics can serve as a counterexample to the selfish gene hypothesis, which states that genes use individuals as survival machines.
The Dutch famine cohort in particular is a counterexample of gene selfishness. At the end of World War II, German blockades of transportation routes severely limited the daily caloric intake of citizens of major Dutch cities. The health of not only the generation that lived through this famine, but also of children who were in their mothers’ wombs at the time, was affected: they had about twice the obesity rate of those who did not live through the famine, and they also had increased rates of diseases such as high blood pressure and cardiac artery disease. This study is an example of environmental factors influencing genes, and is cited as one of the strongest pieces of evidence for epigenetics. If genes had selected survival machinery as their own protection, they would have been designed to be impossible to change in a way that would compromise their chances of survival, but this example suggests that Dawkins’ argument may not apply to all situations.
Since the publication of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins’ argument has been heavily criticized. As the life sciences advance, new theories emerge and old ones are revised. From an anthropological perspective, humans have their own values and shape their own futures, but if all of this effort is only for the survival of genes and the preservation of the species, the value of being human is greatly diminished. Epigenetics shows us that genes can be acquired and changed by external factors, especially in a way that reduces the chances of survival of the survival machine. Therefore, I think epigenetics is an important field with new implications because it offers the possibility of preventing humans from existing solely as survival machines of genes.
