Edu

Does an individual's genetic makeup, and epigenetic modification, affect his or her educational attainment?

Educational attainment is a measure of the highest level of education that an individual has completed at the end of full-time compulsory education. Educational attainment has been shown to strongly correlate with mental and physical health, as well as socioeconomic status, and is one of the strongest predictors of lifetime success, not only economically but also in terms of health and longevity.

THE NURTURE SIDE

The view that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed tabula rasa, Latin for "blank slate," by philosopher John Locke. This idea proposes that humans develop only from environmental influences. One example of a person's trait that is completely determined by their environment is native language. Studies show that children, regardless of where they're born, can learn any language with equal facility.

. During critical periods (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. of development,

such as early childhood, the brain is especially responsive to the effects of physical and social environmental exposures. This is when exposures can result in irreversible changes in brain circuitry. Early learning experiences and environments influence long-term developmental and academic trajectories.

Children living in poverty may experience multiple stressors

such as lack of food and exposure to violence, making them more susceptible to disruptions in brain development, especially with cognitive and self-regulatory functions. These changes may manifest as academic and social problems when the children enter early childhood programs or school. However, children are not all equally sensitive to negative and positive environmental factors.

Enriching environments will

support healthy brain development, but exposure to stress and adverse childhood experiences (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. (ACEs) can result in changes to the brain that can impact behavior and the capacity for learning.

behavioral approach

that our behavior is a product of our interaction with the environment. It assumes that as babies we are born as a blank slate and from this moment on are shaped and influenced by the people and environment surrounding us. Hence the approach takes the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate. In contrast to the biological approach, the behavioural approach assumes that our behaviour is determined by the environment in which we find ourselves, for example, we may act differently in front of teachers at school, compared to when we are with our friends.

In many countries, studies have suggested

that students attending private schools attain better educational outcomes, and long-term socioeconomic benefits. These data are then used by private schools to encourage attendance in this selective system. Private schools are generally expensive but may provide more individualized programs of study with better student-faculty ratios then those provided by public schools.

. Some are more responsive

to social environment, showing more negative or positive outcomes depending on the environment in which they grow up. Highly susceptible children are not just affected by unsupportive conditions; they may also benefit disproportionately from positive environments. Understanding the interplay between environmental and genetic factors in relation to individual differences in brain development is important for designing early interventions.

adverse childhood experiences)

) has lasting effects on brain development, stress response systems, coping mechanisms, and learning, and has been linked to problems in physical and mental health in adulthood. New studies also show that prenatal exposure to chronic stress (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. also influences the developing brain because fetal development is affected by maternal stress

The choice parents make in selecting schools for their children

, and the differences between public and private schools has been the subject of much debate, that is largely couched in social and economic terms. In a collection of manuscripts published in npj Science of Learning, two groups of researchers have approached this discussion from an interesting new direction—genetics. The Nature versus Nurture question has been greatly debated for many years, because it is not entirely clear which is the greatest influence on human development and behaviour. Although we are all born with a specific set of genes, with no control over our genetic allocation, we now know our life-style choices and different experiences though development and maturity also influence gene expression, and thus exert control over our behaviour via epigenetic modifications. Epigenetic mechanisms regulate the structure and activity of the genome in response to cellular and environmental cues, one such mechanism involves DNA methylation. Thus, biological processes are controlled by a combination of inherited genes and the life-long impact of epigenetic modifications that regulates their expression. Who we are is not simply a result of either nature or nurture but rather is shaped by a combination of these factors. Recent advances in genomic and epigenomic sequencing, have led to a growing interest in using this information to predict biological outcomes, and disease pathogenesis and help guide individuals in lifestyle choices and behaviour.

During early brain development

, new neurons and synapses form and differentiate into specialized cells and brain regions that perform specific functions, laying the foundation for cognitive and social and emotional development (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. . The developing brain is easily molded, making it highly responsive to experience and stimulation.

EN: How are other scientists reacting to epigenetic research? Are peopleoptimistic? Is there a rift?

1/1/2019The End of Nature Versus Nurture - Behavioral Scientisthttp://behavioralscientist.org/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/6/9Lamarck's idea was abandoned in the 19th century after Darwin's theory rose tothe fore. The truth is, Darwin was actually a Lamarckist and he wasn't opposedto this idea, but a lot of the neo-Darwinians—the people who picked up Darwin'stheory in the early 20th century and ran with it—they were very opposed toLamarck's idea. The presence now of some data that suggest that ourexperiences can produce biological effects that can then be transmitted to thenext generation has alarmed biologists who were trained to believe thatLamarckian inheritance is impossible.I think it's now clear that this kind of transgenerational transmission is possible,although it might be rare. We still don't know for sure yet. One thing to keep inmind when thinking about epigenetic inheritance is that it's potentially scary,because imagine if you're exposed to a pesticide, for example, or some otherenvironmental toxin. If that exposure has some sort of epigenetic effect on you,the prospect that your great-great grandchildren might be inuenced by yourexperience is somewhat worrisome. But these kinds of swords typically cut bothways, so there's also the possibility that people can have experiences that mightsomehow improve the lives of their descendants. This is all still poorlyunderstood, but it makes it an exciting time to be doing research in this area.EN: Given the revolutionary nature of some of these ndings, how has yourthinking changed as a result of the rise of epigenetics?DM: I became interested in these kinds of questions long before epigeneticsbecame popular. When I was a naïve graduate student, one of my hopes was thatI might be able to tease apart nature and nurture by working with babies. But itbecame clear to me very early in my career that it was not going to be possibleto do that, because by the time they're born, babies have already had 9 monthsof experiences inside of their mothers, and many of those experiences areinuential. Thinking seriously about development made it clear to me thatnature and nurture can never be teased apart, because inuential experiencesare an important part of natural, normal development, starting immediatelyafter conception.EN: How are other scientists reacting to epigenetic research? Are peopleoptimistic? Is there a rift?DM: I think everybody is optimistic and excited. I think everybody knows thatthere are a lot of really interesting and important things to be learned fromdoing this kind of work. Of course, there are also differences in perspective. 1Whether you talk to biologists or psychologists, if you ask them outright, theywill almost invariably tell you that genes and environments always interact toproduce our characteristics. But my experience has been that if you press thema little bit, you will nd that their interactionism is actually rather shallow. Forinstance, it can often be revealing to ask someone about a characteristic likePhenylketonuria—widely considered to be a genetic disease—or about acharacteristic like eye color. When you ask most people if characteristics like these are more influenced by genetic factors than by environmental factors,they will typically say "yes." So even though everybody says "I understand that genes and environments interact," they are still under the mistaken impression that one of these kinds of factors can be more important than the other. But that's just not right. Given how genes and environments interact, each kind offactor is always just as important as the other in influencing the nal form of a trait.

EN: Given the revolutionary nature of some of these ndings, how has yourthinking changed as a result of the rise of epigenetics?

DM: I became interested in these kinds of questions long before epigeneticsbecame popular. When I was a naïve graduate student, one of my hopes was thatI might be able to tease apart nature and nurture by working with babies. But itbecame clear to me very early in my career that it was not going to be possibleto do that, because by the time they're born, babies have already had 9 monthsof experiences inside of their mothers, and many of those experiences areinuential. Thinking seriously about development made it clear to me thatnature and nurture can never be teased apart, because inuential experiencesare an important part of natural, normal development, starting immediatelyafter conception.EN:

EN: In your book, you describe the pitfalls of genetic determinism and youcaution against people creating an epigenetic determinism. For instance, 1/1/2019The End of Nature Versus Nurture - Behavioral Scientisthttp://behavioralscientist.org/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/5/9because a person was born into poverty they will be X or because they've hadthis experience they will be Y. Can you describe the potential hazards of thistype of thinking?

DM: I don't think people know enough about epigenetics yet to be epigeneticdeterminists, but I foresee that as a problem. As soon as people start hearingabout these kinds of data that suggest that your early experiences can havelong-term effects, there's a natural assumption we all make that thoseexperiences are determinative. That is, we tend to assume that if you have thisexperience in poverty, you are going to be permanently scarred by it.The data seem to suggest that it may work that way, but it also seems to be thecase that the experiences we have later in life also have epigenetic effects. Andthere's every reason to think that those later experiences can ameliorate someof the effects that happened early on. So, I don't think we need to be overlyconcerned that the things that happen to us early in life necessarily fate us tocertain kinds of outcomes.

DM: 3

EN: Can you describe from an epigenetics perspective what is known abouthow an experience like poverty might impact an individual's biologicalprocesses and their outcome?DM: Yes and no. Again, I need to start off with a caveat. There is very little thatwe know for sure at this point, because it's not like scientists can doexperimental studies in which they randomly assign people to grow up inpoverty, so it's hard to know for sure what's going on. Having said that, there isan increasing amount of data that suggests that growing up poor has long-termeffects on people. Let's say we're studying a person who grew up in animpoverished environment, but as he got older, the person was successful andreached a higher socioeconomic status. If scientists compare such a person'sepigenome to the epigenome of someone born into the higher socioeconomicstatus, and who has managed to stay at this level, they'll nd that the personwho was poor in childhood has a different epigenetic state than the person whowas born into greater wealth, even if both people are now equally wealthy. So,poverty seems to have consequences that produce effects that can be detectedin the body decades later.

David Moore

For the longest time, the nature-nurture debate has been cast as akind of contest between genes and experiences. The thought was that we mighthave some characteristics that are caused primarily by genetic factors and othercharacteristics that are caused primarily by experiential factors. Whatepigenetics is making clear is that's a faulty way to think about the situation,because it's not true that genes do things independently of their contexts.Instead, genes do what they do because of the contexts that they're in. Natureand nurture are always working together to produce all of our traits.

The nature and nurture of education

Learning is a life-long endeavour that continues from infancy to old age. We each navigate the learning process in different ways, yielding to our experiences and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For many people, formal education takes place between the ages of 6-18, where we are educated based on core curricula that are delivered through a schooling system. Many countries have some form of compulsory education for children until they reach adulthood, but the route through the school system can vary greatly. In many first world countries, the choice is between public schools, generally funded by the state, and private schools which are funded through a combination of individual tuition fees, and religious or corporate institutions. School education is generally required by government mandate, and the cost of admission and tuition in public schools is borne by the state. In contrast, entry into a private school is often primarily dependent on socioeconomic status and some form of selection process—either formal testing or religious affiliation.

EN: How does epigenetics make us rethink the idea of genetic inheritance?

M: To me, there's been a surprising amount of hype related to epigeneticinheritance. That's because there is some evidence that the experiences we havein the course of our lives can change our epigenetic states and those epigeneticstates can then be transmitted to the next generation. This has caused a bit ofan uproar among some biologists. They are unsure about what to do with thisnew nding, because it calls to mind a pre-Darwinian biologist named Lamarckwho argued that evolution occurs when the experiences we have change ourbodies and we pass those bodily changes on to our offspring.

so the question was, how can it be that these kinds of early experiences canv have these long-term effects later on in adulthood?

Meaney and Szyf traced theeffect to epigenetics. Specically, they discovered that in certain brain cells ofbaby rats, there are certain genes that get turned on when the babies are lickedand groomed. Then, the turning on of those genes leads cells to build proteinsthat help moderate stress responses into adulthood, because the genes stayturned on. Meaney and Szyf's work shows how it is that an experience caninuence what an animal's genes are doing, in a way that can have a long-termeffect.

BACKGROUND

The nature versus nurture debate is about which part of a person is more important—their inherited qualities, which includes genes, or their personal experiences and the way they were brought up. For years, scientists have tried to find out what causes people to have different personalities, behaviors, and characteristics.

SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

The nature versus nurture debate poses a very complicated scientific question: how do scientists figure out which one plays a greater role in the development of a person? Many scientists study twins that have separated at birth to answer this research question. Scientists use twins because they have identical genes, so it makes it easier to observe the effect of a person's environment. Do you think twins raised in different homes will grow up to have the same personalities?

DM:

The one that has drawn the most attention has been the one done by ateam of researchers led by Michael Meaney and Moshe Szyf at McGill University.These researchers watched how rat mothers interacted with their babies. Theydiscovered that some mothers naturally lick and groom their baby rats morethan other mothers do. They also noticed that the mothers that licked andgroomed their rats the most wound up with offspring that grew up to be adultsthat were less stressed out when they were put into mildly stressful situations.The mothers that licked and groomed their baby rats less wound up withoffspring that were more stressed out. In order to determine if this was an effectof experience, the researchers cross fostered the baby rats, so the ones born tothe high licking and grooming mothers were raised by the low licking andgrooming mothers. What they found was that it was the perinatal experiencethat made all the difference. It didn't matter who you were born to—if you wereraised by a low licking and grooming mother, you would grow up to be a morestressed out adult rat.

We are on the threshold of a whole new way ofthinking about human development.

There's an analogy I like to use to illustrate this point. Asking which is more important, genes or environments, is kind of like asking which is more important in making an ordinary automobile run, spark plugs or gasoline. You need both.They're both absolutely essential, and it's the same for genes and environments.Asking the question "which one is more important?" really doesn't make any sense. Yet in spite of the fact that most people will tell you that genes and environments interact, they'll also tell you that some characteristics are more genetic than others, even though this can't be right. Research on epigenetics has really driven this point home. So, I think as we learn more about epigenetics,there will need to be some change in theoretical perspective among some scientists.

n another study,2 van Dongen and colleagues examine the DNA methylation status of genes in people with different levels of educational attainment

They found differential sites of DNA methylation at specific regions (loci) correlate with educational attainment and the methylation status of these sites are largely influenced by environmental factors such as smoking. These sites of differential methylation were found to be located in and near genes with neuronal, immune and developmental functions. Differential levels of DNA methylation in these regions could impact the expression of these genes during critical periods of childhood development. Together, the two studies point to the role of genetics and epigenetic changes in educational outcome. Two accompanying perspective pieces, one by Nick Martin3 and the other by Sue Thompson,4 provide a commentary on the implications of these studies from the genetic3 and educational4 viewpoint.

HSCIENCEThe End of Nature Versus NurtureBy Evan NesterakJuly 10, 2015Image: Oxford University PressThis article was originally published on The Psych Report before it became part ofthe Behavioral Scientist in 2017.ow do we become who we are?

Traditionally, people's answers have placedthem in one of two camps: nature or nurture. The one says genes determine anindividual while the other claims the environment is the linchpin fordevelopment. Since the 16th century, when the terms "nature" and "nurture" rstcame into use, many people have spent ample time debating which is moreimportant, but these discussions have more often led to ideological cul-de-sacsrather than pinnacles of insight.

DM: 2

We don't know as much about this, because we really can't do tightlycontrolled experiments with human beings for ethical reasons. As a result, wedon't have a particularly concrete understanding about how this all works inpeople. But the reason I wrote my new book, The Developing Genome, isbecause we have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that things arehappening in humans much as they're happening in Meaney and Szyf's rat pups.There are really two ways in which we can get insight into what's going on inpeople. One is by looking at experiments that have been done on our primaterelatives, the monkeys. There are a variety of studies on monkeys that showeffects like those discovered in rats, where experiences inuence the epigenetic states of certain genes in certain cells in monkeys' bodies. The second way wecan get insight into epigenetic phenomena in people is by doing correlationalstudies. In this way, even though we're not doing experiments, we can see ifcertain kinds of experiences early in life are correlated with later epigeneticstates in actual people. So far, these kinds of studies have revealed that this isindeed the case.

THE NATURE SIDE

[5]Some scientists have concluded that a person's nature—meaning the traits they got from their parents—have more power in determining a person's identity than how they are nurtured, or raised. Inherited traits are traits that are developed before birth. Some genetic traits are highly heritable,such as eye color. Some disorders or diseases are also heritable. However, environments are still influential in how that disease affects a person's life; for example, people who are born with a disease may live a long time depending on how they are cared for. There are also some non-genetic factors that are highly heritable.For example, a wealth and social status are two non-genetic factors that are generally passed down from family.

The biological psychological approach

approach is linked with the nature side of the nature-nurture debate. The approach assumes that all behavior (whether human or animal) is driven by genetics and a person's biological / chemical composition. It assumes that the environment cannot change your behavior and that your actions, decisions and the way you live can be traced back to stemming from your parents, from which you inherited your genes.

In one study,1 Smith-Woolley and colleagues looked at educational

attainment in three groups of students in Britain that attended either: public schools, private schools or selective schools. The researchers found that as previously reported, students in private schools had higher levels of educational attainment than those in public schools. They then examined the genetic differences between students in these groups, and surprisingly, there were differences in genetic markers between them. Interestingly, when differences in genetics were accounted for, educational attainment differences between students attending the different schools disappeared.

Cognitive development is guided by

bidirectional interactions between human biology and social environment. Both normative and maladaptive development are dependent upon the interaction of genes and environment. Gene-environment interplay consists of three interactive processes: gene-environment interaction (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. (GxE), gene-environment correlation (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. (rGE), and epigenetics (Links to an external site.)

EN: Is there anything else you would like to add?

dM:I have seen a number of books coming out about epigenetics that contain alot of unsubstantiated claims. It's [been] picked up by some writers who use it to suggest that simply by changing our attitudes, we can potentially usee epegnetics to heal ourselves in certain ways. And while it's possible that that's true, there really isn't any good data to that effect yet, so we just don't know. 1/1/2019The End of Nature Versus Nurture - Behavioral where he studied psychology and statistics.The bottom line is that we are still very much in the early stages of understanding this aspect of molecular biology, and it's a bit too early for anyone to either sound alarm bells or to argue that we've discovered a magic bullet that's ultimately going to solve our health problems. There's a lot more work that still needs to be done before we understand all of this, but it certainly looks like we are on the threshold of a whole new way of thinking about human development, and it's very exciting.

Psychosocial adversities

during the prenatal period and early life have biological consequences. Examples of active stressors include chronic threat or danger, but a lack of nurturing and supportive relationships create significant stress as well, especially for young children. Early adversity (Links to an external site.)

cientists have also discovered

epigenetic effects of experiences that are lessrelated to psychology. For instance, when they've looked at certain cells in themuscles, they've seen epigenetic effects of exercise. And when they've looked atother cells in the body, they've seen epigenetic effects of diet.

The nature versus nurture debate

involves the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., learned) influences.

Nature

is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences and learning on an individual. The biological and behavioral views of psychology allow for two different approaches to studying the subject and often link to the nature-nurture debate.

Lamarck's idea

was abandoned in the 19th century after Darwin's theory rose tothe fore. The truth is, Darwin was actually a Lamarckist and he wasn't opposedto this idea, but a lot of the neo-Darwinians—the people who picked up Darwin'stheory in the early 20th century and ran with it—they were very opposed toLamarck's idea. The presence now of some data that suggest that ourexperiences can produce biological effects that can then be transmitted to thenext generation has alarmed biologists who were trained to believe thatLamarckian inheritance is impossible.I think it's now clear that this kind of transgenerational transmission is possible,although it might be rare. We still don't know for sure yet. One thing to keep inmind when thinking about epigenetic inheritance is that it's potentially scary,because imagine if you're exposed to a pesticide, for example, or some otherenvironmental toxin. If that exposure has some sort of epigenetic effect on you,the prospect that your great-great grandchildren might be inuenced by yourexperience is somewhat worrisome. But these kinds of swords typically cut bothways, so there's also the possibility that people can have experiences that mightsomehow improve the lives of their descendants. This is all still poorlyunderstood, but it makes it an exciting time to be doing research in this area.

There is a growing interest in genomic and epigenomic sequencing of different populations,

with the data generated being incorporated into many different databases. Large-scale projects like the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Consortium, which is an international collaboration of research groups funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), and the British 100,000 genomes project, led by Genomics England, are leading the way in trying to understand how these factors influence biological processes. The two studies published in npj Science of Learning raise the question of the use of genomic data to help predict educational outcomes. Just as the management of our health is increasingly being found to be affected by genetic and epigenetic determinants, it may be that individuals progress through the education system based upon these factors as well.

New research into epigenetics

—the science of how the environment inuencesgenetic expression—is changing the conversation. As psychologist David S.Moore explains in his newest book, The Developing Genome, this burgeoningeld reveals that what counts is not what genes you have so much as what your 1/1/2019The End of Nature Versus Nurture - Behavioral Scientisthttp://behavioralscientist.org/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/2/9genes are doing. And what your genes are doing is inuenced by the ever-changing environment they're in. Factors like stress, nutrition, and exposure totoxins all play a role in how genes are expressed—essentially which genes areturned on or off. Unlike the static conception of nature or nurture, epigeneticresearch demonstrates how genes and environments continuously interact toproduce characteristics throughout a lifetime.