David Shenk quotes Ellen Winner’s belief that there is an “‘atypical
brain organization’ in gifted children, occurring ‘as a result of genetics, the
in-utero environment, or after-birth trauma’” (87). Winner states that certain gifts”
are located in certain parts of the brain (88). What is the reason for the specific
location of “gifts?” How does the location affect the “gift?” How does “genetics,
the in-utero environment, [and] after-birth trauma” affect the ability of “gifted”
children (87)?
(Alexis Bauer, abauer9182@gmail.com)
In the past, it was often seen that those with special talents, especially those manifested at a young age were simply gifted with “good genes” which would allow them to begin composing symphonies at age five, like many believe great musicians like Mozart and Bach had. Rather than thinking about the possibility of an environment affecting expression of genes within DNA and RNA in the realm of the GxE paradigm that David Shenk describes, genes were found to be the most infallible of all, and one either was born and stuck with “good genes” or “bad genes” and there was nothing they could do to increase their capabilities and talents. However, Shenk proves this completely wrong with his theory of the GxE paradigm, stating that genes were like “knobs and switches…able to be turned up/down/on/off at any time by an miniscule environmental input.” (Shenk, 19). Thus, in this situation, the “in-utero environment” and any “after-birth traumas” (Shenk, 87) are what become the not so “minuscule “ environmental inputs causing the relocation of the supposed “gifts” in the brain. As DNA is damaged, mutated or otherwise changed by any environmental stimulus, the human brain is forced to compensate by development of other areas of the brain. When certain areas of the brain are developed more than others, often it can seem that the person has a certain “gift” associated with that area, when in reality, they are (often) simply deficient in another area causing this to occur in their genes.
ReplyDeleteThe reason this occurs is that any type of DNA mutation (“the result of genetics” that Shenk speaks of on page 87 of his book) can “alter a gene number or sequence.” This DNA mutation can occur simply as a result of “duplication errors of genes due to errors in meiosis”, (Campbell, 471) causing DNA or RNA to be cut out or added in places where it should not be, completely changing the function of the protein that the genes were originally meant to code for, leading to the deficiencies within the brain which would later cause the overdevelopment of other parts of the brain, creating supposed “gifts.” These DNA mutations/changes occur not only as a result of random errors in meiosis, but also largely as a result of environment. “Geographic variations between populations can create mutations within DNA coding regions” (Campbell, 470) As evolutionary time progresses, geographic variations within and between populations become more and more pronounced, allowing for overdevelopment of the brain in a certain region more over generations. However, even if an area of the brain does become “overdeveloped”, this does NOT necessarily mean that the offspring of the parents with the “gift” will have the “gift” themselves. All this simply states is that because of a “result of genetics” the person is more likely to have the genes “turned on” within their DNA to have it expressed and allow for further development of that part of the brain, and ability for the “gift” then to be expressed.
(continued on second comment, Michelle Kelrikh,mjkelrikh@gmail.com)
In addition, the internal environment of the uterus in which the baby is developing, and any “after-birth traumas” (Shenk, 87) that occur, will certainly have an impact on gene expression and expression of “gifts.” Since each region of the brain has its own specific structure, and therefore performs a different function, as a result of environmental pressures or changes, the brain must conform, creating an “atypical brain organization” to alter the structure and function, often leading to what Shenk calls “savant syndrome” (89). The new brain organization creates the “opportunity for the ability to develop” (89). A specific example of this has to do with a girl named AJ who was found to have exceptional autobiographical memory. While she was believed to be lightly autistic, as many savants are, it was found that as a baby she had experienced head trauma as a result of being in an extremely cold climate, leading to her having hypothermia. In normal people, the right inferior frontal cortex is responsible for “inhibiting episodic-retrieval mode, which is the neurocognitive state required for present stimuli to be interpreted as memory cues.” ("A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering", 12,). However, in AJ, the hypothermia had caused her frontostriatal system which is “made up of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, cingulate, supplementary motor area, and associated basal ganglia structures” to overdevelop as a result of her DNA coding for the right inferior frontal cortex being damaged. Because the right inferior frontal cortex was damaged, the DNA coding for the inhibition of the episodic-retrieval mode was no longer functioning as its structure dictated ("A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering", 35-36). Her frontostriatal system, which was responsible for recognizing long and short term memories, had become overdeveloped, and since episodic-retrieval mode was never inhibited in AJ, almost anything would trigger AJ to keep the memory and also to retrieve yet another memory, making it seem as if she has the “gift” of great autobiographical memory. In reality, AJ was not blessed with a gift, but rather with an environmental occurrence (hypothermia), which allowed for gene expression of DNA and RNA to build an overdeveloped frontostratial cortex, and an inhibited right inferior frontal cortex, combined giving her a better memory than those around her.
ReplyDelete(Michelle Kelrikh,mjkelrikh@gmail.com)