Friday, February 19, 2010

Fidelity Booster

Prairie Voles mate for life. Montane Voles screw around.

Two almost identical species, with two almost identical evolutionary niches, and two fundamentally different behaviors. Of course, Scientists being scientists, this contradiction has recently been studied, and the difference comes down to the presence or absence of one single, solitary gene.

Prairie Voles, like Humans, have a specific promotor gene for the proteins oxytocin and vasopressin. Montane voles, like our promiscuous cousin the Chimpanzee, do not. The relevance of this theoretically revolves around the fact that oxytocin is the hormonal equivalent of love, the chemical we secrete when around those we care about, from family to romantic partners. It is the substance that cements bonds varying from the love between mother and child to the mild affection for an erstwhile fling. In the case of the Montane vole, its relevance revolves around the fact that voles modified to express this promoter show monogamous tendencies. To put it simply, we seem to have found the gene for romantic love.

The practical implication of this for human therapy is as a treatment for those unfortunates afflicted with Nymphomania or Don Juan syndrome, two clinically valid syndromes in which lasting affection is an unattainable goal, an illness in which deeper human contact is only a vaguely understood concept. The impractical implication is the possibility of behavioral modification, an inoculation against temptation. Imagine a world where marriage vows came with genetic checks, with shots created to redesign your brain and your heart. Would we be happier, stripped of the evil of temptation and mistrust, but simultaneously robbed of the validation our relationships receive from these tests?

We learn more about the brain every day, the bizarre interplay of electricity and chemistry that reduces somehow into our individual selves. Each day we reduce what was once magical and spiritual down to chemistry. It might be depressing, if it wasn't so fascinating.

1 comment: