| Abstract: | Genomic analyses have shown that only 1.2 per cent of the genome is devoted to protein coding sequences (the most commonly invoked definition of genes), and that much of the remaining sequences are employed in regulation – that is, in responding to signals, first, from the immediate environment of the DNA, but ultimately from the distal environment – from the cytoplasm, from the environment outside the cell, and finally, from the environment beyond the organism. Such signals are not restricted to the simple physical and chemical stimuli that impinge directly on the DNA, on the surface of the cell, or even on the body as a whole: organisms with central nervous systems have receptors for forms of perception that are not only more complex but far longer range. Humans have especially sophisticated perceptual capacities, enabling them to respond to a wide range of complex visual, auditory, linguistic and behavioural/emotional signals in their extended environment. Research has recently begun to show that responses to such signals can extend all the way down to the level of gene expression. The question is this: to what extent are we witnessing (at last) a rapprochement between the natural science of biology and the human sciences of sociology and anthropology, and to what extent do the new promises of synthesis merely reflect an expansion of older reductionist aims, threatening once again to marginalize rather than incorporate the insights of cultural analysis? As in my earlier discussion of the nature/nurture debate (2010), my focus will be restricted to the Anglo-American context. |
