Scientists Found the Commitment Gene

Posted by Alex in Science & Tech on September 5, 2008 at 7:19 pm


Playas beware: scientists have now isolated the gene for commitment and monogamy. And worse: they can transmit the gene through genetic engineering (at least in voles). Your roamin’ days are numbered:

Scientists studying voles (mouse-like rodents) discovered that transferring a single gene, the vasopressin receptor, from the monogamous prairie vole into the brain’s reward centre of a promiscuous meadow vole, would cause that meadow vole become monogamous.

Meanwhile, Swedish scientists have studied more than 500 twins and their spouses/domestic partners and have come to find that the vasopressin gene seems to have a similar effect on humans. “The researchers found that men with a particular variant of the AVPR1A gene (that codes for vasopressin in humans) scored lower on the bonding questions and were less likely to be married compared to men who did not have the variant…Also, men with two copies of the gene variant were twice as likely to report having had a relationship crisis with their marital spouse or partner in the last 12 months as men without the variant.”

LinkThanks Dawn Govender!


Previous post
this post? Please Email this               
Next post


FUN PRODUCTS FROM THE NEATORAMA SHOP:


COMMENT

13 comments to "Scientists Found the Commitment Gene"

  1. Terry
    September 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    It seems to me that these scientists are just applying their own cultural values as a measuring and categorisation method. If you lived in a culture without the social constructs of marriage, commitment and monogamy, the claims made by these scientists would be laughed at.

  2. Evil Pundit
    September 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Monogamy is not a social construct. It's a measurable, objective behaviour.

  3. Terry
    September 6th, 2008 at 1:20 am

    In many cultures Polygamy is the norm.

  4. Evil Pundit
    September 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    Polygamy is also measurable, objective behaviour.

    Therefore it is possible to make a scientific study of the things that influence monogamous or polygamous behaviour.

  5. Sweet Violet
    September 6th, 2008 at 2:20 am

    Polygamy may be acceptable in certain cultures, but that doesn't mean all male members of the culture practice it. My guess is that the social mores are immaterial...whether the culture permits one wife or many, the men who have the variant are predisposed to continue to seek new female companions.

  6. Terry
    September 6th, 2008 at 6:25 am

    There are extensive writings on the Nature vs Nurture debate. I've read a fair bit of it and I'll take the Nurture side.

  7. Evil Pundit
    September 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Then you'd be taking the wrong side, Terry.

  8. Neatoramawontsendmeapassword
    September 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    I hope they'll come up with a test for this. Then you can find out if you're going to eventually get cheated on BEFORE you get too involved with the guy!

  9. Jean Montambeault
    September 7th, 2008 at 6:04 am

    One remark : no where is it said that the gene was male. For humans, in still the majority of cases at least, it takes the pair of sexes for infidelity.

    Your flooding Neatorama, E.P., reveals a total lack of consideration for your hosts. Can't you summarize your conditioned responses in a single post?

  10. Sweet Violet
    September 7th, 2008 at 7:46 am

    Jean, both studies referenced here studied male behaviour. The original blog entry is here http://sweetvioletsa.blogspot.com/2008/09/invisible-genetic-programmin g.html

  11. Jean Montambeault
    September 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am

    I stand corrected... I've been lazy on that one. What to blame ? Nature : I have the lazy gene. Nurture : I guess that I just wanted to give a chance to my sex too much. ;)

    Thanks

    Jean

  12. Evil Pundit
    September 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    @Jean: That's the most pointless attempt to shut down debate I've ever seen here.

  13. Terry
    September 8th, 2008 at 3:33 am

    @EP,
    This is a place for comments, not necessarily debate. Personally, I understand that everyone has preferences on how they want to view the world. I've read a lot of your comments on many neatorama articles and I couldn't think of anything more pointless than debating you. It would be like pulling the string on the back of a dolls head, it can only say what it is programmed to say. I certainly don't agree with but I also couldn't care less what you think.

    PS. Rational knowledge does not produce an objective accounts of reality.

    Cheers EP
    Terry


PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT

Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. Comments aren't censored, but those that are abusive or off-topic may be edited or deleted.


Stay updated on the comments with Comment RSS