Mary+K.

Personality Traits and Genetics
===Most scientists agree that at least some aspect of our personality is influenced by our genes, but to what extent, and how exactly they do so, is largely still a mystery. Scientists have been researching this issue, and in many ways, have failed to find a link. In the most recent years, researchers have started to make headway in finding some sort of connection between personality traits, and our genes.===

Twin Studies
====Among the first studies were those that looked at identical and non identical twins. Non identical twins who share the same home environment have been seen to have varying personality traits, while identical twins tend to have similar personalities. Researchers believe this is because identical twins share their DNA more so than non identical twins do. However, these studies have been called into question for many reasons. For one, researchers argue that even twins do not share the exact same environment. More importantly, it does not offer any solid evidence that genes and personality traits are linked.==== ==

==

Dopamine Related Genes
====More recently, scientists have abandoned trying to find a single gene responsible for a single trait. Some of the most convincing evidence comes from a study that looked at dopamine related genes. The study looked for a connection between novelty seeking behaviour, which is associated with drug use, risk taking, and impulsiveness, and looked for a link between dopamine related genes. The work examined areas called SNPs. SNPs are single nucleotide polymorphisms, which result when there is variation in a single nucleotide in the genome. In the end, researchers found that dopamine related genes could explain about 7% of the variation in novelty seeking behaviour. The DRD4 gene, or the "adventure gene" is a dopamine receptor gene and has been linked to this risky behaviour, and is often present in drug addicts. The other gene that is often mentioned is what is referred to as "the prozac" gene. This gene is said to produce protein similar to serotonin and is linked to anxiety related behaviour. Despite this evidence pointing towards genes being related to personality, researchers admit that only 2% of the variance in these genes can account for specific traits. Instead, they say that many genes probably influence our personality in very slight ways.==== ==== ====

====If however, there is a connection between behaviour and our genes, it would suggest that there could be a connection between mental illness and disorders and our genes as well. This kind of research, if successful in finding a link, could be extremely important in diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.====

Mental Illness
====Most of the scientific community agrees that mental illness is a result of a number of factors including biological reasons, environmental effects, and also genetic makeup. However, because all of these factors are involved, it is very hard to diagnose and pin point mental illness. A new study conducted in 2013 would suggest that various disorders can be linked to the same genetic risk factors.==== ====Researchers decided to analyze 5 different disorders: Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Autism and ADHD. They took 30 000 people who had these disorders, and compared their genetic sequences with people who did not have these disorders. They were looking at common gene variants, to find something common among all the sequences belonging to those with a disorder.==== ====The researchers found that individuals with a disorder were more likely to have a variation on 4 chromosomal sites. 2 of these sites involve genes that regulate the flow of calcium through cell membranes. This affects neurotransmitters, and the way neurons signal to each other. Previously, these genes had been known to affect emotion, thinking and memory. Researchers also found that there was an overlap between the genetic variance of certain disorders. For instance, schizophrenia was found to be closely linked to bipolar disorder, and bipolar disorder to depression. While these variances are small, and cannot attribute for a large part of mental illness, they still aid in understanding how mental disorders are caused. Overall, the study found that the common genetic variation between all of the disorders accounts for about 17-28% of the risk of having the disorder.====



====This evidence cannot be used to predict or to diagnose mental disorders, but some researchers speculate that that is where this kind of evidence will lead in the future. They add that having a diagnosis similar to a physical health problem would stop the stigma surrounding mental illness.====

==== media type="custom" key="24944410" align="center"

====

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2010/04/13/the-hunt-for-the-prozac-gene/#.UuPeviisGWg - **This article discusses the prozac gene and antidepressant drugs**
====http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2335681/Enviroment-stronger-genes-determining-personality.html- **This article is about the effect of our environment on our personality vs. the effect of our genes**====

__References__
__[]__ __[]__ __[]__ __[|http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-]__ __[|genetic-variations/58642.html]__ http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/genomicresearch/sn__p__ http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.aspx http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516115903.htm http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08/19/5-major-mental-illnesses-traced-to-same-genetic-variations/58642.html

**Post 2, November 30**


 * Evolutionary Musicology **

Biomusicology is the study of music from a biological point of view, and evolutionary musicology focuses specifically on music throughout human evolution. The term biomusicology was only coined in 1991, but it was Charles Darwin who is known to be the first to address music from a biological standpoint in his book “The Descent of Man”.  Darwin wrote:

 //“As neither the enjoyment nor the capacity of producing musical notes are faculties of the least use to man in reference to his daily habits of life, they must be ranked among the most mysterious with which he is endowed”//

Since then, there have been minimal explanations as to why humans have such a deep connection with music. There is little question that music is deeply ingrained in humans. Most adults can remember and recognize hundreds of melodi es with ease and children sing and dance from an early age, with little instruction. Additionally, each different culture has some form of music and there is ample evidence to suggest that it is an ancient practice.





**Darwin's Question **
Darwin noticed that music is expensive to humans in energy and time, and it has no apparent advantages to an individual’s survival or reproduction. Why then, does it even exist? This is the question Darwin, among other scientists, was trying to figure out.


 * Darwin's Theory **

Darwin believed that music in humans was similar in purpose to song in birds, or the peacocks tail. He reasoned that music has benefits in reproductive selection. Therefore, singing was for the purpose of attracting a mate.

Darwin had previously noted that there was often phenotypic differences between one sex of a certain species and the other. This is called sexual dimorphism. In most other animals we know, the musical vocalization is used only by the male.

Darwin used the peacocks tail as an example frequently. The peacock's tail may actually be detrimental to it’s survival, but it does have reproductive benefits. He argued this was similar to music, in the way that it takes up energy and sacrifices survival for the benefit of reproduction.

media type="custom" key="24565878" align="center"

This is a clip from the BBC's planet earth. It shows Birds Of Paradise performing mating dances. It is an example of high energy behaviour that is perhaps risky to survival, but advantageous to breeding. Despite the fact that Darwin could not explain why women as well as men have musical ability, his theory is interesting, and can be related to modern times. Modern scientists believe it to be a compelling theory. For instance, Dr. Geoffrey F. MIller presented the example of Jimi Hendrix, who had sex with numerous women, presumably in the hundreds. Hendrix also managed to maintain 2 or more relationships, and father at least 3 children. Without music, it is incredibly unlikely he would have managed to do this. In the time of our ancestors, and without birth control, Jimi Hendrix would have been very successful in passing on his genes. Is it true that people who perform music are often seen as better mates? Does musicality suggest dexterity and health? Dr. Miller believes this to be true, and this is in accordance with Darwin’s theory.


 * Group Selection **

Another theory bases itself off of group selection, which is a very controversial topic in the scientific world. Group selection helps explain behaviors in animals that may benefit the group, but will often times harm or lessen the situation of the individual. Darwin's idea of natural selection would mean that a human who puts effort into its own survival and reproduction would have the most success in passing on their genes. Group selection suggest that animals can sacrifice their own wellbeing for a group, if they perceive the group as a benefit to them. Group selection sees a group as a vehicle for survival, instead of the individual.


 * Humans and Music **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Interestingly, humans are the only known animal who can use meter and harmony in song or music. If you were to start a chant in a big crowd, most everyone in the crowd could be expected to join in the pattern. This is meter. Additionally, music allows for numerous contributions at the same time, unlike conversation. This is harmony.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Another curious fact is that the human brain has a very specific region controlling music. There have been cases where people, after suffering a stroke, have lost all musical ability, or alternatively, lost nearly all function in language, but their musical ability remains. Why would our brains have such a specific region for music, if it is not a essential cognitive function, and it seems to have little purpose from an evolutionary standpoint? If music disappeared, it seems not much would change from a biological point of view. Music also stimulates reward systems and sends endorphins into our bodies, giving us positive emotional response upon hearing and playing music. All of this information suggests that music serves a specific purpose biologically.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">How Does It Benefit A Group? **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">One theory would suggest that music evolved to encourage group cooperation and cohesion by allowing a group to work together, and therefore enhancing their survival. By allowing individuals to participate through music, you could form a group that was cohesive and more effective.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Hypothetically, if you supposed group selection theory was true, you could say music benefits a group, and therefore has been part of human evolution. Music is often times seen at events involving team work. Such as working songs during harvesting or building, or songs during religious or celebratory ceremonies. Does this mean that music evolved principally as a means of group cooperation and survival?


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Other Theories **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Another theory states that music is simply an accident. Dr. Steven Pinker describes music as "auditory cheesecake". He explains that humans love cheesecake because it contains fat and sugar, not because we are evolved to enjoy desserts. Music is similar in the way we respond to rhythm and voices, but these responses are independent from our love of music. He uses this theory to explain why our brains respond to music so well : we are actually responding to rhythm which helps us run and walk and emotional signals in voices such as crying or yelling which help us survive and react to our environment.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Other theories include the idea that music is a way for humans to bond with their new born babies. Mothers are known, across many cultures, to speak to their young in a sort of melodic speech. Humans are the only animal known to do this. It is suggested that this led to enhanced mother and child bonding, and led to better communication and therefore better survival. Another theory states that music and language are paralleled and simply evolved together.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Is music a legitimate and complex adaption? If it is, then can Darwin’s theories really explain it. Or, could music be attributed to the unpopular theory of group selection? Perhaps music started as a way of communication between mother and child, or as a partner to language. On the other hand, some argue that music is completely accidental, and from a biological standpoint, has no purpose whatsoever. The question that Darwin posed so many years ago is largely still up in the air.

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">Further Reading **__

ftp://ftp.repec.org/RePEc/els/esrcls/draftfin.pdf - **Here is the full paper written by Dr. Geoffrey Miller entitled "Evolution of Human Music through Sexual Selection"**

http://www.nsi.edu/~ani/Patel_2006_Music_Perception.pdf - **Here is an article entitled Musical Rhythm, Linguistic Rhythm and Human Evolution written by Aniruddh D. Patel. It focusses on the debate surrounding music and evolution.**

http://www.academia.edu/2524937/Music_Culture_and_the_Evolution_of_the_Human_Mind_Looking_Beyond_Dichotomies - ** Article entitled "Music. Culture, and the Evolution of the Human MInd : Looking Beyond Dichtomies" by Dylan van der Schyff **

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/science/25flute.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1385820410-bKq9SIzDuMA/w4mHSjyUjA - **Here is an article about the ancient flute found in Germany.**

__**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%;">References **__

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/537133/sexual-dimorphism

[]

[]

[|http://books.google.ca/books?id=vYQEakqM4I0C&pg=PA5&dq=evolutionary+musicology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VeuZUojOII7mkAftwoCoBA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20musicology&f=false]

[|http://books.google.ca/books?id=SjL2y2glb0wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=evolutionary+musicology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VeuZUojOII7mkAftwoCoBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20musicology&f=false]

[]

[]

=

=

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 120%; line-height: 1.5;">Post 1, October 9
= =


 * Preimplantation genetic diagnosis **

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is a technique used to treat genetic defects in embryos before pregnancy when a specific genetic mutation is known, or to tell if the embryos are normal. If parents are known to ha ve a genetic abnormality, testing can tell if a specific embryo has it as well. PGD aims to find an embryo that is healthy, and then implant it into the uterus.


 * How does it work? **

Eggs will be extracted from the mother, and be fertilized in the lab by the father’s sperm. The eggs will develop and form embryos. A single cell from each embryo will be extracted and tested. If the embryo is free from the specific genetic disorder, it will be implanted in the uterus of the mother and will grow normally.

To date, this method has largely only been used to prevent diseases from being passed on, or to prevent a mother from having a miscarriage. However, there are many experiments being conducted with animals, and even human cells that aim to explore what would happen if specific genes were inserted into a generally healthy embryo.

= =



= =



= = = = = What will it be in the future? =

In PGD, finding a specific embryo is difficult no matter what. If the parents don’t carry a specific, desirable gene in the first place, then it’s impossible. Scientists today are looking at the possibility of inserting genes into an embryo. Similarly, gene therapy inserts healthy genes into the body of an unhealthy person and this aims to cure their disease or illness. This has been successful in the past.

What people tend to fear is that in the future, parents could pick and choose the genes of their children. For Instance, it has been found that certain genes influence not only potential for disease, but affect a person’s overall mood, personality and disposition as well. Genes affecting musical ability, or physical ability could also be altered. Certain genes may make a person susceptible to depression or alcoholism. If these genes were manipulated, a baby could be designed. This is where the term “designer baby” comes from.

At the moment, we do not have enough knowledge about each gene to know how its presence affects us. For instance, one gene may make a person very strong, but it could also give them a non-desirable personality trait. We simply don’t know. Inserting ge nes into a fetus has been a topic of interest to scientists for years, but it is far to dangerous without more knowledge about how each gene can affect the human body.



Ethical Issues
Most people would agree that PGD is not an outlandish manipulation. It’s aim is specific, and does not focus on trivial things such as appearance or physical strength. However, there is potential, in the future, for it to become something else. Certain people, including many scientists, are hesitant about the future of human genetic engineering due to the ethical issues involved. Scientists and philosophers alike are asking questions. A few areas of controversy are:

-Does it violates a child’s right to autonomy?. Certain characteristics (ex. Musical ability, athletic ability) point a child in a direction they did not choose for themselves. However, the other side to this argument is that the genetic lottery works in the same way. Children may not choose to be athletic, but they are born that way.

-Stronger bodies, superior intelligence and memory enhancement are not necessary, but simply desirable. Is it then wrong to manipulate these things?

- Would everyone have equal access to genetic engineering, or would people living in poverty be restricted? Could this eventually lead to two classes of humans or a “perfect” breed of human?

-Memory enhancing drugs (targeted towards adults 50 years and older) and anti memory drugs (targeted towards soldiers, sexual assault victims and terrorist attack victims who are at risk of suffering from PTSD) can alter our reality, and perception. This topic is more thoroughly discussed in a philosophical way. How does the manipulation of our memory alter our life in general?

-In cultures where there are strong desires to have a baby boy, female fetuses are often times aborted after the sex has been identified by an ultra sound. With genetic engineering, parents could choose the sex of their child beforehand. Would male fetuses be favored? The laws against aborting female fetuses in other countries are often times ignored.

-Anti-abortionists claim that fetuses in Petri dishes should be treated with equal rights as any human. Therefore, how can scientists discard potential human life, and what restrictions would they operate under?

media type="custom" key="24063266" align="center"

This video comes from a BBC documentary on PGD and the future of genetic engineering. = Can desirable genes be bought? =

Companies and governments are looking around the world to find plants, and animals (including humans) with rare genetic traits that could be bought and sold on the market. There could be a future patent on specific genes. For instance, scientists have been sampling the genes of indigenous people who live in isolation, trying to find something new in their DNA.

__ Further Reading __
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/designer-children.htm **- This page discusses designer babies at length**

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/index.shtml **- This page is the archive for the Human Genome Project**

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/b/a/4/ba4aef01e13d0769/Julian_Savulescu_on_Designer_Babies_originally_on_Bioethics_Bites.mp3?c_id=4418460&expiration=1381413309&hwt=09adb430ef5647cf70fa64d78123ee0e **- This link is a podcast from BioEthics, it discusses Designer Babies with a Professor from Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/gender-selection-_n_1889991.html **- This article comes from The Huffington Post and it discusses sex selection in Canada, and around the world.**

**__References__**

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ael6tIvalIUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=genetically+engineered+babies&ots=sYL1kGmDfL&sig=uB4t22tCc6Jk20WhnHaUegGvq6k#v=onepage&q=genetically%20engineered%20babies&f=false

http://90.146.8.18/en/archiv_files/19991/E1999_047.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-babies/5350370

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXHjczd-yeo

http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/fertility/services/pgd

http://americanpregnancy.org/infertility/preimplantationgeneticdiagnosis.html

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303492504579113293429460678

http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_cont1.htm

http://www.livescience.com/27206-genetic-engineering-babies-debate.html