GENETIC INFLUENCES ON DEVELOPMENT OF
BEHAVIOR
D. G. FREEDMAN
Logically speaking, genes must influence all behavior, to some extent at
least. Otherwise one is faced with the unacceptable concept of behavior
which is independent of structure. Not only is this a logical position, but
there is evidence for it as well. I refer here to a demonstrable trend in studies
of twins, to wit, the greater the number of twins, the greater the number of
behavioral items which are significantly more alike among the identical
pairs (I). If one were to project this trend to an infinite number of twins, it
would indeed appear that all differences in behavior could be related to
variations in genotype.
Let us, therefore, start this paper by taking the position which Hebb (2)
promulgated, that all behavior is 100% inherited and 100% acquired. (In-
deed, in the behavior-genetic literature, no bio-statistician has yet been able
to get rid of a residual Heredity by Environment factor.) This will serve to
rid us of a host of pseudo-problems at the outset, and enable us to better
concentrate on the presentation of data.
ONE, TWO, OR MANY GENES
Before we get to the data, a few words on what constitutes a demonstration
of genetic cause or influence. Usually, when we talk of genetic influences on
behavior, we are talking about the difference between two groups, e.g., be-
tween two inbred groups, or between groups of fraternal versus identical
twins. Such studies usually demonstrate only that genetics is playing some
kind of (unknown) role.
The classical Mendelian study, therefore, has much more scientific merit,
for here we have the possibility of relating specific genes and specific be-
havior. Consequently, a number of pioneering behavior-geneticists have
striven, through Mendelian studies of fruit flies, mice, and dogs to duplicate
classical studies on structure. What have we learned from such studies?
As I read it, the problems are precisely those which faced the great gene-
208
G. B. A. Stoelinga et al. (eds.), Normal and Abnormal Development of Brain and Behaviour
© Leiden University Press, Leiden, The Netherlands 1971
GENETIC INFLUENCES ON DEVELOPMENT OF BEHAVIOR 209
ticist Morgan in the 1920'S. For example, while he knew the location of the
single gene which caused white eyes in Drosophila, Morgan estimated that at
least 50 unknown genes played a role in normal eye coloration. And so it was
for every other trait: wing-veinlessness, a single gene; normal veination,
probably hundreds of genes, and so on. Classical genetics has taught us
precious little about normal structure or normal development.
The same situation holds for behavior. Phenylketonuria is the result of a
single recessive gene which apparently causes an enzyme block, which in
turn interferes with normal metabolism, which then results in mental de-
ficiency. Other mental deficiencies may be traced to various chromosomal
trisomies, and with each year new cause-effect relations are found between
genetic anomaly and mental defect. The genetics of mental efficiency, on the
other hand, are vastly complex, and hardly illuminated by the aforemen-
tioned work. Many more examples are available (3) and it would appear that
Mendelian inheritance has been demonstrable only in defective structure or
function. Traits which have proved phylogenetically adaptive are invariably
polygenic, i.e., they have invariably accumulated a substantial number of
supporting genes.
TWIN PAIR
B i c:J ID£NTlCALS
.. 0 d' _ FRA7£~NALS
... H d' -MRS. K£U£R'$ GRO(IP (,,·11) P 'D82
DR. FR££DMAN"S GROt/I> (".9) p ' .016
.. N d' TOTAL P <.01
... F i
E ~
A ~
.. G d'
Kd'
"'1 i
'" Q. i
P ~
C ~
.. R d'
.. 0 d'
.. L. d
"M d
J d'
T ~
S d'
1
I SIGMA 2 SIGMA.
AVERAGE WITHIN-PAIR OIFFERENCE
Fig. I. Within-pair differences on the Bayley Mental and Motor Scales, based on 8-10
administrations over the first year of life. There were two investigators.
