Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
7. D. R. Weaver, J. Biol. Rhythms 13, 100 (1998). 20. M. Thomsen, S. B. Caine, Behav. Genet. 37, 101 (2007). 36. W. F. Dietrich et al., Cell 75, 631 (1993).
8. D. P. King et al., Cell 89, 641 (1997). 21. E. A. Phelps, J. E. LeDoux, Neuron 48, 175 (2005). 37. K. E. Strunk, V. Amann, D. W. Threadgill, Genetics 167,
9. Z. S. Sun et al., Cell 90, 1003 (1997). 22. E. R. Kandel, Science 294, 1030 (2001). 1821 (2004).
10. H. Tei et al., Nature 389, 512 (1997). 23. R. L. Davis, Physiol. Rev. 76, 299 (1996). 38. K. Shimomura et al., Genome Res. 11, 959 (2001).
11. E. Nagoshi et al., Cell 119, 693 (2004). 24. P. L. Lowrey et al., Science 288, 483 (2000). 39. J. H. Nadeau, W. N. Frankel, Nat. Genet. 25, 381 (2000).
12. D. K. Welsh, S. H. Yoo, A. C. Liu, J. S. Takahashi, S. A. Kay, 25. J. P. DeBruyne, D. R. Weaver, S. M. Reppert, Nat. Neurosci. 40. K. A. Frazer et al., Nature 448, 1050 (2007).
Curr. Biol. 14, 2289 (2004). 10, 543 (2007). 41. D. R. Beier, Mamm. Genome 11, 594 (2000).
13. S. H. Yoo et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 5339 26. Q. J. Meng et al., Neuron 58, 78 (2008). 42. E. R. Mardis, Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 9, 387 (2008).
(2004). 27. D. P. King et al., Genetics 146, 1049 (1997). 43. T. J. Albert et al., Nat. Methods 4, 903 (2007).
14. S. M. Siepka, J. S. Takahashi, Methods Enzymol. 393, 230 28. The International Mouse Knockout Consortium, Cell 128, 44. E. Hodges et al., Nat. Genet. 39, 1522 (2007).
(2005). 9 (2007). 45. Supported by NIH grants U01 MH61915, R01 MH078024,
15. C. S. Pittendrigh, S. Daan, J. Comp. Physiol. A 106, 223 29. Y. Gondo, Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 803 (2008). and P50 MH074924 (Silvio O. Conte Center) to J.S.T.,
(1976). 30. A. Acevedo-Arozena et al., Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Takeda Research grant 07-030R to K.S., and NIH National
16. M. H. Vitaterna et al., Science 264, 719 (1994). Genet. 9, 49 (2008). Research Service Award F32 DA024556 to V.K. J.S.T. is an
17. K. T. Moortgat, T. H. Bullock, T. J. Sejnowski, 31. B. T. Kile, D. J. Hilton, Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 557 (2005). Investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
J. Neurophysiol. 83, 971 (2000). S. M. Siepka et al., Cell 129, 1011 (2007).
Supporting Online Material
32.
18. M. H. Vitaterna, L. H. Pinto, J. S. Takahashi, Trends 33. A. Matynia et al., PLoS One 3, e2121 (2008).
Neurosci. 29, 233 (2006). 34. J. Flint, W. Valdar, S. Shifman, R. Mott, Nat. Rev. Genet. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5903/909/DC1
19. D. M. Bannerman, M. A. Good, S. P. Butcher, M. Ramsay, 6, 271 (2005). Table S1
R. G. Morris, Nature 378, 182 (1995). 35. L. L. Peters et al., Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 58 (2007). 10.1126/science.1158822
A
ristotle is credited with being the first role in explaining variation in human political the choice of a political party (6, 7), thereby sup-
political scientist. In his work The Politics behavior. Second, additional evidence in neuro- porting a core finding in the study of American
he carefully describes the constitutions science indicates that the human brain may be politics that the choice to be a Democrat or a
of a number of different city-states, starting a adapted particularly to solve social problems Republican is largely shaped by parental social-
science of political institutions that would last that are explicitly political. Much of this evi- ization (8). However, other studies showed that
thousands of years. But he is also known for first dence is associational, and we therefore should the decision to affiliate with any political party
asserting the biological uniqueness of human be cautious in using it to build causal theories. (and the strength of this attachment) are signif-
political behavior with his famous observation: However, if the need for sophisticated social cog- icantly influenced by genes (9, 10).
“Man is, by nature, a political animal” (1). nition drove the evolution of the human brain (2), These initial twin studies suggested that po-
It has not been easy for us to follow in his then a new science of human nature will require litical ideas are heritable, but they said little about
footsteps. In the past 50 years, biologists have comprehending human biology in a sociopolitical political behavior. That changed this year, when
learned a tremendous amount about human bi- context. a study (11) examined the heritability of voter
ology and its genetic basis. At the same time, participation by matching publicly available
political scientists have been intensively studying Genes and Politics voter registration records to a twin registry in
the effect of the social and institutional environ- Since at least the middle of last century, theories Los Angeles (12), analyzing self-reported turn-
ment on political attitudes and behaviors. How- about political attitudes and behavior have fo- out in the National Longitudinal Study of Ado-
ever, biologists and political scientists have been cused almost exclusively on information about lescent Health (Add Health), and analyzing
working largely in isolation of one another. Little peer and parental socialization, socioeconomic other forms of political participation. In all three
cross-disciplinary work has been done. factors, and political institutions. Although polit- cases, both genes and environment contributed
This must change for two important reasons. ical scientists have made progress on important significantly to variation in political participation
First, recent evidence is making it increasingly questions, their models have become burdened (Fig. 1).
clear that genetic variation plays an important with dozens of ad hoc theories, and they usually Other scholars wondered whether there might
fit poorly to the data (3). For example, one prom- be similar variation in basic economic behavior.
Department of Political Science, University of California, inent model of voter participation includes 32 For example, they administered a “trust” game to
San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. variables but accounts for only 31% of the var- twins in the United States and Sweden in which
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: iance in turnout behavior (4). Moreover, the the- one (anonymous) subject decides how much to
jhfowler@ucsd.edu ories underlying these empirical models typically “invest” in another subject, the amount invested
2
2
0.
0.
0.
0.8 0.8 0.8
50%
neurotransmitters. Dopamine and
4
4
4
0.
0.
0.
0.6 0.6 0.6
serotonin have been studied for sev-
6
6
6
5%
eral years and have been shown to
0.
0.
0.
0.4 0.4 0.4
8
8
0.
0.
0.
0.2 0.2 0.2
mals and humans, so early work on
politics has been directed at genes Shared Unshared Shared Unshared Shared Unshared
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 .2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
that affect their regulation (18, 19). environment environment environment environment environment environment
A direct association was recently es- Fig. 1. Political participation is heritable. Ternary plots show estimates from a twin study model of (A) voter
tablished between voter turnout and turnout among subjects in the Southern California Twin Registry (SCTR), (B) voter turnout among subjects in
the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), and (C) political participation among subjects
gene, as well as a gene-environment in Add Health (an index that includes contributing money to a campaign, contacting a public official, running for
interaction between turnout and the office, or attending a rally or march). An additive genetic model uses identical and fraternal twin covariances to
serotonin transporter (5HTT) gene, decompose the variance of a trait with respect to genetics, shared environment, and unshared environment factors.
among those who frequently partici- Colors indicate probabilities. The blue areas indicate the regions that are most likely to contain the true estimates;
pated in religious activities (18). In the beige areas indicate the region of 95% confidence (i.e., the probability that the true coefficients lie outside the
other research, scholars have also colored regions is P = 0.05). Mean contribution of the genetic factor is estimated to be 53% for SCTR turnout,
found an association between voter 72% for Add Health turnout, and 60% for Add Health participation (11).
turnout and a dopamine receptor
(DRD2) gene that is mediated by a significant a form of social cognition that we have called regions when they think about national politics.
association between that gene and the tenden- “playground cognition” (24). On the play- However, people who do not know much about
cy to affiliate with a political party (19). This ground, we are figuring out whom to cooperate national politics actually deactivate this set of
work is preliminary and replication will be cru- with and whom to avoid; we are cognizant of brain regions, as if they had to treat these polit-
cial, but it suggests that neurotransmitter func- social hierarchy; and we engage in coalitional ical questions as a form of technical cognition.
tion has an effect on political behavior. Future cognition, knowing that an alliance with one We would not expect political novices to have
studies will also need to investigate whether group will entail exclusion from another. Even some fundamental impairment on the playground.
genes influence political behavior predominantly at rest on the playground, we are constantly Instead, they appear to be merely unfamiliar with
through neurotransmitters and other cellular-level monitoring our social environment and our the specific domain of national politics. In con-
processes; through larger-scale differences in place in it. trast, people with autism spectrum disorders do
brain structure, function, or connectivity; through Neuroscientists have been studying a net- appear to be generally unable to use their default
broader psychological constructs such as per- work of brain regions that diminishes in activ- state network properly (29, 30), and although
sonality (20); or through a complex mix of all ity when subjects are engaged in a wide variety some of them are able to perform very well in
three (21). of technical cognitive tasks (25). One puzzle with the classroom, they struggle with the social cog-
this resting or “default state” network is that it nition skills demanded on the playground.
Neurobiology and Politics consumes a large portion of the brain’s meta-
The genetic evidence so far has been about var- bolic budget and yet appears to deactivate under The New Science of Human Nature
iation in political behavior, but there is also a many conditions of active cognition. Meanwhile, Large-scale political behavior is an extremely
stable core to this behavior that differentiates when people make personal moral judgments recent phenomenon in the span of human evo-
humans from other species. Synthesizing five (26) or observe social interactions (27), this lution, but the initial evidence suggests that it
decades of research, psychologists have recently network of brain regions increases in activity relies on genetic and neural mechanisms that
identified a motivational basis for the stable, above the resting baseline. One component of evolved to solve basic social problems. These
definitional core of conservative ideology, claim- this network, the medial prefrontal cortex, ap- problems are inherently political because they
ing that it is adopted in part to satisfy a variety of pears to be involved in thinking about the mental involve decisions about the organization of hu-
social, cognitive, and psychological needs (22). states of others. Another region, the medial mans to achieve group goals and the distribution
0.00%
-0.05%
-0.10%
-0.15%
Fig. 2. Politics is a form of playground cognition. (A and B) When both 59, 21)] and the medial parietal cortex [(B), right; 4-mm spherical ROI
college Democrat club members [(A), top left; cross-hairs at (2, –42, 33) centered at (2, –64, 30)], brain regions that are part of a resting state
with z = 3.94] and college Republican club members [(A), top right; network that has been shown to be active during social cognition. In contrast,
of resources within a group. But they are also When Aristotle wanted to understand how 12. L. A. Baker, M. Barton, A. Raine, J. H. Fowler, Twin Res.
inherently biological. For example, one of the humans govern themselves, he started by cat- Hum. Genet. 9, 933 (2006).
13. D. Cesarini et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 3721
most fundamental unanswered questions in evo- aloging political institutions. Today, the study (2008).
lutionary biology is how cooperative behavior of institutions has improved our understanding 14. D. Cesarini, C. T. Dawes, M. Johannesson, P. Lichtenstein,
evolved (31). If natural selection favors fit indi- of political outcomes because they help us un- B. Wallace, Q. J. Econ., in press.
viduals, why do some individuals voluntarily re- derstand how legislatures, courts, and other bodies 15. B. Wallace, D. Cesarini, P. Lichtenstein, M. Johannesson,
duce their fitness in order to enhance the fitness are constrained in their behavior. Similarly, the Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 15631 (2007).
16. J. H. Fowler, J. Polit. 68, 674 (2006).
of others? Meanwhile, in political science we are study of genes potentially promises a better un- 17. J. H. Fowler, C. D. Kam, J. Polit. 69, 813 (2007).
focused on the nearly identical problem of col- derstanding of the constraints imposed on basic 18. J. H. Fowler, C. T. Dawes, J. Polit. 70, 579 (2008).
lective action (32). In large-scale societies, why political psychology. The new science of hu- 19. C. T. Dawes, J. H. Fowler, J. Polit., in press.
do people join political groups, participate in man nature demands that we recognize that 20. J. M. Olson, P. A. Vernon, J. A. Harris, K. L. Jang,
elections, and engage in other kinds of mass genes are the institutions of the human body. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 845 (2001).
21. N. I. Eisenberger, B. M. Way, S. E. Taylor, W. T. Welch,
behavior when they know their efforts will not They regulate the neurological processes that
M. D. Lieberman, Biol. Psychiatry 61, 1100 (2007).
alter the political outcome? drive social and political behavior. And we can- 22. J. Jost, Am. Psychol. 61, 651 (2006).
Although simple forms of cooperation can not fully appreciate their function in humans 23. E. Herrmann, J. Call, M. V. Hernández-Lloreda, B. Hare,
be found far back in our evolutionary history, without understanding their role in the very com- M. Tomasello, Science 317, 1360 (2007).
more sophisticated forms are quite recent. Evi- plex social and political interactions that charac- 24. D. Schreiber, in The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in
Political Thinking and Behavior, A. Crigler, M. MacKuen,
dence of political behavior in chimpanzees (33), terize our species. G. E. Marcus, W. R. Neuman, Eds. (Univ. of Chicago Press,
capuchins (34), and early human societies (35) Chicago, 2007), pp. 48–70.
suggests that we may have, in part, evolved in 25. M. E. Raichle et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 676
References (2001).
ways that maximize our capabilities for small-scale 1. Aristotle, in Cambridge Texts in the History of Political 26. J. D. Greene, R. B. Sommerville, L. E. Nystrom, J. M. Darley,
interactions. But what are the biological mecha- Thought, S. Everson, Ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, J. D. Cohen, Science 293, 2105 (2001).
nisms that enable us to cope with these small-scale Cambridge, 1996). 27. M. Iacoboni et al., Neuroimage 21, 1167 (2004).
interactions? And were new adaptations necessary 2. R. W. Byrne, A. Whiten, Machiavellian Intelligence: Social 28. D. Westen, P. Blagov, K. Harenski, C. Kilts, S. Hamann,
Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, J. Cogn. Neurosci. 18, 1947 (2006).
for the development of large-scale political atti- and Humans (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1988). 29. M. Iacoboni, Trends Cognit. Sci. 10, 431 (2006).
tudes, behaviors, and institutions, or are we merely 3. J. G. Matsusaka, F. Palda, Public Choice 98, 431 30. D. P. Kennedy, E. Redcay, E. Courchesne, Proc. Natl.
conserving other older tools for a new purpose? (1999). Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 8275 (2006).
Like Aristotle, we believe that the study of 4. E. Plutzer, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96, 41 (2002). 31. R. M. May, in A. M. Colman, Nature 440, 744 (2006).
5. N. G. Martin et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 4364 32. E. Ostrom, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92, 1 (1998).
human nature should lie at the intersection of
politics and biology. Whereas physiological stud-
(1986). 33. F. B. M. de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex
6. J. R. Alford, C. L. Funk, J. R. Hibbing, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. Among Apes (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore,
ies on the correlation between political attitudes 99, 153 (2008). 1982).
and biological factors can be rigorously per- 7. P. K. Hatemi, S. E. Medland, K. I. Morley, A. C. Heath, 34. S. F. Brosnan, C. Freeman, F. B. M. de Waal, Am. J.
formed on small numbers of subjects (36), po- N. G. Martin, Behav. Genet. 37, 435 (2007). Primatol. 68, 713 (2006).
litical scientists are particularly adept at testing
8. A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, D. E. Stokes, 35. C. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of
The American Voter (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Egalitarian Behavior (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge,
the implications of their theories in large popu- 1960). MA, 1999).
lations (e.g., with surveys, natural experiments, 9. J. E. Settle, C. T. Dawes, J. H. Fowler, Polit. Res. Q., 36. D. M. Amodio, J. T. Jost, S. L. Master, C. M. Yee,
and field experiments). Similarly, puzzles that in press. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1246 (2007).
arise at the population level can drive the kind
10. P. K. Hatemi, J. Hibbing, J. Alford, N. Martin, L. Eaves, 37. M. Lieberman, D. Schreiber, K. Ochsner, Polit. Psychol.
Polit. Res. Q., in press. 24, 681 (2003).
of laboratory work that neuroscientists are more 11. J. H. Fowler, L. A. Baker, C. T. Dawes, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
familiar with (37). 102, 233 (2008). 10.1126/science.1158188