Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, September 2, 2008 | Reason : Evolution and Biology | print version Print | Comments

Document Monogamy gene found in people

by New Scientist

Thanks to GP for the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Monogamy gene found in people
Priya Shetty

What if you could tell whether a man is husband material just by peering at his genes?

There has been speculation about the role of the hormone vasopressin in humans ever since we discovered that variations in where receptors for the hormone are expressed makes prairie voles strictly monogamous but meadow voles promiscuous; vasopressin is related to the "cuddle chemical" oxytocin. Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.

Hasse Walum at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues looked at the various forms of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in 552 Swedish people, who were all in heterosexual partnerships. The researchers also investigated the quality of their relationships.

They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.

Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.

Commitment phobia

Given that everyone surveyed had been in their relationship for at least five years, the team suggests that having multiple copies somehow contributes to commitment problems in men. Because the results were collected for a different study the team couldn't quiz the men on whether they were faithful, says Wallum.

It is not clear exactly how multiple copies of RS3 334 affect expression of the vasopressin receptor, and our most intimate relationships. And yet that's the most interesting question, says Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

In some animals, the theory is that the brain has two "motivational" systems: one for reward, the other for social perception. In prairie voles and marmosets, receptors for the two systems sit on adjacent cells, so social activity is highly rewarding, leading to monogamy. To see if the same mechanism is at work in people will mean using tissue from post-mortems to map where vasopressin receptors lie, to see if variations are linked to the number of copies of RS3 334.

RS3 334's social effects extend beyond bonding in couples. Earlier this year, the same gene section was shown to affect signalling in people's amygdalas, linked to trust. Another study found that people with autism, which is characterised by unusual social behaviour, often have multiple copies of RS3 334.

Walum's colleague Paul Lichtenstein says the team's next task is to test how a nasal vasopressin spray affects altruism and jealousy.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073pnas.0803081105

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #241173 by EarthChild on September 2, 2008 at 12:56 am

Shiiiiiiiiiittttttt !!!!!!! There goes my "it's in my genetic makeup" excuse. Hope the wife doesn't read this .....

Other Comments by EarthChild

2. Comment #241190 by Machinus on September 2, 2008 at 1:38 am

When do we start testing women for being "wife material?" What kind of sexist remarks will journalists make when we start to measure them for pragmatism, objectivity, and self-reliance?

Other Comments by Machinus

3. Comment #241207 by beeline on September 2, 2008 at 2:10 am

 avatar
Monogamy gene...

Uh-oh.

...help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.

Hello, I thought, here comes a carefully considered and balanced article. Obviously there can be no men who sit in the middle of that continuum. No, that wouldn't be quite so exciting a news story, would it.

In prairie voles and marmosets, receptors for the two systems sit on adjacent cells, so social activity is highly rewarding, leading to monogamy.

This is a ridiculous simplification, surely? What about the cost analysis of raising offspring, food availability, predator-prey ratios, and all those other factors that affect mating system.

And there's plenty of evidence that both individuals in lots of relationships that are traditionally considered 'monogamous' have a bit on the side: swans and gibbons certainly do. Hence it's a bit odd to call the behaviour (of men) a 'problem'. Likewise, it's annoying to see it constantly and lazily labelled as a 'phobia' indicating some irrational tendency subject only to fear. There are other reasons for avoiding long-term relationships. (I am married, by the way :-D )

Although it's interesting that this gene seems to correlate with various (although rather vague) measurements of monogamy, there are too many simplistic holes in this bit of journalism to be able to understand it properly.

I dunno, maybe I've got the wrong genetic make-up, and I'm afraid to comprehend.

Other Comments by beeline

4. Comment #241209 by JimmyGiro on September 2, 2008 at 2:11 am

 avatarAgreed Machinus; and why didn't the article refer to social-phobes, for those 'mummy's boys' that can't cope with more than one woman.

Nature has evolved a spread of characteristics to optimise survival... which is why, I suppose, we should tolerate the idiots who wrote this article.

Other Comments by JimmyGiro

5. Comment #241310 by skip on September 2, 2008 at 5:16 am

 avatarWell that explains it! Adultery is a naturally occurring behavior in humans. he he...

I would be nice to see a longer report I think I'll find the actual study and give it a good read.

Skip

Other Comments by skip

6. Comment #241346 by Cartomancer on September 2, 2008 at 6:15 am

 avatarRelationships can last for more than five years? I've never had one that lasts for more than five minutes... well, ok, half an hour at most. An hour if you count the bus journey home.

Surely they're limiting the usefulness of their results by targeting only those who have been in a relationship for such an unfeasibly long time? People who have been together for that long are pretty much married anyway - what does an extra piece of paper contribute to the situation? And what exactly is a "marital crisis" anyway? It can't mean an infidelity problem in this context, because they came out and said they didn't ask about that.

Furthermore, how does limiting one's findings to only monogamous people help to determine whether a specific gene affects degrees of monogamy or promiscuity? What they should have done is looked at people who had been in any length of relationship in the last five years and seen if there is a correlation between average length of relationship and the number of these hormone receptors the individual has.

I'm still not sure it would work though, because some people are deeply keen on monogamy and commitment but never find anyone they can commit to or who will commit to them. Finding viable relationships in the first place is entirely a matter of random chance, ruled by the pitiless vicissitudes of cruel fortune's wheel...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

7. Comment #241350 by Laurie Fraser on September 2, 2008 at 6:19 am

 avatarCarto, I've always held that monogamy is not a matter of commitment, but one of being too lazy to break up. (Please don't tell my wife I just said that.)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

8. Comment #241359 by bugaboo on September 2, 2008 at 6:35 am

Perhaps a better way of doing this would have been to look at a cohort of mothers in monogamous relationships and then determine if there is any correlation with the alleles present and non-paternity of the children. :)

Other Comments by bugaboo

9. Comment #241386 by Ishruul on September 2, 2008 at 7:07 am

 avatarAm I the only one who see where this is going?

You know they will produce somekind of pill to fix the polygamist's problem, don't you?

Voice speaking to you, take Paxil.
Cock too soft, take Viagra.
Husband cheating, take Monogamox.
Freddy's killing you in your dream, take Hypnocil (better take two in this case)

Other Comments by Ishruul

10. Comment #241397 by jeremynel on September 2, 2008 at 7:20 am

It might be appropriate here to remind people of Richard's excellent essay entitled "Genes aren't us", from A Devil's Chaplain.

Other Comments by jeremynel

11. Comment #241403 by debaser71 on September 2, 2008 at 7:26 am

I call bullshit but I am in favor of more science.

Other Comments by debaser71

12. Comment #241463 by Hasan on September 2, 2008 at 9:58 am

From the little I have read, i guess having a particulat gene is not necessarily a perfect predictor of behavior. It is gene expression that counts which is presumably depdenent on a lot of other factors including nurturing. However, I dont find it a problem if there is anything in our genes that encourages monogamy as opposed to polygamy, especially since many people, especially males, pull no qualms in touting their preference for multiple partners as arising due to their genetic makeup. They even go so far as to use the examples in the animal world, of which we are also a part, to support their case, which can be done for a myriad of other characteristics too including the nasty and brutish ones. So whether the science is right on this or not, I guess one should keep open to the possibility that monogamy may have some genetic scaffoldings. Whether one chooses monogamy or polygamy is a matter of personal preference, as long as it is a consensual relationship between all the parties involved. I personally find monogamy to be more satisfing and happen to know people who also agree although it is just a personal opinion having no bearing on science or other people's opinion.

Other Comments by Hasan

13. Comment #241467 by NewEnglandBob on September 2, 2008 at 10:16 am

 avatar6. Comment #241346 by Cartomancer:

...Finding viable relationships in the first place is entirely a matter of random chance, ruled by the pitiless vicissitudes of cruel fortune's wheel...


So, according to this, human relationships are like pinball machines? This is too wrong even to be humorous.

9. Comment #241386 by Ishruul:

You know they will produce some kind of pill to fix the polygamist's problem, don't you?


or maybe a pill to 'fix' monogamy???

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

14. Comment #241473 by bugaboo on September 2, 2008 at 10:46 am

Hasan
From the little I have read, i guess having a particulat gene is not necessarily a perfect predictor of behavior.


Of course. All thats suggested is that the probabilty of certain behaviour manifesting is increased with the presence of certain versions of a particular gene. Thats whats meant when you see "a gene for x" in the literature.

Other Comments by bugaboo

15. Comment #241477 by ggab7768 on September 2, 2008 at 11:17 am

 avatarOn advice from my lawyer, I cannot comment on this article.
At least until my wife leaves the room.

Other Comments by ggab7768

16. Comment #241499 by Bonzai on September 2, 2008 at 11:59 am

Sigh* Here we go again from the genetic determinists.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #241503 by dochmbi on September 2, 2008 at 12:02 pm

 avatar"A full commitment's what I'm thinking of, you wouldn't get this from any other guy"
Looks like Rick has no RS3 334 genes.

Other Comments by dochmbi

18. Comment #241523 by InYourFaceNewYorker on September 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

 avatarI don't buy the part about autism. Well, maybe lower functioning autism. I can't say. But I have Asperger's Syndrome and people with Asperger's Syndrome tend to be loyal to a fault. Then again I'm also a woman. I wonder how this study goes with women.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

19. Comment #241526 by hopeful on September 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm

The research that was done on the link between oxytocin and promiscuity in voles is very interesting. One of the speakers (a neuro scientist I believe) at Beyond Belief 2006 (can't remember who) talked about this.

Other Comments by hopeful

20. Comment #241538 by bugaboo on September 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

16. Comment #241499 by Bonzai

What genetic determinism?

Other Comments by bugaboo

21. Comment #241562 by amalthea on September 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

 avatarI always cringe when I see a sentence that begins;
"Scientists have discovered the gene for...."

The reporters rarely understand the science, the readers become polarised on the given issue relating to the gene mentioned (obesity, homsexuality, criminality....) but the whole thing means nothing.

Then again, when they discover the gullibility gene that 'predisposes' the possessor to believing anything they're told, we'll probably have the beginnings of a cure for religious nutjobs. And those who give them money.

A

Other Comments by amalthea

22. Comment #243658 by Gunnar on September 6, 2008 at 4:19 pm

 avatarThis headline is misleading and oversimplificating; a good example of what is wrong with journalism in general and science journalism in particular today. The RS3 334 gene seems to have a behavioural effect on men, and is such LINKED to monogamy. Saying that it is "the" monogamy gene is nonsense.

It is also wrong saying that having many copies of the RS3 334 gene automatically makes someone bad at relationships. Behavioural genetics is not a story about genetic determinism, but of genetic probalism - genetic differences does make a given behavioural trait more likely to happen in some individuals than others, but it is still not a safe bet.

Other Comments by Gunnar
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: