Book Review – Epigenetics: the ultimate mystery of inheritance (Are we just survival machines for our genes?)

I read the book Epigenetics: the ultimate mystery of inheritance by Richard C. Francis and wrote a book review.

 

The book ‘Epigenetics’ was a book that dealt with concepts that may be at odds with my previous views of ‘heredity’. In this book, Richard C. Francis put forward a theory called epigenetics, which states that some of the genes an individual has can be passed on to their offspring unexpressed due to conditions in the environment they live in, such as famine or differences in the maternal love they receive from their parents. The author also presents epigenetics as a new field of study with great potential to be used to treat diseases. I found epigenetics refreshing because it gave me a new role for genetics.
Then I learned about Richard Dawkins’ “survival machine” theory. In his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins argues that humans are nothing more than a “survival machine” for passing on genes to the next generation. In a primordial soup of self-replicators, genes are the tools of survival for all bacteria, viruses, plants, and animals, not just humans. The selfishness of genes can be illustrated by a number of examples, including “game theory,” represented by the hawk and dove factions, and the concept of ESS. Game theory is the theory of conflict and cooperation when an individual’s decisions affect the interests of others. The concepts of game theory can be used to organize, analyze, and understand strategic situations. ESS also refers to an evolutionarily stable strategy, which means that when most members of a population choose this strategy, no other alternative strategy can outperform it, and it is the most efficient strategy for maximizing their success. In other words, genes are passed on to the next generation according to a predetermined plan using game theory and ESS, not as a result of the survival and reproduction of the individual. As I reflected on this somewhat shocking assertion, I realized that epigenetics would be a counterexample to the selfish gene hypothesis, which is epitomized by the term survival machine.
It occurred to me that Richard Dawkins’ assertion could tarnish the meaning of human existence, so I wanted to use the power of epigenetics to counter Richard Dawkins’ argument. The first reason that epigenetics and the selfishness of genes are placed in opposition is the limitation of gene expression. According to epigenetics, the environment can cause changes in the degree to which genes are methylated, which can limit the expression of certain genes. Methylation is one of the most common and well-studied mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance to date, where a methyl group attaches to a gene and represses its expression. In other words, when a gene is methylated, it remains unexpressed throughout the lineage of cells containing that gene. However, gene selfishness cannot explain this. If genes were selfish, then if an external factor could prevent the expression of a particular gene, the gene would have the ability to anticipate this and learn to become a survival machine that is adapted to survive in its environment. These external factors could be conditions such as contact with other survival machines, climate change, or the environment. If a gene chooses a survival strategy with a higher probability of success based on the future conditions it has predicted through countless simulations and trial and error, there is nothing stopping this selfish gene from restricting its expression, a phenomenon known as expression restriction, which interferes with its sole and essential purpose. The mere existence of the possibility that genes can be modified, regardless of whether the genetic factors whose expression is restricted have a positive or negative effect on the survival probability of the survival machine in the future, is inconsistent with Richard Dawkins’ idea of a “survival machine.” Epigenetics is thus one counterexample to the theory that genes use the survival machine that is the individual to pass on their traits to their offspring.
In particular, cases like the Dutch famine cohort can be seen as one counterexample of genetic selfishness. At the end of World War II, the destruction of transportation by the Germans limited the daily caloric intake of citizens in major Dutch cities. This affected not only the health of those who survived the famine, but also the health of children who were in their mothers’ wombs at the time: their obesity rates were twice as high as those of the post-war generation who did not experience the famine, and they also had higher rates of diseases such as high blood pressure and heart artery disease. This study has been cited as one of the strongest examples of epigenetics, as it is an example of the influence of the environment on genes. If genes have chosen humans as their survival machine, then they should be designed to ensure that no changes are made to make that survival machine less likely to survive. However, there are examples like the one above that prove that the idea that the reason for an organism’s existence is to protect its genes is not correct.
Since the publication of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins’ opinions have been heavily criticized. As life science advances, new theories are proposed and existing theories are revised. From an anthropological perspective, every human being has his or her own value, and lives to create his or her own future. However, if all these efforts are only for the survival of genes and the preservation of the species, then the value of being a human being is greatly diminished. Epigenetics can explain how genes can be acquired and changed by external factors, especially in cases where they can be influenced in a way that reduces the survival probability of a survival machine. Therefore, I believe that epigenetics has new implications in the sense of preventing humans from becoming a survival machine of genes.