Can Culture Be Encoded in DNA? New Research Says "Yes"

The "Nature versus Nurture" debate just got more complicated.  (Well, even more complicated than the original "If you really think you can reduce all of biology to such a simplistic division you're missing pretty much every point involved"  complication.)  Birds have been observed reconstructing cultural information in complete isolation, meaning that culture can be genetically encoded.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory scientists isolated a Zebra Finch, preventing it from learning the songs of its parents (and probably pissing off a bunch of PETA activists). These finches are known to learn their song from elder male relatives, which is why the scientists were surprised to see the same songs emerge from a colony of these utterly isolated birds.

They didn't get it right immediately.  The first isolated bird, cut off from its culture, emitted a cacophonous screeching about as melodious as nails being dragged down a pieces of broken blackboard which were, in turn, being dragged down an even larger blackboard.  It even tried to teach its kids the same, but they obviously thought "that sucks" (in bird) and made a few improvements.  After four generations, the original finch songs reappeared, meaning that either

a)  Cultural information can be genetically encoded or
b)  Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has embarrassingly bad sound insulation.
We're going to assume a) for now.

The implications are enormous: the encoded information wasn't immediately available like some kind of genetic database, but as the baby birds learned and improved what they saw they were all along being guided by built-in information.  At every point, if you'll forgive the outrageous anthropomorphization, they "thought" they were working it out for themselves while dancing to the genetic tune.  That's the kind of thing that would make you think very seriously about free will.

Even better, imagine the interactions of such genetically-tuned tendencies with a world full of things survival never had to deal with.  The evolutionary importance of mating songs can't be overstated, so such information being backed up in every single cell is understandable.  But what about innate tendencies like wanting to be popular or successful, interacting with technologies which can send your image far further than our cave-dwelling originators could ever imagine?

That could lead to people doing the stupidest, most self-destructive things just for the chance of a few minutes of fame and, oh, hang on.  YouTube and Reality TV just made a lot more sense to us.  And that's scary.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Culture may be encoded in DNA

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory scientists isolated a Zebra Finch, preventing it from learning the songs of its parents (and probably pissing off a bunch of PETA activists). These finches are known to learn their song from elder male relatives, which is why the scientists were surprised to see the same songs emerge from a colony of these utterly isolated birds.

They didn't get it right immediately.  The first isolated bird, cut off from its culture, emitted a cacophonous screeching about as melodious as nails being dragged down a pieces of broken blackboard which were, in turn, being dragged down an even larger blackboard.  It even tried to teach its kids the same, but they obviously thought "that sucks" (in bird) and made a few improvements.  After four generations, the original finch songs reappeared, meaning that either

a)  Cultural information can be genetically encoded or
b)  Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory has embarrassingly bad sound insulation.
We're going to assume a) for now.

The implications are enormous: the encoded information wasn't immediately available like some kind of genetic database, but as the baby birds learned and improved what they saw they were all along being guided by built-in information.  At every point, if you'll forgive the outrageous anthropomorphization, they "thought" they were working it out for themselves while dancing to the genetic tune.  That's the kind of thing that would make you think very seriously about free will.

Even better, imagine the interactions of such genetically-tuned tendencies with a world full of things survival never had to deal with.  The evolutionary importance of mating songs can't be overstated, so such information being backed up in every single cell is understandable.  But what about innate tendencies like wanting to be popular or successful, interacting with technologies which can send your image far further than our cave-dwelling originators could ever imagine?

That could lead to people doing the stupidest, most self-destructive things just for the chance of a few minutes of fame and, oh, hang on.  YouTube and Reality TV just made a lot more sense to us.  And that's scary.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Culture may be encoded in DNA

Comments

[nn]

c) genetics encoded a brain region with a preference to certain sounds. Cultural evolution sets in with the incorrect sound till the preferred sound/song is reached.

[Bobaloo]

It seems to me that the only thing this study implies is that language among animals, that are of lower mental abilities, is genetically derived not an entire social system. It may well be that the social system is built from language, however it seems a large jump to go from DNA to culture.

[asdf]

i agree with nn

It could also be a unique built-in sound to identify the own kind.

Furthermore, behaviour like strong shyness and an imediate urge to escape is also not always observable when a newborn "escape" animal is sperated. But this behaviour re-emerges in the following generations.

[james]

Not sure if it's just poorly worded, but what you imply here is Lamarckian - that learned information is changing the genetic structure. Nothing from the study suggests that really. Rather based on other knowledge more likely says that bird song isn't truly cultural - while teaching can reduce the learning curve - birds have a preference towards particular song which is hard coded. The implication for free will only makes sense there, there would be no implication for free will if it was the other way around...

[Danal]

Memetic evolution anyone? A meme is ANY behavior that can be transmitted by imitation. So the isolated colony started with the sounds they can make biophysically. These sounds were passed by imitation. These sound memes then converged to the same optimization that the prior colony demonstrated...

No surprises here, and no DNA (other than that DNA limiting the initial set of sounds).

[Aurélien]

Or it could mean that Jean Auel was right when describing the genetic memory of Neanderthal in Children of the Earth!
* all excited *

[Ankur]

The connection of culture with DNA cannot be claimed without the perturbation of some sort to connect 'changes' in the DNA with altered song behavior in the isolated finches. It is all related to the DNA no doubt, but the domains of interaction at the level of genetic information are extremely remote to the domains of interaction at the social level. Too many patterns have played their part in such mechanism.

[Mete]

@nn and Bobaloo:

your (c) = (a).

Stop thinking so linearly! Cultural information doesn't need to be a recipe for a given behaviour or structure; it could easily be "encoded" in preferences as you say, or inner environmental forces due to conflict/harmony with other parts or functions of the bird.

@james:
So where does this meme optimisation come from? That's surely an environmental force, arguably encoded in both DNA and the outer laws of nature.

Genetics are a "simplistic division" only for those with simplistic thoughts.

[Mete]

edit above: first comment directed at nn & asdf, not Bobaloo

[ravi]

I sensed it. But no proofs at me to show.

[Joe]

Or it could mean that Jean Auel was right when describing the genetic memory of Neanderthal in Children of the Earth!.

[Dr. Dennis McClain PhD]

The finches displayed a possibly genetic persistence of language, not culture. Language as in Chomsky's "generative" sense, not the content laden sense used by sociologists to claim language determines culture. Humans are a far better example than finches. Children learn language faster than it can be taught. More to the point they learn to parse and to create grammar before they have the ability to understand what someone would mean if they tried to teach the child to do it. We are predisposed to develop the ability to grasp a grammar and have specific brain structures to do so. Broca's Area controls this. To support the assertion that it's not culture that's encoded, consider a human baby lost from its original parents and adopted by some from a different culture. It will develop language abilities at exactly the same rate as a native of that culture or that it would have 'back home'. There is no delay in language from even a partially genetically determined cultural basis for its language.

[Terrence Seamon]

What might Prof Rupert Sheldrake say about this study?

[Zarkov]

all that lives is part and parcel of ONE super-organism called LIFE.

Why else would such genetic enforcement of a life form's everyday events exist ?

You think you have free-will ? LOL
only within a strict and limited set of genetic dice throwing can you choose from.... you are jailed by your conscience (if not you die)

Until earthlings realise exactly what they are there can be no progress forward

The current belief of the individual will only lead to extinction.

[Abhishek]

Agree with nn, however in addition to preference for certain sounds by the brain, I am inclined to think their vocal system had a comfort zone of certain sounds to make that they gravitated to, naturally.

Thats not culture, its just physical preference.

I'd like to see a study where a species adopts a different "culture" among two alternatives that are equally preferable and comfortable. That would be a cultural difference for me.

I think my argument is very similar to the one made by Dr. Dennis McClain.

[PetePt]

I would define culture or culture information has the full set of habits of a society. So in this case, the song (and not only the musical preference) would be part of it. Which implies that c) != a).

We also have these preferences, there are certain types of music which are more popular. We also have some common preferences of beauty. But human beings, have a machinery which allows them to overwrite or refine many of these preferences, so the actual degrees of "freedom" are bigger and thus less influenced by the genetic make-up. Genetic may influence culture, but culture is not DNA.

[Paul]

Sad that you have write like a teenager with all the immature colloquial expressions signalling your craving for approval, coolness and acceptance. Science isn't like that at all, nor is good journalism, nor even gonzo journalism.