The longstanding controversy over nature vs. nurture is being brought into focus by the introduction of human cloning. In the original debate, one faction claimed that a personÆs natureùheredity and personalityùwas more important than the personÆs nurtureùenvironment and upbringingùin determining their physical and behavioral traits (ôNature versus Nurtureö). This genetic determinism hinges on ôthe hypothesis that all physical and behavioural phenotypes are determined solely by genesö (ôGenetic Determinismö). By contrast, the other factionùsocial determinismùinsisted that oneÆs nurturance made more difference than oneÆs nature. Both factions pointed to examples that supported their arguments, but neither side seemed willing to admit that nature and nurture are to some extent interdependent and inextricable from one another. Learning, for example, can be facilitated by a supportive environment where rich learning opportunities are available; it is still limited by oneÆs ability to learn, however, and learning ômust be accomplished by innate circuitryö (Pinker, 2). The tie-breaker for this ongoing argument is likely to be human cloning, which provides the perfect opportunity to see how identical genetic heritage affects two individuals.
The key question at the bottom of the controversy is ôDoes genetics predetermine how a person will behave, or is behavior more the result of environment and upbringing?ö According to David Berreby in the Slate article ôMultiplicity: Cloning, Nature, and Nurture,ö the answer is that environment is more powerful:
Dolly, the world's first cloned mammal and thus probably history's most famous sheep, is likely to leave a somewhat ironic legacy. This triumph of genetic engineering, achieved last week by Scottish embryologist Ian Wilmut, might well mark the defeat of the idea that genes determine who and what we are (1997).
...