In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents’ Genes Are in Competition »
This NYT article on a new theory of mental illness as a possible repercussion of prenatal battles between maternal and paternal genes is one of the more extraordinary and disturbing things I’ve read in a while, not least because it seems to exonerate my father for my bipolar disorder, and he’s already way too cocky (kidding, dad!).
It’s also an excellent example of how disinterested and apolitical science occasionally generates, however provisionally, theories which are striking controversial; what might gender theorists make of assertions like this:
Dr. Crespi and Dr. Badcock propose that an evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others’. This, according to the theory, increases a child’s risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression.
Even if dad is off the hook for my hypersensitive and erratic personality (and I’m not sure his various pranks and jokes didn’t play a role), at least I can now classify him as exemplary of the “autistic spectrum.” He does have a savant’s gift with abstract origami, and he certainly isn’t as fond of parties as my mother and I are.
Note this dramatic illustration of the application of natural selection to prenatal development processes:
It was Dr. Haig who argued in the 1990s that pregnancy was in part a biological struggle for resources between the mother and unborn child. On one side, natural selection should favor mothers who limit the nutritional costs of pregnancy and have more offspring; on the other, it should also favor fathers whose offspring maximize the nutrients they receive during gestation, setting up a direct conflict.
The article hedges its bets, noting that while the theory is generating much excitement it is also likely wrong in most particulars. I personally have no idea at all whether it’s worth a damn, but it’s certainly interesting and should make for excellent jokes when I’m visiting my parents.
Notes from others: