Following centuries of debate about "nature and nurture" the discovery of DNA established the idea that nature (genes) determines who we are, relegating nurture (environment) to icing on the cake. Since the 1950s, the new science of epigenetics has demonstrated how cellular environments and certain experiences and behaviors influence gene expression at the molecular level, with significant implications for health and wellbeing. To the amazement of scientists, mapping the human genome indirectly supported these insights. Anthropologists Margaret Lock and Gisli Palsson outline vituperative arguments from Classical times about the relationship between nature and nurture, furthered today by epigenetic findings and the demonstration of a "reactive genome." The nature/nurture debate, they show, can never be put to rest, because these concepts are in constant flux in response to the new insights science continually offers.

Why the “nature versus nurture” debate persists despite widespread recognition that human traits arise from the interaction of nature and nurture. If everyone now agrees that human traits arise not from nature or nurture but from the interaction of nature and nurture, why does the “nature versus nurture” debate persist? In Beyond Versus, James Tabery argues that the persistence stems from a century-long struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture—a struggle to define what the interaction of nature and nurture is, how it should be investigated, and what counts as evidence for it. Tabery examines past episodes in the nature versus nurture debates, offers a contemporary philosophical perspective on them, and considers the future of research on the interaction of nature and nurture. From the eugenics controversy of the 1930s and the race and IQ controversy of the 1970s to the twenty-first-century debate over the causes of depression, Tabery argues, the polarization in these discussions can be attributed to what he calls an “explanatory divide”—a disagreement over how explanation works in science, which in turn has created two very different concepts of interaction. Drawing on recent developments in the philosophy of science, Tabery offers a way to bridge this explanatory divide and these different concepts integratively. Looking to the future, Tabery evaluates the ethical issues that surround genetic testing for genes implicated in interactions of nature and nurture, pointing to what the future does (and does not) hold for a science that continues to make headlines and raise controversy.

How is it possible that in more than one hundred years, the nature-nurture debate has not come to a satisfactory resolution? The problem, Dale Goldhaber argues, lies not with the proposed answers, but with the question itself. In The Nature-Nurture Debate, Goldhaber reviews the four major perspectives on the issue - behavior genetics, environment, evolutionary psychology and developmental systems theory - and shows that the classic, reductionist strategies (behavior genetics and environmental approaches) are incapable of resolving the issue because they each offer a false perspective on the process of human development. It is only through a synthesis of the two holistic perspectives of evolutionary psychology and developmental systems theory that we will be able to understand the nature of human behavior.

The authors criticise the new, genetic explanations for human behaviour. They describe the theory of biology, and the reality in which a gendered world and the women's biology and the consequences are described. In the chapter 'Perpetuity' they discuss the gay and queer gene.

By homing in, we activate our inner compass for belonging. A Miraculous Adoption Story About Reunion and Divine Timing. Dr. Susan Mossman Riva was adopted in Omaha, Nebraska in 1963. In 1995, she sought the help of the Nebraska Children's Home to find her birth mother, leading to the discovery of her birth family in 1996. Miraculously, her search and reunion coincided with her biological sister's search. The awe and joy of homecoming brought her to the realization that synchronicity acts as a guidepost, repairing relational brokenness. The divine timing of their reunion happened months before their biological, maternal grandmother died. Susan connects the phases of her life in an intricate story mandala. As an adopted child, she innately understands all that can be lost through her experience of separation. This awareness became a driving force as she steadfastly worked for reconciliation in all her relations. With loving intent, she embarked upon a journey seeking to reunite and reconcile with all those she belonged to. By connecting and engaging in an intentional forgiveness process. Susan was ultimately able to forge a pathway homing in to wholeness. Readers will discover the power of the homing in mechanism that can be activated and used as an inner compass for all pathfinders. Susan's social science background provides an explanatory framework, sharing knowledgeability about generative and transformative processes.

A short and accessible introduction to philosophy of science for students and researchers across the life sciences.

Neuroscience, with its astounding new technologies, is uncovering the workings of the brain and with this perhaps the mind. The 'neuro' prefix spills out into every area of life, from neuroaesthetics to neuroeconomics, neurogastronomy and neuroeducation. With its promise to cure physical and social ills, government sees neuroscience as a tool to increase the 'mental capital' of the children of the deprived and workless. It sets aside intensifying poverty and inequality, instead claiming that basing children's rearing and education on brain science will transform both the child's and the nation's health and wealth. Leading critic of such neuropretensions, neuroscientist Steven Rose and sociologist of science Hilary Rose take a sceptical look at these claims and the science underlying them, sifting out the sensible from the snake oil. Examining the ways in which science is shaped by and shapes the political economy of neoliberalism, they argue that neuroscience on its own is not able to bear the weight of these hopes.