In her book titled Limitless Mind, Professor Jo Boaler discusses six keys of learning to create opportunities for students, adults, and workers to excel in areas they want to. This article will summarize one of the points in the first key: The Problems of Giftedness. She has conducted sixty-two interviews in six different countries with people from different walks of life. Dr. Boaler developed her “The Limitless Approach” to learning and education. The core principle of this approach is that anybody can learn any subject as long as they think positively about their talents and abilities, and put in a lot of effort and practice.

In her interviews, Dr. Boaler met people that had a wide array of myths and psychological pitfalls that prevented them from accomplishing their goals. The interviewees came from all walks of life and indicated that they gave up studying subjects that they loved including math, science, and English. They believed that they lacked the right mind for these fields, or that they were incapable of learning them, because they struggled in learning them. They also gave up on all math related subjects, such as engineering, science, and technology.

To address these problems, Dr. Boaler had collaborated with brain scientists to learn more about the brain and how we learn in order to help teachers, students, and parents in their subject learning. There is a common misconception among subject fields, especially math, where many children grow up believing that they either are a math person or are not. This is partially due to math anxiety that is widespread in the US and the world. This has become a major hinderance in millions’ mathematics learning. For example, according to one of Dr. Boaler’s studies 48% of young adults working in a work-apprentice program and 50% of students taking introductory math courses (cited in Boaler 2019) have math anxiety. Boaler claims that this might be affecting half of the population.

The idea that people are born with fixed learning abilities is a false misconception and is similar to the misconception that some of society’s highest achievers are successful simply because of their genetics. The idea that our brains are “fixed”, and that we are naturally predisposed to be good or bad at different subjects or activities, is a myth. Research in the last decade has revealed that our brains are incredibly adaptable. Our brains change and reorganize each time we learn something new. These discoveries are all thanks to the research on brain plasticity—neuroplasticity.

Neuroplasticity

Neuroplasticitiy was first discovered in the early 20^th century by Anders Ericsson, a Swedish-born psychologist, and is one of the pioneers who became aware of the brain’s amazing ability to grow and change.

He designed a study to investigate the limits of people’s ability to memorize a random string of digits. He showed that people could improve their ability to memorize with a study that he published in 1929. He chose an average person—Steve—who happened to be an athlete. He started working with the researchers to memorize digits. His performance was average and he memorized seven numbers in the first day. Steve spent four more days to memorize only nine numbers. Although Ericsson and his research team thought he reached his limit, something remarkable happened: Steve continued to improve and then memorized ten numbers. He did not stop and regularly improved until he had successfully memorized eighty-two random digits. He was just an average college student that had unlocked his learning potential to accomplish a very unique challenge.

Later, Ericsson tried the same study with another average college student, Renee. She started better and learned twenty digits without any trainings. Then, she received fifty hours of training but did not improve at all. She eventually quit the study. This intrigued Ericsson and inspired him to find out what caused Steve to succeed and Renee to fail. Ericsson realized that Steve’s love for running had made him more competitive and motivated to succeed. Steve also developed a new strategy each time he struggled memorizing new digits such as grouping numbers into four four-digit strings.

One of the main takeaways from Steve’s example is that it is smart to develop a new strategy or approach when you encounter a roadblock. Dr. Boaler does not say this is easy and explains it by reminding us why so many people fail to make changes in the time of struggles or running into barriers.

Ericsson repeated his experiment one more time to support his claims from the previous studies. He chose another runner named Dario. Dario was more successful than Steve in memorizing numbers. He remembered more than one hundred numbers. This was not because of Dario’s genetics, but instead because he put in lots of effort and hard work. The idea of genetic ability is both incorrect and damaging as we see today in our education systems where fixed-ability thinking controls and designs our children’s education.

Growth and fixed mindsets

Carol Dweck is a professor at Stanford and her research revealed that how we think about our talents has a huge impact on our potential (Dweck 2006). To Dweck, there are two groups of mindsets. The first one is called “growth mindset.” People with this mindset believe that they can learn anything as long as they put in enough effort. The second group has a fixed mindset. People with this mindset believe that their intelligence is more or less fixed and they cannot learn everything. For example, they might believe that they are not a math person so they cannot learn math.

In one of the studies conducted at Columbia University, Dr. Dweck and her colleagues found that stereotyping is still alive and affecting student’s lives. Young female students were given the message that they did not belong in math discipline. Later, they found that this message stuck only with those with a fixed mindset. These people heard the message that math was not for women and they dropped out. However, students with a growth mindset, who believed that anyone can learn anything, remained firm and completed their programs.

We learn a lot of crucial information about the importance of self-beliefs and the role of teachers and parents in influencing students’ lives. But we still receive widespread message containing fixed mindsets and giftedness.

Dr. Boaler underlines the damage of incorrect usage of praises such as “you are smart” or “you are a genius,” coming from parents or others who regularly praise their children by telling them how smart they are in order to build up their self-confidence. Children that only rely on their genius and are not truly taught the value of hard work may face severe obstacles in life later on if they start struggling. Instead, Boaler recommends us to use some alternatives such as, “You can divide fractions? That is great that you have learned how to do that, you must have worked really hard.”

The downside of gifted & talented program in schools

Fixed-brain mindsets have consequences on the vast majority of the population but can also negatively harm society’s most intelligent children, most of which are often labeled as “gifted”. Dr. Boaler explored its negative effects with a film she produced with her youcubed.org team including Sophie Constantinou from Citizen Film. She recruited twelve Stanford students who had the experiences of being labeled as “gifted.” The students were asked to reflect upon their experiences of the labeling. They all gave the same message—they received some advantages but at some costs. They felt the pressure of the label all the time such that they could not ask any questions when they struggled understanding a topic. The students indicated that they had to hide any challenges in order people not to think they do not have a gift. One of the students summarized the burden that came with their gifted labeling as, “If I grew up in a world where no one was labeled as gifted then I would have asked a lot more questions.”

The purpose of classifying some students as gifted is to ensure that high-ability kids are challenged with rigorous and accelerated programs in regular classroom settings. But the problem with this idea is that believing some students are worthy of this program because they have a fixed gift-like present that they had been given as Dr. Boaler points out. Although these students might need special challenging programs, ignoring the rest is not a solution as Dr. Boaler puts it, “the message is that some people are born with something that others cannot achieve” (p. 40).

Another downside of this labeling for the students in Dr. Boaler’s study is that they are not expected to struggle, and when they do it becomes devastating for them. Dr. Boaler shares one of her student’s experiences when she was teaching about research on brain growth and the damage of fixed labels. Her student, Susannah, started talking about her experience of being a gifted student. She had been told frequently that she had a math brain and was very smart. This led her to enroll a math program at UCLA, but things did not go as they were expected to. Susannah took a challenging course in the second year of the program and struggled. She felt that she was not a math person or did not have a math brain after all and ended up dropping out of the program. Unfortunately, Susannah did not know that struggle is a very basic and necessary process for brain growth which could grow the neural pathways she needed to learn more mathematics. If she had known that, Susannah might not had quit and could have graduated with a math major. This is a very real “fixed-ability” scenario that happens every day.

Dr. Boaler does not claim that everyone is born the same. Although everyone has a unique brain at birth, and there are differences between people’s brains, people can change their brain in many ways in terms of achieving things. The proportion of people born with brains so exceptional is literally tiny—less than 0.001 percent of the population. To the contrary of the common belief, Dr. Boaler says, “there is not such thing as a math brain, writing brain, artistic brain, or musical brain” (p 42). That is, we all have to develop the brain pathways to be successful because we all have the potential to learn and achieve at the highest levels as long as we believe that we can succeed and that we are willing to work hard.

Anders Ericsson has studied IQ and hard work for decades and found that people like Einstein, Mozart, Newton and many others are made to be, not born, genius, and their achievements come from extraordinary hard work. This reflects a reality of human condition that “human has only that for which he or she labors” (Qur’an 53:39). Therefore, we need to communicate to all students that they are in a world where growing or evolving is part of everyday life and nothing is fixed about them including gift and/or disability.

In conclusion, the first step towards having a limitless and unlocked life is to know that our brains are given the capacity to constantly reorganize, grow, and change. We need to remember that we are waking up with a changed brain every morning. Our brains are created to make new connections all the time and strengthen older pathways. Once we understand the adaptability of our brains we will start to open our minds and live differently. Then we will not worry about any categorizations we go through at school or work because we know that we have a great growth mindset with which we are enabled to achieve anything we put our minds toward.

References

• Boaler, J. (2019). Limitless mind: Learn, lead, and live without barriers. Harper Collings Publishers.
• Dweck, D. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Penguin Random House LLC, New York.

The 300 to 500 sperms which strive to enter into egg meet with the cell layer (corona radiata) which is being serially positioned around the zona radiata. A liquid is secreted from this zona radiata which punctures the euchromosome¹ placed on tip of sperm. Each of various enzymes set free following the puncture of euchromosome is assigned to overcome a separate obstacle before the sperm. Duty of the hyaluronidase enzyme, for instance, is to puncture the outer cell layer (corona radiata) which is assigned to protect the egg. Resultantly, the sperm passes through this cell layer and sticks onto the zona radiata (zona pellucida). The quasi-trypsin dissolutive (proteolytic) enzymes are employed for overcoming the zona radiata. Only one or rarely two of the few sperms which stuck onto this zona radiata manages to penetrate into the egg. It has been estimated that plurality of sperms around the egg, contrary to their rarity, facilitates their entry into the egg.

The sperm penetrates into the egg with its tail but tail membrane stays outside. The protective membrane of the ovum (zona pellucida) starts diffusing calcium within the very first minutes of sperm’s penetration and resultantly, granules are released, receptors are exterminated and the egg becomes structurally transformed. Consequently, a thick layer is formed over the protective membrane (zona pellucida) for prevention of penetration of another sperm.

Following the sperm’s penetration into egg (cytoplasm), the “fusion” process starts. Fusion is the unification process of sperm and egg cells (pronuclei) each of which are separately containing 23 chromosomes. Thus, construction of a genetical library which is containing 46 chromosomes and being prerequisite of formation (creation) of a new human baby is completed. Afterwards, the first mitotic division gives way to a double-celled zygote and the embryo starts forming while settling into the secure base of the uterus. As the outcoming child is going to be a mixture, i.e., a genuine and particular blend of the genetic codes available in the inherited gene pool, he/she will have resemblance to his/her parents and thus to their reciprocal kins (paternal and maternal grandparents, uncles and aunts and etc.).

Prophet Muhammad and Genetics

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, pointed in his various sayings and explanations to the fact that the baby in mother’s womb carries a number of genetic features (characteristics) which are being inherited from the parents:

When a Jewish person asked Him, “what is man created from?” he replied: “Man is created from a blend (mixture) of zygotes of both man and woman.” Then the Jew said: “Moses as well said the same before you.”²

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also shed light onto the fact of resemblance or inheritance of character by way of genes:

“Is bathing a must for women?” asked Umm Sulaim to the Prophet.

“Yes, it is a must when her seminal fluid outflows and seen,” he replied.

“Do women have wet dreams?” she asked.

“May God grant you goodness! How otherwise a child resembles to his/her mother?” He replied.³

….

As seen and understood by His above hadith (saying), He who was the great teacher of mankind was the first person who said that women do also see wet dreams.

He has also been the first person who articulated the concept of “dominancy,” which was not understood before 1850s.

He said:

“The child resembles to either side of the parents whose seminal fluid comes to the fore and surpasses the other’s in mother’s womb during the intercourse. If there is an equilibrium, then, resemblance is also in equilibrium for both sides.”⁴

“If, during the intercourse, seminal fluid of the man precedes and surpasses that of the woman, then, the child resembles to the father, and if semimal fluid of the woman precedes and surpasses that of the man, then, the child resembles to the mother.”⁵

“If seminal fluid of the woman surpasses that of the man, then, the child resembles to his/her maternal uncles, and, if seminal fluid of the man surpasses that of the woman, then, the child resembles to his/her paternal uncles.”⁶

In another one of His sayings, He points out to the fact that the recessive characters (features) in the grand ancestorial gene pool would dominantly and collectively emerge after following a couple of generations:

“A man having a blackish baby boy approached and said to the Prophet:

“I am suspecting my wife.”

“Do you have camels?” the Prophet asked him.

“Yes,” he replied.

“Then, how are their colors?” The Prophet asked.

“Red.”

“Is there any one with grey color among them?”

“Yes, there is.”

“Then, where did this grey color come from?” asked the Prophet.

“Presumably from a line of its ancestors,” the man responded.

“Here you are! This child of you is also presumed to be coming from a line of your ancestors,” the Prophet told the man.⁷

Dr. Arslan Mayda is a medical doctor at Sifa Hospital in Izmir, Turkey.

Notes and References

1. An euchromosome zone enriched by lysosome enzymes is noticed on stem of a mature sperm cell. The lysosome enzymes penetrate into the egg cell and impregnate it.

2. Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Aynee, Ramouz Al Ahadeeth, Kanz Al Ummal, Jami’ul Saghir

3. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawoud, Aynee, Ahmad Bin Hanbal.

4. Muslim, Ibn Majah.

5. Bukhari, Ahmad Bin Hanbal.

6. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawoud.

7. Abu Dawoud, Muslim, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Ibn Majah.

The complex nature of genetics and its wide implications for all living organisms from viruses to humans provide raw materials for creative imaginations. In the present scenario, many consider it vital to comprehend all the genetic information necessary to support life on this universe. One of the common constraints on the understanding of genetics is the assumption that genes are the sole causes of all activities of living organisms and can explain all aspects of biological life on earth. For example, some believe the behavior and development of an organism can be predicted, if its genetic information is known-this belief is called “genetic determinism.” However, it is true that neither all aspects of inheritance are in all cases well explained, nor that the mere effect of genes on complex traits is well interpreted. The boundaries of the effects of genes on physical existence, development, survival, and the behavior of organisms are not always simple and straightforward. The capacity of humans for genetic manipulation-at least as it is commonly assumed or claimed-is limited in several ways and some of the basic causes of such barriers have yet to be explained. The focus of this article is to point out the limitations on attempts to appoint genes as the driving force of life.

The Central Dogma

Genes are small fragments of genomic DNA, encoding mRNAs which are later translated into proteins that participate in different biological metabolisms, hence conferring different traits on an organism. The biological functions and transmission patterns of genes over generations were being investigated well before the discovery of DNA as hereditary material and date back to the recognition of Mendel’s laws in the early twentieth century. Genetic information is coded in the form of a short string of DNA called a gene, which is employed in the expression of a trait(s) or mechanism(s) through synthesizing a chain of amino acids called proteins. These proteins either can be stored in different body parts or serve as enzymes in various biochemical reactions such as fighting infections. This flow of genetic information from gene–mRNA–protein synthesis is called the “Central Dogma” in biological sciences. In this biological doctrine, a very solid and predictable mechanism is assumed. Prior to the release of the human genome sequence information, the number of genes in the human genome was estimated as ~100,000. However, this estimate was far more than the actual number of genes (~35,000), which led us to question the validity of the “Central Dogma” as an explanation of the complexity of human beings. Out of these ~35,000, only 300 genes are unique to the human species.¹ This is another blow to the authenticity of the original central dogma theory. Are those 300 genes the foundation of all humankind and do they distinguish us from the rest of the mammals? Reducing humankind to its biology and explaining it based on genes has been questioned extensively and could be the subject of another discussion. But even considering such a view valid for purely practical purposes, the big gap between humans and other mammals cannot be due to the existence of this small number of genes.

Recent scientific discoveries have revealed a key point about the structure of genes-that each gene has a set of sub-segments called exons. Each exon can make a new protein. Hence, the gene can be the template for more than one protein. In the presence of other genes and proteins, the code of a particular gene can yield different kinds of proteins under variable circumstances. The flow of information can be both ways, and hence there are no predetermined factors controlling the flow of information. That means, we might know the information on what genes are present, and we can even decode it to know what is in there, but we cannot be sure what result (proteins in this context) will come out at the end when it is in the context of real life.

From physical characteristics to their genetics

Working back from a particular trait and trying to infer the genes that are involved in expression of such trait is a different approach to reveal the role of genes but surely it is not an easy task. Traits that are expressed by a single gene or a small number of genes are known as Mendelian/qualitative traits and their pattern of inheritance is simple and detection of the gene(s) is straightforward. Some of the disease resistance in plants and blood groups in humans are classic examples of Mendelian traits. The main distinction between such traits and the quantitative ones is their discreteness. For example a human being can have only one of four blood types: A, B, AB or O, and each of these groups is solid and no other blood types exist in between. In this type of trait, the role of a particular gene(s) is usually predictable and the pattern of transmissions over generations both for the future and the past can be inferred.

However, only a small percentage of traits is qualitative and expresses Mendelian inheritance. Most traits, such as intelligence, skin color in humans, height of an organism, seed yield of a grain, and diseases that have genetic causes like cancer, are quantitative traits and complex in nature. The ultimate phenotype (what we can see or measure from a trait) emerges from the joint effect of many genes as well as interaction with the particular environment in which the individual develops. The number of genes that is involved in the expression of a particular trait can be hundreds or even more. An objective assessment of each trait and quantification (called the phenotype) is impractical in most cases and could lead to another discussion. But assuming that we can measure a trait feasibly, the inference of genetic bases could still be controversial. Considerable efforts have been devoted to unveiling the effect of genes in the expression of complex traits whose inheritance pattern deviates from Mendelian inheritance. A special genetic technique, known as genetic mapping, is used to identify multiple genes that underlie a complex trait and this has practical applications for crop improvement. In humans, efforts are directed toward the detection of genes which predispose to complex inherited diseases. In this type of situation, the effects of genes on a trait are additive and can only explain a certain amount of change in the trait that we are interested in. Detection of all genes involved in the expression of a quantitative trait is practically impossible. The environment is an important factor with a pivotal role in the expression of such traits. The term “environment” is not restricted to what is present within the cell or surrounding the cell or individual. It rather refers to larger scale effects in the process of biological life that cannot be explained by genetics and the term can be used interchangeably with non-genetic effects.

One of the most striking examples of the role of genes on the expression of the phenotype is the presence of differences between identical twins. Despite the fact that they have completely identical sets of genes, studies have shown that twins can indicate different degrees of psychiatric diseases such as bipolar disorder.² Similar phenomena may be observed in crop species. In crop breeding programs different varieties are usually tested in different environments. In most cases varieties rank differently based on their performance in different environments.³

Genetic background

Genes that do not code any information for the trait of interest can also be a part of the process of expression of the trait. In other words, certain genes can be employed to stop or alter the function of a particular gene. Modifying the utility of a gene can also be done by a series of complicated reactions within each organism through mechanisms known as epigenetics. This type of alteration in gene function is also observed empirically during the process of transferring genes between different organisms through genetic engineering.⁴ Most transferred genes are silenced (turned off) by different mechanisms in a new organism regardless of patterns of inheritance. This is particularly interesting because it clearly indicates that the existence of a particular gene in the body does not necessarily guarantee that it will be functional. Even if it is functional in one individual, it might be silent in others. Even if a gene is functioning in all the individuals carrying it, the degree of expression may be variable.

The end of genetic determinism

With the discovery of the code of genes, we now know more about the biology of living organisms than ever before, as new genetic tools have enabled us to better understand what kind of information is stored in each gene.

Most of the traits of living organisms are affected by the existence of many genes as well as non-genetic effects (denoted as environment in genetics). Although Mendelian traits can be predictable to some degree, yet we can not completely infer all the genes that are employed in the expression of a complex trait, nor the amount of contribution from each single gene and portion attributed by non-genetic factors. So we cannot determine the presence of genes by simply observing the phenotype or expression of a trait.

Considering each individual gene separately will allow us to understand its possible functions more clearly and accurately. Nevertheless, the knowledge of possible functions and structure is not enough to predetermine if the information coded in the gene will be used by the organism, and, even if it will be used, how much of that information will be processed is uncertain. Whether the information that is processed will be observed or not is another ambiguity.

Assuming that we can and will know all components of life by having the knowledge of genes is known as genetic determinism. In some cases, genes are described as independent entities that drive living organisms and manage life because of the assumption that their presence will be enough to predetermine all the biology and the behavior of an organism.

Simply, in order for a gene to be an independent agent by itself, it needs to have the knowledge of all other genes as well as all the non-genetic factors for expression of a simple trait. In reality, genes contain a very limited amount of knowledge which makes them no more than tools or parts of living organisms that are employed in the existence of life on earth. Biological life itself is incredibly complex and its sustainability requires a more comprehensive knowledge that is beyond our current understanding based on the genetic code.

Seyyidhan Mirza is a PhD candidate of Plant Breeding, Genetics, and Genomics. He can be contacted at seyyidmirza@gmail.com.

Notes

1. Siepel A., M. Diekhans, B. Brejová, L. Langton, M. Stevens, C. L.G. Comstock, C. Davis, B. Ewing, S. Oommen, C. Lau, H. Yu, J. Li, B. A. Roe, P. Green, D. S. Gerhard, G. Temple, D. Haussler, and M. R. Brent. 2007. “Targeted discovery of novel human exons by comparative genomics.” Genome Research. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; ISSN 1088-9051/07; www.genome.org
2. Cardno, A. G., Rijsdijk, F. V., Sham, P. C., Murray, R. M. & McGuffin, P. “A Twin Study of Genetic Relationships Between Psychotic Symptoms.” 2002. Am. J. Psychiatry 159, 539-545
3. Epinat-Le Signor, C., S. Dousse, J. Lorgeou, J.B. Denis, R. Bonhomme, P. Carolo, and A. Charcosset. 2001. “Interpretation of genotype x environment interactions for early maize hybrids over 12 years.” Crop Sci. 41:663–669
4. Kooter, J.M., Matzke, M.A., and Meyer, P. 1999. “Listening to the silent genes: Transgene silencing, gene regulation and pathogen control.” Trends Plant Sci. 4: 340–347

Genetics is commonly taken to refer to a part of biology that concerns itself with the study of the transmission of hereditary characters. This fascinating science would have remained quite benign if this was all that it was. However, recombinant DNA technology with all the power it offers for biological control has changed all that. By making it possible to manipulate the reproductive potential of an organism, modern genetics has the power to alter the course of development of living organisms. Life can be changed, for good or ill; it can be enhanced or retarded or mutilated. Moreover, whatever molecular genetics can do to the biological world can in principle, be done to human beings. Molecular genetics poses a grave threat to our notions of human life, its intent and its meanings.

In his book Responsible Science (1986), Robert Nelson wrote: 

The challenge of molecular biology to traditional humanistic and religious concepts of human life needs to be taken very seriously. Not only the nature of life, but its purpose and worth are called into question by the rapidly growing knowledge of DNA and cellular development. If the human organism can ostensibly be reduced to an assortment of proteins and amino acids, hardly distinguishable at molecular levels from those of other organisms, where is the distinctiveness of human life to he found? And if found, how explained?

Biology, especially in the form of using genetics and evolution to explain social phenomena, has become a reductionist exercise. Reductionism means trying to explain the properties of complex wholes-molecules, say or societies-in terms of the units of which those wholes are composed. Scientists who are reductionists would argue, for example that the properties of a protein molecule could be uniquely determined and predicted in terms of the properties of the electrons, protons, etc., of which it atoms are composed. In a similar way, they could (and some do) argue that the properties of a human society are no more than the sum of the behaviours and tendencies of the individual humans of which that society is composed.

Genetics and evolution, as indicated above, have been used to explain social phenomena. This is the area of science called sociobiology. It is a discipline that passes moral judgement on many social issues because it presents biology as the human fate, an inescapable reality of nature. Since it is natural, the implication is that it is immutable.

Sociobiologists equate the social with the biological and maintain that differences of class, race, colour, gender and even economic status originate in individual biology. This type of thinking could lead to dangerous conclusions of a sort most of us would regard as immoral and unethical. It can lead, for instance, to the belief that some races are born ‘inferior’ to others; that women are inferior’ to men; IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is genetically determined; that social inequalities (wealth and poverty) are biological in origin. The big problem with this is that political leaders could use such arguments to assert that the current social order must prevail because it is the law of nature.

Sociobiology reached its peak when some biologists claimed to have discovered absolute evidence for genetic determinants of human behaviour. In his popular book The Selfish Gene (1976), Richard Dawkins wrote:

We, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness… Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense … If you wish … to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously towards a common good; you can expect little help from biological nature.

The selfish gene thus operates to enhance its own selfish interests. The theory is based on the belief that genetic differences lead to behavioural differences, and that organisms are hosts to genes rather than the other way round. This provides the basis, as sociobiologists themselves claim, for the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, including sexual and parental behaviour, in all, kinds of organisms, including humans.

More and more human attributes are being subjected to a biological explanation. The Islamic view of human nature, however, does not consider biology as an inevitability. Human morality is the most important determinant, encompassing the spiritual dimension beautifully: The most honoured among you in the sight of God is the most righteous among you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted [with all things]. (Hujurat, 49.13)