Reaction to The Orchid Theory

David Dobbs in the article Orchid children, published in Atlantic Monthly, December of 2009, makes the case that the vulnerability hypothesis is incomplete. This missing portion is the possibility that the genes that have been shown to increase the risk for dysfunction can also be shown to increase the potential for success. This is the main idea behind the Orchid Theory. Environment is the proposed determining factor.

While this idea is intriguing, I’m not sure that there is sufficient information to make all of the claims that David Dobbs appears to be making. He makes the supposition that the Orchid Theory can explain why variants of certain genes that have been shown to be problematic have not been selected out when looking at things through a “Darwinish” lens. He cites that between 20 to 25 percent of all human beings carry gene variants for depression and externalizing behaviors. He does not say if those percentages are an increase of any significance. What if the current rates of inherited gene variants that can cause problems is remaining the same or actually declining? That would throw out Mr. Dobbs claim that not only are these variants the reason we have survived and that the selection process is selecting for these genes. The leap from correlation to causation is a big one that requires scientific proof as opposed to logical inference or intuition.

With out looking at the original data I cannot say if the result of the Bakermans-Kranenburg and Mainus van Ijzendoorn study is compelling. While the numbers given do show that with intervention the group with the risk allele improved twice as much as their protective allele counter parts; however, there was insufficient data given in the article to justify the statement that the risk allele group was better off after the intervention than the protective allele group. In order to support the second statement the data would have to show that after the intervention that the protective allele group had higher externalizing scores than the risk allele group.

The Orchid Theory may gain more support as new studies are done and as results of the studies quoted are duplicated. The idea is absolutely fascinating but obviously there is more to be researched before we make any claims of causation or selection. The exciting part that we can take from this growing base of data is that a person’s genes are not the only item to consider. Parenting and environment can make a difference. For that very reason the evidence is sufficient to encourage society to strive for the best environments possible for all children regardless of genetic dispositions. I hope that there is research being done to show whether risk allele expression is linked to environment and life events only or if there are other unaccounted for variables at work. Could it be possible that there are other things to consider? Is there a third variable out there related to our individuality apart from genes and environments?

If the Orchid Theory continues to be supported, then society and researchers need to take the next steps. Once triggered by bad environments or life events can the process be reversed? Are there interventions that can un-trigger risk alleles? Are there other areas of fragility or dysfunction that can have benefits in certain situations? The implications here are far reaching and could potentially change the way society treats and reacts to those who are depressed, drug-addicted, or incarcerated.