Genetic–Memetic Prevention



Genes are turned on or off in early life in interaction with memes and environment through the mechanism of epigenesis and epistasis (interaction among genes). Mental health or mental illness is a result of interaction among vulnerability and resilience genes and salutary and pathogenic memes. Thus, memetic prevention of mental illness should focus on (1) reduction of stress memes for children with vulnerable genes and (2) prevention of pathogenic memes from taking up residence in the brain. An important preventive strategy would be early recognition of vulnerability genes. Stigmatization is a consideration, and is particularly problematic if there is no remedy for the genetic condition, but it seems that for mental illness, memetic intervention should be possible once the vulnerability genes have been identified. Furthermore, the recognition that so-called vulnerability genes might also serve an adaptive function and thus treatment may not be necessary for all individuals with such genes may alleviate stigmatization. Perhaps genetic testing should be performed for all suspected child abuse cases, and for those individuals with vulnerability genes, special attention could be paid either to remove the child from the environment or to provide closer attention, education, and care. Most destructive memes take up residence in the brain from early childhood and destroy or stunt the ability of the brain to develop adequate filtering and processing mechanisms for incoming memes. These destructive memes accept and exalt irrationality and blind faith and ask us to abandon critical thinking and reasoning – the memes and memeplexes associated with superstition, religion, and cultural traditions. As it is impossible to isolate children from exposure to the pathogenic memes of religion and culture, children should be exposed to as many different religions and cultures as possible, so that they can develop the ability to compare and critique them. Cultural diversity may confer immunity to toxic conformity memes as genetic diversity tends to confer enhanced immunity to infection. In addition to enhancing the skills of critical thinking, children should be taught how to take “time out” from the bombardment of memes from the environment. Teaching children techniques of broad-spectrum meme reduction, including relaxation and stress management, should help. It may be possible to vaccinate children against toxic memes through judicious exposure to attenuated pathogenic memes. Education from an early age in the acquisition and practice of rational and critical thinking will enhance the ability to identify incoming toxic memes. Once identified, toxic memes can be divested of their attractive and pleasing capsules and adornments and be relegated to the pool of irrational memes that can be a source of amusement rather than threat.


Mental Illness Childhood Abuse Critical Thinking Left Amygdala Vulnerability Gene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brody, B. A. (2002) Freedom and responsibility in genetic testing. Soc Philos Policy, 19, 343–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., et al. (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., et al. (2003) Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, 386–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chipman, P. (2006) The moral implications of prenatal genetic testing. Penn Bioeth J, 2, 13–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Codori, A. M., Petersen, G. M., Boyd, P. A., et al. (1996) Genetic testing for cancer in children. Short-term psychological effect. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 150, 1131–1138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Codori, A. M., Zawacki, K. L., Petersen, G. M., et al. (2003) Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer in children: Long-term psychological effects. Am J Med Genet A, 116A, 117–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crofford, L. J. (2007) Violence, stress, and somatic syndromes. Trauma Violence Abuse, 8, 299–313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ducci, F., Enoch, M. A., Hodgkinson, C., et al. (2008) Interaction between a functional MAOA locus and childhood sexual abuse predicts alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder in adult women. Mol Psychiatry, 13, 334–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eley, T. C. (1999) Behavioral genetics as a tool for developmental psychology: Anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 2, 21–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gold, J., Shanks, N. (2002) Mind viruses and the importance of cultural diversity. In Community, Diversity, and Difference: Implications for Peace (A. Bailey and P. J. Smithka eds.), pp. 187–199. Rodopi Press, Amsterdam, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Hercher, L., Bruenner, G. (2008) Living with a child at risk for psychotic illness: The experience of parents coping with 22q11 deletion syndrome: An exploratory study. Am J Med Genet A, 146A, 2355–2360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kubiak, W. D. (1998) The abhorrence of exotic ideas: Japan’s comparative advantage in memetic immunity.Google Scholar
  13. Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Buckholtz, J. W., Kolachana, B., et al. (2006) Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 103, 6269–6274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michie, S., Bobrow, M., Marteau, T. M. (2001) Predictive genetic testing in children and adults: A study of emotional impact. J Med Genet, 38, 519–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pezawas, L., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Drabant, E. M., et al. (2005) 5-HTTLPR polymorphism impacts human cingulate-amygdala interactions: A genetic susceptibility mechanism for depression. Nat Neurosci, 8, 828–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Spriggs, M., Olsson, C. A., Hall, W. (2008) How will information about the genetic risk of mental disorders impact on stigma? Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 42, 214–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Suomi, S. J. (2003) Gene-environment interactions and the neurobiology of social conflict. Ann NY Acad Sci, 1008, 132–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Suomi, S. J. (2005) Aggression and social behaviour in rhesus monkeys. Novartis Found Symp, 268, 216–222, discussion 222–216, 242–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tercyak, K. P., Peshkin, B. N., Streisand, R., et al. (2001) Psychological issues among children of hereditary breast cancer gene (BRCA1/2) testing participants. Psychooncology, 10, 336–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Ommen, G. J. (2002) The Human Genome Project and the future of diagnostics, treatment and prevention. J Inherit Metab Dis, 25, 183–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wasserman, D., Geijer, T., Sokolowski, M., et al. (2007) Nature and nurture in suicidal behavior, the role of genetics: Some novel findings concerning personality traits and neural conduction. Physiol Behav, 92, 245–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wasserman, D., Sokolowski, M., Rozanov, V., et al. (2008) The CRHR1 gene: A marker for suicidality in depressed males exposed to low stress. Genes Brain Behav, 7, 14–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wasserman, L., Flatt, S. W., Natarajan, L., et al. (2004) Correlates of obesity in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: Comparison of genetic, demographic, disease-related, life history and dietary factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 28, 49–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Widom, C. S., Brzustowicz, L. M. (2006) MAOA and the “cycle of violence:” childhood abuse and neglect, MAOA genotype, and risk for violent and antisocial behavior. Biol Psychiatry, 60, 684–689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations