A recent article in the New York Times caught my eye concerning the strong role of genes in determining the social behavior of nonhuman primates. A team of researchers at the University of Oxford studied 217 primate species and their findings are not consistent with a number of major theories of social behavior. These include:
"That social structure is shaped by environment - for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.
"That complex societies evolve step by step from simple ones.
"And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.
By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits." If this all holds true it's an extremely significant discovery.
Furthermore, "If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists - Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson - found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live. ... The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, 'spells trouble' for ecological explanations ..." according to Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at UCLA.
I was very surprised by these finding based on what's known about the flexibility in the social behavior and social organization of social carnivores such as coyotes and wolves. Coyotes, for example, are likely the most adaptable mammal alive. I've studied coyotes for more than 35 years and along with research performed by my colleagues we've discovered that talking about "the" coyote is misleading. The moment one begins making rampant generalizations they're proven wrong. For example, in some areas coyotes live alone, in other locations they live with their mate, while in others they live in groups that resemble wolf packs -- extended families of different generations. In these packs there are "aunts" and "uncles" who help to raise youngsters. And, coyotes are sometimes territorial and sometimes not. The social behavior and social organization of coyotes is very closely correlated with the availability of food. In a nutshell, coyotes are quintessential opportunists who defy profiling as individuals who predictably behave this way or that. Ecological conditions play a large role in how they live (for more on coyotes please go to the website for Project Coyote). Other mammals, birds, and other species also show variations in social behavior and social structure that are ecologically based. This is not to say that genes don't play some role, but we really don't know the relative significance of their contribution.
I hope others will weigh in on this very important discussion claiming that genes stongly override ecology, as it will likely have a great influence on the direction of future research and also play a role in conservation projects. Most discussions about nature/nurture are usually concerned with the relative contributions of nature and nurture, not nature or nurture, as this recent study suggests.