Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Voles, vasopressin, and infidelity: a molecular basis for monogamy, a platform for ethics, and more?

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Think of a purely factual inquiry, for example, into “what is happening with his neurons when he feels excited?” or “what happens to his blood chemistry when he falls in love?” If you think that is the only kind of way to understand something like falling in love, or being excited for that matter, you are missing out on something. You are missing out on a lot. And I bet that in your personal life, you actually don’t; that, in fact, your ideology is at odds with how you live.

—Bas C. van Fraassen (2007)

Abstract

Voles are attracting attention because genetic variation at a single locus appears to have a profound impact on a complex social behavior, namely monogamy. After briefly reviewing the state of the most relevant scientific literature, I examine the way that this research gets taken up by the popular media, by scientists, and by the notable philosopher of neuroscience Patricia Churchland and interpreted as having deeply revisionary implications for how we ordinarily understand ourselves as persons. We have all these big questions we would like to resolve about free will, consciousness, our understanding of persons, and the nature of morality and there is a tendency to ask more of neuroscience than it can yet answer. I do not deny that advances in neuroscience may eventually bear on important philosophical issues. However, it is not at all clear that this research has many of the sweeping implications being claimed for it and, in communicating science responsibly to the public, there is reason to be cautious about suggesting that it does.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern TH, Young LJ (2009) The impact of early life family structure on adult social attachment, alloparental behavior, and the neuropeptide systems regulating affiliative behaviors in the monogamous prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Front Behav Neurosci 3(17):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales KL, Boone E, Epperson P, Hoffman G, Carter SC (2011) Are behavioral effects of early experience mediated by oxytocin? Front Psychiatry 2:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales KL, Plotsky PM, Young LJ, Lim M, Grotte N, Ferrer E, Carter CS (2007) Neonatal oxytocin manipulations have long-lasting, sexually dimorphic effects on vasopressin receptors. Neuroscience 144:38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazell R (2008) The cheatin’ gene: researchers find men may be genetically predisposed to cheat. NBC Nightly News with Brain Williams. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#26512696

  • Beurton PJ, Raphael F, Rheinberger H-J (eds) (2000) The concept of the gene in development and evolution: historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickle John (2003) Philosophy and neuroscience: a ruthlessly reductive account. Kluwer, Drodrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carter CS, Grippo AJ, Pournajafi-Nazarloo H, Ruscio MG, Porges SW (2008) Oxytocin, vasopressin and sociality. Prog Brain Res 170:331–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter SC, Boone EM, Pournajafi-Nazarloo H, Bales KL (2009) Consequences of early experiences and exposure to oxytocin and vasopressin are sexually dimorphic. Dev Neurosci 31:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PS (1991) Our brains, our selves: reflections on neuroethical questions. In: Roy DJ, Wynne BE, Old RW (eds) Bioscience and Society. New York: John-Wiley & Sons, pp 77–96

  • Churchland PS (2002) Brain-wise: studies in neurophilosophy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PS (2006) The big questions: do we have free will? New Scientist. 2578:42–45. November 18

  • Churchland PS (2008) The impact of neuroscience on philosophy. Neuron 60:409–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PS (2009) Inference to the best decision. In: Bickle J (ed) The oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 419–430

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PS (2011) Braintrust: what neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PM (1995) The engine of reason, the seat of the soul: a philosophical journey into the brain. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland PM (1996) The neural representation of the social world. In: May L, Friedman M, Clark A (eds) Mind and morals: essays on cognitive science and ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 91–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Commitment phobes can blame genes: a man’s reluctance to marry may be down to a genetic ‘flaw’, say researchers. BBC News, September 2, 2008

  • Cortez MF (2008a) Monogamy gene links men’s DNA to happily ever after in marriage. Bloomberg, September 1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5kGdZ7L7vMI&refer=home

  • Cortez MF (2008b) Fidelity in DNA? Researchers find monogamy gene in men. Mormon Times (Deseret News), September 2. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705381381/Fidelity-in-DNA-Researchers-findmonogamy-gene-in-men.html

  • Could monogamy gene combat infidelity? ABC News (Good Morning America), 23 July 2005

  • Could there be a cheating gene? The Tyra Banks Show, 12 Oct 2009

  • Damasio A (2005) Brain trust. Nature 435:571–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio A (2007) Neuroscience and ethics: intersections. Am J Bioeth 7(1):3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson ZR, Young LJ (2008) Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. Science 322(5903):900–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah MJ, Heberlein AS (2007) Personhood and neuroscience: naturalizing or nihilating? Am J Bioeth (AJOB-Neuroscience) 7(1):37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink S, Excoffier L, Heckel G (2006) Mammalian monogamy is not controlled by a single gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:10956–10960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gene determines fidelity in men. Health Jockey, 2 Sept 2008

  • Genetic code for monogamy. National Geographic. 12 Jan 2009. Video available online at http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/national-geographic-channel/specials-1/science-technology/ngc-genetic-code-for-monogamy/

  • Getz LL, Carter CS (1996) Prairie-vole partnerships. Am Sci 84:56–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings: a theory of normative judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1978) Ever since darwin. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE, Stotz K (2007) Gene. In: Ruse M, Hull D (eds) Cambridge companion to philosophy of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammock EAD (2007) Gene regulation as a modulator of social preference in voles. Adv Genet 59:107–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckel G, Fink S (2008) Evolution of the Arginine Vasopressin 1a receptor and implications for mammalian social behaviour chapter 26 in progress in brain research. In: Neumann ID, Landgraf R (eds) Advances in vasopressin and oxytocin—from gene to behavior, vol 170(8). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 321–330

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Highfield R (2004) How a cupid gene could stop men straying. The Telegraph, June 23. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4769868/How-a-Cupid-genecould-stop-men-straying.html

  • Highfield R (2008) ‘Divorce gene’ linked to relationship troubles. The Telegraph, September 1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3350718/Divorcegene-linked-to-relationship-troubles.html

  • Holden C (2008) Why men cheat: study chalks up promiscuous behavior to a single genetic change. Science Now, September 2. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/09/02-01.html?ref=hp

  • Hyman SE (2007) The neurobiology of addiction: implications for voluntary control of behavior. Am J Bioethics 7(1):8–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I get a kick out of you; the science of love (love is all about chemistry). The Economist, 14 Feb 2004

  • Insel TR (2010) The challenge of translation in social neuroscience: a review of oxytocin, vasopressin, and affiliative behavior. Neuron 65:768–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Insel TR, Fernald RD (2004) How the brain processes social information: searching for the social brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:697–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CY (2004) Study says gene encourages monogamy. Boston Globe, June 17. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/17/study_says_gene_encourages_monogamy/

  • Joyce R (2006) The evolution of morality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettlewell J (2004) Fidelity gene’ found in voles: a single gene can turn the don juan of voles into an attentive home-loving husband. Nature magazine has reported. BBC News

  • Kirn W (2004) Curing casanova. New York Times Magazine, pp 13–14

  • Klotz L, Sylvester E (2009) Breeding bio insecurity: how US biodefense is exporting fear, globalizing risk, and making us all less secure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Knafo A, Israel S, Darvasi A, Bachner-Melman R, Uzefovsky F, Cohen L, Feldman E, Lerer E, Laiba E, Raz Y (2008) Individual differences in allocation of funds in the dictator game associated with length of the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor RS3 promoter region and correlation between RS3 Length And Hippocampal mRNA. Genes Brain Behav 7:266–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435:673–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin R (1992) Biology as ideology: the doctrine of DNA. Harper-Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin R (2011) The genotype/phenotype distinction. In: Edward NZ (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2011 edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/genotype-phenotype/

  • Lewontin R, Rose S, Kamin L (1984) Not in our genes: biology, ideology, and human nature. Pantheon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Libet Benjamin (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behav Brain Sci 8:529–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim MM, Young LJ (2004) Vasopressin-dependent neural circuits underlying pair bond formation in the monogamous prairie vole. Neuroscience 125:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim MM, Wang Z, Olazábal DE, Ren X, Terwilliger EF, Young LJ (2004) Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous species by manipulating the expression of a single gene. Nature 429:754–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabry KE, Streatfeild CA, Keane B, Solomon NG (2011) Avpr1a length polymorphism is not associated with either social or genetic monogamy in free-living prairie voles. Anim Behav 81:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrae F (2008) The love-rat gene: why some men are born to cause trouble and strife. Daily Mail, September 4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1051487/The-love-rat-gene-Why-menborn-cause-trouble-strife.html

  • Mcguire B, Novak M (1987) The Effects of cross-fostering on the development of social preferences in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Behav Neural Biol 47(2):167–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw LA, Thomas JW, Young LJ (2008) White paper proposal for sequencing the genome of the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Sequencing proposal submitted to the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) by research groups at Emory and accompanied by letters of support by leading scientists who work with voles, 1–64. Available at http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/VoleWhitePaper_and_LOS.pdf

  • Mundell EJ (2008) ‘Bonding gene’ could help men stay married. The Washington Post

  • Moss L (2003) What genes can’t do. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahmias E (2005) Agency, authorship, and illusion. Conscious Cogn 14:771–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahmias E (2010) Scientific challenges to free will, chapter 44. In: O’Connor T, Sandis C (eds) A companion to the philosophy of action. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 345–356

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nair HM, Young LJ (2006) Vasopressin and pair-bond formation: genes to brain to behavior. Physiology 21(2):146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ophir AG, Campbell P, Hanna K, Phelps SM (2008) Field Tests of cis-regulatory variation at the prairie vole avpr1a locus: association with V1aR abundance but not sexual or social fidelity. Horm Behav 54(5):694–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichard UH, Boesch C (2003) Monogamy: mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans and other mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger H-J, Müller-Wille S (2010) Gene. In: Edward NZ (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/gene/

  • Roan S (2008) Some men carry ‘Commitment-Phobia’ gene. Los Angeles Times, September 3. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/09/some-mencarry.html

  • Roskies AL (2010) How does neuroscience affect our conception of volition? Annu Rev Neurosci 33:109–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (1986a) Evolutionary ethics: a phoenix arisen. Zygon J Relig Sci 21:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (1986b) Taking Darwin seriously: a naturalistic approach to philosophy. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO, Ruse M (1986) Moral philosophy as applied science. Philosophy 61:173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver J (2008) Men are like voles: vasopressin and bonding—marital fidelity may be affected by a vasopressin polymorphism. J Watch Psychiatry, September 29. http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2008/929/1

  • Searle J (2001) Rationality in action. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shetty P (2008) Monogamy gene found in people. New Scientist and ABC News (September 1) and ABC News (September 2). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamygene-found-in-people.html and http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5702390&page=1

  • Sommers T, Rosenberg A (2003) Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life. Biol Philos 18:653–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soon C, Brass M, Heinze H, Haynes J (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nat Neurosci 11:543–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Special edition: his cheatin’ genes? New science links biology, monogamy. NBC’s Today Show. 3 September 2008. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26523972/

  • Sterelny K, Griffiths PE (1999) Sex and death: an introduction to the philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • The gene excuse: the guy can’t help it; he was born that way. Pacific Sun. 30 June 2004

  • Tierney J (2009) Anti-love drug may be ticket to bliss. New York Times, January 12. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/science/13tier.html

  • van Fraassen BC (2007) Does god mix with science, interview by Robert Lawrence Kuhn for Closer to Truth: Cosmos, Consciousness, God (PBS television series). Video available at http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Does-God-Mix-with-Science-Bas-van-Fraassen-/1373

  • Vollmer S (2010) The divorce gene explored: should you get your partner’s DNA before saying ‘I do’? Psychol Today, January 3. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/learning-play/201001/2010-the-divorcegene-explored

  • Wade N (2005) DNA of voles may hint at why some fathers shirk duties. New York Times, June 10. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/science/10behave.html

  • Walum H, Westberg L, Henningsson S, Neiderhiser JM, Reiss D, Igl W, Ganiban JM, Spotts EL, Pedersen NL, Eriksson E, Lichtenstein P (2008) Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:14153–14156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Yu G, Cascio C, Liu Y, Gingrich B, Insel TR (1999) Dopamine D2 receptor-mediated regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): a mechanism for pair bonding? Behav Neurosci 113:602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver I, Cervonia N, Champagne F, D’Alessio A, Sharma S, Seckl J, Demov S, Szyf M, Meaney M (2004) Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci 7:847–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger DM (2002) The illusion of conscious will. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Catania KC, Carter CS (1992) Development of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): the role of social and sexual experience. Horm Behav 26:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamamoto Y, Cushing BS, Kramer KM, Epperson PD, Hoffman GE, Carter CS (2004) Neonatal manipulations of oxytocin alter expression of oxytocin and vasopressin immunoreactive cells in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus in a gender-specific manner. Neuroscience 125:947–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young LJ, Hammock EAD (2007) On switches and knobs, microsatellites and monogamy. Trends Genet 23(5):209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young L (2009) Being human: love—neuroscience reveals all. Nature 457:148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young L (2011) Interview for The Science Network by Roger Bingham at the one mind for research symposium: next frontier of the brain forum May 23–25 in Boston, MA. Video available at http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/one-mind-for-research/larry-j-young-phd

  • Zak PJ (2012) The moral molecule: the source of love and prosperity. Dutton Press, Hialeah forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Zak PJ, Kurzban R, Matzner WT (2005) Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Horm Behav 48:522–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarembo A (2004) DNA tweak turns vole mates into soul mates. Los Angeles Times, June 17. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/17/science/sci-monogamy17

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Boston College, 373 Maloney Hall, 21 Campanella Way, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467-3806, USA

    Daniel J. McKaughan

Authors
  1. Daniel J. McKaughan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. McKaughan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McKaughan, D.J. Voles, vasopressin, and infidelity: a molecular basis for monogamy, a platform for ethics, and more?. Biol Philos 27, 521–543 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-011-9303-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-011-9303-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation