September 1, 2008

Is Fidelity in our Genes?

A gene that promotes monogamy in rodents may do the same in humans. Researchers think variation in this gene may help predict your man's ability to commit

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Mind

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Did you ever wonder why some guys are less cut out for commitment, while others stick around?

Well, in a type of rodent called a vole, one thing that controls mate bonding is a brain chemical called vasopressin. A gene that influences vasopressin determines how doggedly males will latch on to a lucky female. Scientists can even make promiscuous voles turn monogamous—just by manipulating the gene.

This week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers report a link between variation in the human gene and male fidelity.

Nearly two thousand Swedes filled out a standardized test measuring the strength of their romantic partnership.

Men with a particular variant of the gene scored lower than others on the bonding scale, and fewer of them were married. What's more, if a guy had two copies of that variant he was twice as likely to report marital problems.

Ladies, don't fret just yet. It’s just a correlation that they’ve found. Stronger evidence of a causal relationship between DNA and vasopressin in humans is needed.

But in the meantime, hopeful single guys out there may want to hold off on posting their genetic code on Facebook.

- Rachel Dvoskin

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American