Over the years, I have come to believe that someone's fundamental personality traits come from inherited genes rather than from environmental influences. I would like to know, is there a consensus building in the scientific community on this subject?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Paul Grobstein, an expert in biology and behavioral science at Bryn Mawr College, starts by cautioning that "'consensus within the scientific community' is not anywhere near as important as the actual set of scientific observations that exists at any given time (which may or may not yield a consensus among scientists), and the understanding that that set is constantly growing (which is likely to change any consensus that exists).

"With regard to the immediate question, there is certainly a large set of observations which indicate that genes influence personality. And, given the availability of new molecular techniques, one ought to expect substantially more observations of this kind in the years to come. In the face of that, what needs to be kept in mind is that the observations show that genes influence personality. They do not, and cannot show that genes determine personality. Even many scientists tend to confuse the two sorts of conclusions, presuming that an observation showing something to be influenced by one thing necessarily implies that other things are irrelevant. This is simply not the case. In general, biological phenomena are influenced simultaneously and to varying degrees by a variety of factors, and there is abundant reason (both in principle and in terms of additional observations) to believe that this is true for personality.

"If one started with a belief that personality is totally a function of environmental influences--as many people do--then one has some useful and appropriate things to learn from the growing evidence for genetic influences. Genes do influence personality, as they do intelligence and every other aspect of being human. What they don't do, for personality or any other aspect of being human, is to determine it.


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.


"Not only environmental influences but also personal dreams and choices demonstrably play a role as well. Wisdom is to be found not in the latest scientific observations, nor in the most visible ones at any given time, but rather than in their totality...and in a recognition of the complex web of causal interactions and personal responsibilities which that implies.

"The citations in this response are part of a website maintained by myself and a group of colleagues as a resource for people interested in brain, behavior and education.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe