New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

The X Chromosome and the Case against Monogamy

New evidence shows that women pass along more genes to kids than men do—and that males historically fathered children with several women

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


Researchers report genetic evidence bolstering the socially contentious idea that polygyny—the mating practice where some males dominate reproduction by fathering children with several women—was the norm for sexual behavior throughout human history and prehistory. Because polygyny means other men father few or no children, the study, published today in PLoS Genetics, also shows that, on average, women bequeath more genes to their offspring than men do. 

The proportion of female to male genes passed on is not yet known. "Our follow-up work is to get a better estimate, but we believe it's at least two to one, if not more," says senior study author Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

"This is good science, and even more notable is the increasing light it sheds on our own human nature," says David Barash, evolutionary psychologist, University of Washington in Seattle.

The study, which examined genetic material (DNA) from six geographically diverse populations—Biaka from Central African Republic, Mandenka from Senegal, San from Namibia, French Basque, Han Chinese and Melanesians from Papua New Guinea—provides independent corroboration of what many animal studies have shown and evolutionary biologists have long claimed: basic human biology is polygynous, Barash notes. "Monogamy is a recently inspired cultural add-on."

Researchers examined DNA areas devoid of genes in each of 90 people, including 20 regions on the X chromosomes (present in both male and female mammals) and 20 on the autosomes (the other 22 chromosomes, which are not involved in sex determination). If an equal number of males and females breed successfully, genetic variation in the two kinds of chromosomes should be about equal. Instead, the researchers found much more variation on the X than on autosomes.

The paper explored explanations for this X genetic diversity, concluding that polygyny was the most likely.

The notion that monogamy is not "natural" for humans has been controversial because some fear it may provide a biological justification for promiscuity. "But it's a fallacious idea that we can infer from what is the case something about how we ought to act," says Erik Parens, senior research scholar at The Hastings Center bioethics think tank based in Garrison, N.Y. "I don't see why we should accept the premise that we can read off of how our forebears acted…[the way]…we ought to act now."

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

Subscribe