" (Science Daily, 2009) And research does seem to suggest that such a view is valid. Jay Belsky and Michael Pluess (2009), for example, review the related literature concerning the concept of plasticity to show that children having clear susceptibility to negative programming also show susceptibility to positive programming. They argue that the interaction between inheritance and environment can be seen in both cases, and that the reaction doesn't just go one way. It can actually be reversed. This suggests that genes are actually reacting to environment in a systemic fashion.

Margaret Beale Spencer and Vinay Harpalani (2003) argue that a "behavioral genetic" model is the best model available at present to show how nature and nurture work together. However, they claim that no one really seems to know how such a systemic model actually works. They offer one possible variant, consisting of a process-oriented approach in which genes are continually faced with new challenges as a result of the environmental conditions relevant to the person's particular life stage. The genes change in response to these challenges, which results in a new behavior being reflected. This behavior and this new gene state then meet new environmental challenges and make their responses. In this way, a continuous cycle of genetic responses and environmental conditioning takes place.

One study conducted with baby ducks showed that when ducks are hatched, they immediately begin to more toward the mother, suggesting a genetic coding to move in such a direction. However, when the eggs were moved to a place where they could not hear their mother's calling, they did not move immediately upon hatching. This suggests that the gene is conditioned by the environment (ScienceDaily,...

While there is still much research to be done in order to determine how such genetic behavioral conditioning is accomplished. The research now suggests that nature and nurture are inked in indelible ways that make them dependent on each other in a systemic fashion.
The nature vs. nurture debate is one which is not yet resolved in terms of a full understanding of how the interaction between the two occur. However, from this reader's review of the literature, it does seem to be resolved in terms of the meaninglessness of asking whether one is more important than the other. The literature indicates that there is a two-variable systemic interaction in the case of nature and nurture, and both play important and mutually dependent roles. Therefore, this reader thinks that the debate should be ended, so that energy can be better spent in figuring out how the system of interactions works.

Works Cited

Beale Spencer, M,. And Harpalani, V. (2003). Nature, nurture, and the question of "how?": a phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory. In Garcia Coll, C., and Bearer, E. (Eds.), Nature and Nurture: The Complex Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior and Development (53-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Belsky, J. And Pluess, M. (2009). The nature (and nurture?) of plasticity in early human development. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(4): 345-351.

Richardson, K. (2000). Developmental psychology: how nature and nurture interact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Science Daily. (2009). Nature? nurture? child development scientists say neither. December 14, 2009. retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720163723.htm.