There’s been a lot of hub-bub of late about the new research into the so-called monogamy gene and experiments with voles.

Basically, researchers have isolated a gene that controls the number of receptor cells for the hormone vasopressin in the brains of male voles and this affected their behavior towards commitment and monogamy.

Led by scientists at Emory University in Atlanta, the team worked with two species of voles. (Voles look like furry mice with short tails.) Male meadow voles are loners who like to play the field; prairie voles tend to get attached to one female. The researchers, in essence, were able to change the meadow vole’s natural propensity to philander by inserting a single gene that changed the way the pleasure centre in their brains worked. After a single treatment, they became as monogamous as prairie voles.

Now, because human males have a similar system for vasopressin in their brains, some folks are immediately saying this research will eventually lead to a “commitment pill” for human males. Don’t hold your breath. We’re not talking about changing a particular animal, we’re talking about manipulating the DNA of a species . . . not the best route to take for modifying the behavior or a particular male. The research is very interesting but we shouldn’t be thinking of gene therapy as a way to “cure” the male roving eye.

The vole model, however, offers no possibility of a pill that would stop men from having affairs outside a marriage or relationship.

For one thing, we should determine if that’s really the solution to the dillemna of relationships. We should note that the behavior being looked into isn’t really just about monogamy versus promiscuity it’s about relationship commitment versus non-commitment within promiscuious versus versus polygamous versus monogamous relationships.

Monogamy, as animal researchers define it, does not mean never having sex outside of a long-term relationship. Instead, they refer to social monogamy, which means settling down with one female, but not resisting temptation should opportunity present itself.

For one thing, there is a big difference between sexual monogamy and social monogamy. In social monogamy a male commits to one female as a mate for life but will not turn down the opportunity to spread his genes around if an available female pops up and says “come and get it” . . . Bill Clinton is socially monogamous. Now, sexual monogamy is when a male mates with one female and only has sex with that female until he dies . . . the marriage vows for monogamy have that bit about “forsaking all others” although for the most part humans are not sexually monogamous creatures. Most folks have had more than one sexual partner before marriage and more than half have had at least one extramarital affair after marriage (the numbers for men are higher than women in most cultures).

Sexual monogamy, the more typical human definition, is spelled out in marriage vows: It’s the bit about forsaking all others. It is debatable how many humans qualify as sexually monogamous, but we are socially monogamous, says Emory University researcher Larry Young, whose findings are published today in the British journal Nature. “I don’t think we have a biological basis that makes us only want to mate with one female. It doesn’t turn off. But there is a tendency to want to be with one partner, to live with that partner, to establish a life, so that makes us more like the prairie vole.”

Even when we take the looser definition of social monogamy over the more exclusive one of sexual monogamy, fewer than five percent of all animal species are monogamous. Social committment does not only occur in monogamy though. If we open that definition up a bit and allow for a longterm or lifelong social commitment to more than one mate, such as a male who heads a family or pride of females, then the number with the so-called comittment effect is a bit higher. However, the number of loose arrangements with promiscuous males is still higher.

Humans formed social commitment as a means to ensure that the young survive. Our young are pretty helpless for a long time compared to many other animals so a support structure within the social unit is desirable.

However, males competing to attract females also spurs on achievement. One study of Nobel Laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and others who are in areas of high accomplishment found that men tend to make their greatest achievements early and that once they marry and settle down, their life focus is no longer about achieving but about just maintaining the family. Basically, they achieve to attract a mate and then once they’ve got one they settle with, they are no longer spurred on to contribute When men marry and settle down, their productivity and ingenuity goes down.

“We are a long way from a commitment pill, but perhaps closer to the neurology of romance.”

Maybe . . . maybe not . . . maybe there are other paradigms out there worth exploring rather than considering genetic or chemical alteration of the human genome. Perhaps humans have been selecting for certain traits for good reason . . . and perhaps not . . . perhaps having a variety of patterns available ensures that the species is more adaptable to changes that continue to happen.