Adam Wilkins from the Humboldt University of Berlin and co-authors Richard Wrangham of Harvard University and Tecumseh Fitch of the University of Vienna have proposed a hypothesis that begs much contemplation.
They suggest that the cuteness and the tamed attitude of domesticated animals is a disadvantage. The have created an association of the docile traits in domesticated animals with a group of embryonic stem cells called the neural crest.
More than 150 years ago the genius in Darwin coerced him to ponder why domesticated animals were so different compared to their wilder cousins. Thus, the neural crest hypothesis may finally provide an etiological explanation for why.
Today, our pets are definitely tamer, they have floppier ears, softer – less menacing – jawlines and have a relatively docile look. The explanation that the neural crest hypothesis suggests is that the stem cells are formed near the spinal column and during the initial development stages and they affect jaws, teeth, skin pigment, ears and the adrenal glands. The adrenal glands are linked with flight or fight responses and as a consequence of taming are curtailed or diminished.
Wilkins suggests that when humans started breeding these animals to become more docile they may have unintentionally selected animals with small neural crest abnormalities or deficits. That in turn would result in slow maturing adrenal glands which would limit their aggression and make them more resourceful for humans in multiple ways.
It is a rather interesting scientific hypothesis and if we are lucky it may reveal something further regarding mammalian genetics in general. It must be noted though, that it is rather reductionist. It doesn’t take into account environmental factors or slow behavioral conditioning that animals received as result of their interactions with humans. It does point out some cogent connections between breeding, genetics and resulting characteristics and is thus inherently valuable.
It also calls for a more philosophical contemplation of our relationship with animals, and how tremendously we have changed them and their lives. Domestication of animals has contributed in incalculable ways to civilization but a moral question comes to mind, are they only here as a resource for humanity or do they have independent existences?
