w00t for microbiology! I was reading the book “Microcosm” by Carl Zimmer and he talked about the profound effects that environment has on E. coli and how the nature/nurture debate goes both ways: environment affects genes AND genes affect environment. You couldn’t split the two concepts, even if you wanted to.

You make an excellent point about the gene/environment interaction, and I love your yeast analogy. I agree completely that clinical practice should follow empirical data. If there is enough scientific evidence to support a particular treatment, it should be offered as the first line of defense unless there is a clear and convincing reason to do otherwise!

If you take away something in it’s environment, the yeast will alter it’s gene expression in order to adapt to survive and grow. Or maybe you can add something else to help the yeast survive.

If the yeast has a certain genetic background (for example, what makes me different than you), the yeast will respond differently to the environment and environmental changes.

With people, there are obviously so many more genes and environmental contributors (and interactions between both at all points of development) involved in making us humans as amazingly complex and unique as we are…

I’m thinking, though, that if the data’s strong enough to support or refute a particular viewpoint, why shouldn’t it be applied in practice? It’s hard to argue with good data.