This is among the most revealingly silly things i've read this week. So wait a minute, the external environment through chemical reactivity or even radiation can cause mutation. Stop the press. What exactly do DDT or smoking do if they are not allowed to interfere with our genes?

Ben, Scunthorpe, UK

...the critics to Linklater's article miss the point; that the environmental impact on our genes has been played down in recent years in debates about why we behave and act as we do...this research begins to re-emphasise that our genetics are more socially malleable than we were led to believe.

Dr Smith , London, UK

The last paragraph clearly shows the author's antipathy for Dawkins and his ideas. Why else use words like "high priest" and "theology"?

As other commenters have said, there is little here that contradicts what Dawkins has written. It certainly doesn't challenge the fact that genes are selfish.

Simon, Montreal, Canada

How is this news? I have cell biology textbooks from 1994 that talk about epigenetics and DNA methylation and so on. Undergraduate textbooks.

Liz, Melbourne, Australia

...i can see that the critics to this article are all pure scientists. having spent most of my working life around such scientists who can't grasp social and political arguments, they are unable to fully understand that this article is more about the politics of science, than the science itself.

James , London, UK

I must draw your attention to the work of Bruce Lipton PHD, a distinguished micro biologist who was one of the first to point this out. In 1992!!
This is not new science, it's just scientists and the drugs industry has invested so much in the current theory, anything contradictory is quickly buried.

Chris Noble, Rugby, United Kingdom

Perhaps some commenters haven't wrapped a wet towel around their heads for long enough...

Andrew Gallagher, Galway,

DNA whether mutated randomly or through an external factor will not lead to a different species of creature over time.Why do the so called facts of this theory never get clearly laid out by a paper or reseacher like Dawkins,without constant revisions or updates of it,& without confusion among many?

Jonathan KIng, Co.Offaly, Eire

Sorry to disappoint you, but genes are not, and never have been, "immutable".

Terry Dell, Weybridge, UK

This sounds a bit like Lamarkism, an argument that says, if followed to its logical conclusion, that if one has the misfortune to lose a leg then your children will be born minus a leg. An obviously wrong theory.

colin, london, england

It may sound like heresy, if you haven't read what Dawkins has written about genes and replicators, but I suspect there's nothing that particularly contradicts Dawkins views here. Did you talk to Professor Ebers to ask him?

matt shenton, Kitakami City, Japan

you seem to have missed the point. It is well known that there are chemicals which affect gene expression - a process called methylation. but the dna of the genes themselves is not altered. This is extremely interesting but not "heretical".

bob, london,

Certainly some of Dawkins' quotes are taken out of context; the idea of a gene being 'selfish' is that it's propagation(whether influenced by environmental factors or not) is the driving force behind evolution

Rohan, London,

There does not seem to be anything controversal or new in saying that a gene can be altered by external influences. Not much of a controversy or heresy here.

C Harris, Lagos, Nigeria

I'm sure Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's ghost got its hopes up when it started reading your article, only to find hollow disappointment. "Environmental factors" have always been capable of "altering" our DNA -- for extreme cases, see Hiroshima or Chernobyl. A mutation is a mutation, regardless of cause.

Lewis Winders, Tasmania, Australia

Misleading title to state the relatively obvious.

DNA whether mutated randomly or through an external factor will lead to changes in offspring.

Environmental changes is too vague and suggests an indirect aspect to the alteration of DNA e.g a cold environment.

Russ, Glasgow,

Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. If MS increases among some women couldn't this imply they're becoming more genetically prone to it, possibly due to environmental contaminants, rather than that their siblings' DNA is 'learning' to resist it? Has part of Professor Ebers argument been left out?

JRM, London,

Have Ebers and Linklater read anything about "Mendelian Genetics"? I thought it was considered as intellectually sound as creationism. Richard Dawkins, please help!

JCH, Carllsle, Cumbria

Once again another amazing scientific 'revelation' by the media describing a medical breakthrough that's been known for years. Blatent publicity for the researchers involved. Since when was gene expression NOT affected by environmental factors?

DM, West Yorkshire, UK

Wikipedia "In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression caused by environmental factors, not by changes in the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life. Sometimes the changes last for multiple generations."

John, London,

Going on the article, this doesn't seem all that heretical, and it doesn't really challenge the importance of genetic inheritance. I assume that that the author is aware of the disease we call cancer? Cancer is the result of gene mutation, caused by environmental factors eg. smoking or radiation.

John Smith, London,

Not heresy (doubt RD would disagree that environment can cause gene mutations that are transferable) - worked with a company 10 years ago that studied protein expression and even then they were talking about gene modification - the point is, it happens at the genetic level not at the species level.

Huw Sayer, London, England