The article discusses the debate between "vulnerability genes" and "plasticity genes" in the context of gene-environment (G×E) interactions. The classic diathesis-stress model suggests that some individuals are more vulnerable to adversity due to their genetic makeup, while the differential susceptibility framework proposes that individuals vary in their responsiveness to both positive and negative environmental influences. Recent studies on genes such as monoamine oxidase-A (MAOA), 5-HTTLPR, and dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) support the differential susceptibility perspective, indicating that genes may not only increase vulnerability to adversity but also enhance the benefits of supportive environments. For example, individuals with the low-MAOA-activity allele are more likely to develop antisocial behavior when exposed to adversity but may also benefit more from supportive environments. Similarly, the 's' allele of 5-HTTLPR is associated with increased depression in high-stress contexts but may also confer protection in low-stress environments. The article argues that the diathesis-stress model may oversimplify the complex interactions between genes and the environment, and that differential susceptibility provides a more accurate framework for understanding how genetic factors influence behavior and mental health. The findings suggest that genes may not be solely 'vulnerability genes' but can also be 'plasticity genes' that influence responses to environmental conditions. The article highlights the importance of considering both positive and negative environmental influences in G×E research and calls for a broader approach that includes measures of environmental support and competence to better understand the role of genetic factors in human development.The article discusses the debate between "vulnerability genes" and "plasticity genes" in the context of gene-environment (G×E) interactions. The classic diathesis-stress model suggests that some individuals are more vulnerable to adversity due to their genetic makeup, while the differential susceptibility framework proposes that individuals vary in their responsiveness to both positive and negative environmental influences. Recent studies on genes such as monoamine oxidase-A (MAOA), 5-HTTLPR, and dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) support the differential susceptibility perspective, indicating that genes may not only increase vulnerability to adversity but also enhance the benefits of supportive environments. For example, individuals with the low-MAOA-activity allele are more likely to develop antisocial behavior when exposed to adversity but may also benefit more from supportive environments. Similarly, the 's' allele of 5-HTTLPR is associated with increased depression in high-stress contexts but may also confer protection in low-stress environments. The article argues that the diathesis-stress model may oversimplify the complex interactions between genes and the environment, and that differential susceptibility provides a more accurate framework for understanding how genetic factors influence behavior and mental health. The findings suggest that genes may not be solely 'vulnerability genes' but can also be 'plasticity genes' that influence responses to environmental conditions. The article highlights the importance of considering both positive and negative environmental influences in G×E research and calls for a broader approach that includes measures of environmental support and competence to better understand the role of genetic factors in human development.