The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest philosophical issues within psychology. 

Nature refers to all of the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are – from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics.

Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture.

Contemporary Views of Nature Versus Nurture (2nd link)

Throughout the history of psychology, however, this debate has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach. Psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of the naturalist Charles Darwin, coined both the terms nature versus nurture and eugenics, and believed that intelligence was the result of genetics. Galton believed that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.  

Today, the majority of experts believe that both nature and nurture influence behavior and development. However, the issue still rages on in many areas such as in the debate on the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence. While few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, researchers and experts still debate the degree to which biology and environment influence behavior.

Please refer to attached links for further info.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm

https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Our genetic destiny is not necessarily written in stone; it can be influenced by several factors, such as social factors, as well as environmental influences among which we live, including anything from light and temperature to exposure to chemicals. The environment in which a person is raised can trigger the expression of behavior for which a person is genetically predisposed, while the same person raised in a different environment may exhibit different behavior.

Long-standing debates have taken place over the idea of which factor is more important, genes or environment. Is a person destined to have a particular outcome in life because of his or her genetic makeup, or can the environment (and the people in it) work to change what might be considered "bad" genes? Today, it is generally agreed upon that neither genes nor environment work alone; rather, the two work in tandem to create the people we ultimately become.

Environmental elements like light and temperature have been shown to induce certain changes in genetic expression; additionally, exposure to drugs and chemicals can significantly affect how genes are expressed. People often inherit sensitivity to the effects of various environmental risk factors, and different individuals may be differently affected by exposure to the same environment in medically significant ways. For example, sunlight exposure has a much stronger influence on skin cancer risk in fair-skinned humans than in individuals with an inherited tendency for darker skin. The color of a person's skin is largely genetic, but the influence of the environment will affect these genes in different ways.

Gene-environment correlations, known as rGE, can be explained in 3 particular ways—passive, evocative, or active. ".....

The full text can be read from the attached link, I found it very interesting and very useful too...

https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/biological-foundations-of-psychology-3/genetics-and-behavior-31/gene-environment-correlations-nature-or-nurture-139-12674/

Thnxs..

The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest philosophical issues within psychology. 

Nature refers to all of the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are – from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics.

Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture.

Contemporary Views of Nature Versus Nurture (2nd link)

Throughout the history of psychology, however, this debate has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach. Psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of the naturalist Charles Darwin, coined both the terms nature versus nurture and eugenics, and believed that intelligence was the result of genetics. Galton believed that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.  

Today, the majority of experts believe that both nature and nurture influence behavior and development. However, the issue still rages on in many areas such as in the debate on the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence. While few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, researchers and experts still debate the degree to which biology and environment influence behavior.

Please refer to attached links for further info.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm

https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

Thanks for sharing this question with me, Dear Sufia: Yes. I suppose that education, particularly in childhood, and a good social environment can influence positively the genetic characteristics of all persons (adaption of the species to the environment in Darwin Theory on the evolution of the species).

It is generally assumed that human beings perceive and understand the world through the senses, and that that epistemic connection with the world occurs via the transmission of information from the world through those senses into a mind. The converse perspective on this same assumption is that the environment influences individuals, both microgenetically and developmentally, via the information that is generated in that environment and transmitted into the minds of those individuals.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/EnvtoPerson.pdf

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Our-Personality-Is-It-Genetically-Inherited-or-Determined-by-The-Environmental-Factors-28413.shtml

The effects of the childhood environment, favorable or unfavorable, interact with simplicity – suggests that the essence of a person is the inevitable.

https://wearelumos.org/sites/default/files/research/Perry%20ChildExperience.pdf

I think the influence of upbringing and the environment has a direct impact on the natural behavior of an individual   I  am not sure the upbringing impact on genetic characteristics. But it is known that the environment has a role in stimulating certain genes.

The probability of occurrence of a given disease is closely associated with the environmental risk and the consequences of the incident vary greatly from individual to individual.

To better clarify this concept is well cite an example: exposure to a diet particularly rich in glucose for a long period of time can lead some individuals, but not others, to develop diabetes mellitus type 2. This disease is characterized by abnormalities in the production and efficacy of the hormone insulin, which makes the body unable to maintain the level of glucose in the blood below a certain value. In the onset of this disease, the genetic factor is what determines individual differences in vulnerability, while exposure to a diet is the environmental factor that can induce the pathological state.

Environmental factors influence genetic constitution

Thank you for this question which reminded me of a debate between a postgraduate student friend & me several decades ago. He was of the opinion that homosexuality & alcoholism tendencies came out as a result of the genes & therefore, a person cannot be held responsible for such acts. Of course, I was against this idea of freeing a person from responsibility based on genetics. In my opinion, the environment & genes play an essential role in the development of an individual. The environment affects individual growth differently depending on genes, but both parts are needed to shape up a person’s process of becoming mature. However, neither factor can be said to have more influence upon a development.

It definitely does. The studies on epigenetic - ever since the very idea of the epigenetic landscape by Waddington - has meant a most significant contribution to the understanding of human livings. The rest is going into every single dimension of the epigenetic dimension: education, nurture, etc.

Oops! Somebody on this thread is using the "Control-C Control-V" research method, as some of my more cynical undergraduate students put it. Copying and pasting is really not contributing to the discussion. At least quotation marks could be used, and sources cited! The strange thing is that several colleagues are naive enough to upvote plagiarism. (Why do I suddenly feel like the little boy in the story of the emperor's new clothes? Perhaps I should just be silent and click on the upvote button as well?)

I get your point, dear David. You are quire elegant in your remark - indeed.

Thank you for understanding, Carlos. Experience has taught me that pointing out plagiarism, in many academic circles, is frowned upon even more than committing plagiarism. So I am sometimes on the horns of a dilemma, forced to choose between frank honesty and social harmony. Hopefully I have learned from experience and can find an adequate intermediate position.

Dear David,

Congratulations to your remark. It is a bit bothering that some – or many? – RG threads become a race of plagiarism. The raisons may be desire for scores and polishing the vanity.

Thank you, András. But I'm afraid I have distracted my colleagues from this interesting discussion on environment and genetics, for which I apologize.

Dear David, believe me: without flattering you, that is clearly a sign of wisdom. Wisdom, which is easily said but very hard to reach/live.

Never mind about distracting the discussion: this is exactly a matter of authorship (sort of genetics) and environment (plagiarism, etc.).

Each child in a family inhabits unique niche in the ecology of the family or microenvironments, wherein the formative aspects of development are presumed to occur.

Source - Braungart, J. M., Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1992). Genetic influence on tester-rated infant temperament as assessed by Bayley's Infant Behavior Record: Non- adoptive and adoptive siblings and twins. De- velopmental Psychology

Dear András ... Nice talk show ... "The raisons may be desire for scores and polishing the vanity". Sufia Zaman: “Does upbringing and environment affect the genetic characteristics of a person?” 

The followings are from Wikipedia page on "Nature versus nurture" :

Nature versus nurture is a debate concerning the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.

"Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society"

 ~ Albert Einstein , Why Socialism? (1949), Monthly Review

"Variations in individual "educational attainment" (essentially, whether students complete high school or college) cannot be attributed to inherited genetic differences. That is the finding of a new study reported in Science magazine (Rietveld et al. 2013). According to this research, fully 98% of all variation in educational attainment is accounted for by factors other than a person’s simple genetic makeup."

 ~ Jonathan Latham, Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda (August 2013),

I had the advantage of a home where people talked about interesting things, and I had intelligent parents and I went to decent schools ... I was born at the right time and place. I won the ‘Ovarian Lottery.'Warren Buffett, The Snowball:

 ~ Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder. Reported by Sue Halpern in Making It, in the New York Review of Books

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Yes, this is to do with 'Epigenetic' (as oppose to Genetic), as mentioned by Carlos. 'Epi'- in Greek: "over, outside of". The environment factors/cues can affect our gene expressions-- by turning on or turning off certain genes. Researches have found that even identical twins (with exact the same genetic background), their lifespans can be different depending on their lifestyles. In an extreme case: one can be very healthy and the other one can develop cancer in their lifetime. This has become a hot area for research.

For more info, you can read more here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/identical-twins-differences-focus-of-epigenetics-studies-1.2849795

I have just done a research project on dyslexic adults, but they have just been diagnosed. The research show that when children with undiagnosed dyslexia in school are bullied, humiliated and taunted by bullies, peers or parents their self-esteem is affected from childhood into adulthood. The results is that they receive no qualification and leaving no job. with the dual support of the teachers and the parents, children self-esteem increases and they achieve qualifications, in adulthood they achieve jobs and even up for promotion. therefore, without the right schooling and support and love from family and support from both primary and secondary school teachers can assist in children upbringing,

You asked, does upbringing and environment affect the genetic characteristics of a person? Dear colleague, education, environment and its protection not understood without what you call a person (man). When a person (man) brought up in a natural and/or cultivated environment, healthy and with good economic conditions, the impact with positive effects seen with genetic characteristics of a person (man) and the opposite!

Thanks Dear Vera, for agreeing so much with me, for your up vote, and for reading my thoughts. In fact I was thinking in repeating my answer, showing the importance of the education. Like that, I can avoid to use the quote marks. Feel free to repeat my answer all times that you want. A researcher should never forget its good references.

Yes, i think that bad environment with its several pollutants could affects some genetics. The Cancer disease confirm this issue..

Education and good social milieu could have good impact on the personality and character of a person,  i don't think that it could affects the genetics who is inborn

Dear Sofia

Yes, I suppose that all genes that we have need suitable environment to express their phenotypic potential , for this the education provide suitable environment for certain genes related with personality of individual and all his achievements to give their complete expression .

Good Luck