According to this view, it is not a question of whether our children's genes (nature) will single-handedly determine their potential for gifted development, but how the complex routes by which our efforts (nurture) and their fortuitous circumstances might work together to activate those genes. (Ridley, M., 2003).
Though our now-changing thinking that development of one's potential is no longer only about the environment in which one happens to be conceived and remains to grow and develop, we need to consider multiple environments that might enhance opportunities. In this thinking mode, Subomik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Arnold (2003) revisited the idea that there are choices of environmental factors that can ideally enhance or impede talent development. Fortunately, our optimism as primary educators in the past often led us to believe that, since there was only a limited amount of control over each child's genetic heritage, we would just have to focus on making the best possible use of whatever environment we could provide.
In this vein of thinking, scientists have begun recently to discover and emphasize the intricate connection and interplay between our nature (genetic blueprint) and our nurture (the specifics of the ways in which the environment interacts on those genetic map points). We might then assume that Bill Gates did not become the fantastically wealthy technological wizard he is simply because he inherited such a unique set of genes. More complexly, he developed a rich number of specific abilities, supported fortuitously by the environment into which he was born and the continuing guidance of parents and teachers in a setting richly endowed with available resources that he sensibly and may have even wisely chosen to apply. We might also realize that accused East Coast sniper John Lee Malvo did not become the decadent criminal he currently stands accused of being simply because his genetic blueprint was flawed, nor only because he endured such a dysfunctional youth. Instead, a complex set of interacting circumstances brought him into contact with questionable resources that he chose to assimilate. Perhaps it was because he sensed a lack of options or was influenced by negative human interactions--a convoluting path for the generic heritage he brought with him--with his resources perhaps even turning off genes important to a more positive development. Thus, in fact, we have to consider just how parents, family, and society became the "promoters" and "enhancers" of Gates' and Malvo's biologically installed individual maps for each of their unique developmental paths. On yet another plane, other authors have examined how much and what kind of help a child might need in developing exceptional abilities in different domains in and beyond school-based contexts.
Useful to your thinking at this point would be information on the ecological theories of Bronfenbrenner and Lerner regarding how we might envision the host of environments and their convoluting interactions that