8 ms·

Now that we have access to the entire genome directly, instead of relying on twin and adoption studies, we are going to get many more of these insights. And it'

Now that we have access to the entire genome directly, instead of relying on twin and adoption studies, we are going to get many more of these insights. And it's not all going to be comfortable. There will be cries of biological essentialism, while the blank slate idea is no longer one that can be held by an educated rational person. On more controversial lines, see this http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1 http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1 study (N=280,000) that correlates specific genes with IQ.

adrianN 9y ago
I wonder how long it will take until some enterprising society will start a new eugenic breeding program, this round with a faster feedback loop. It could start as simple as extra tax breaks for desireable genotypes if they have children, or tax reductions for undesireables if they get long-term birth control. Already in you can reduce prison sentences by voluntary sterilization in Tennessee.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  IIRC, China is trying to do just that.
- PrimalDual 9y ago
  I am probably being naive but I see nothing wrong with the examples you listed. Isn't this how iceland essentially erradicated downs syndrome? Using information about genetics to inform how we steer the populations' gene pool sounds very good to me.
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  It doesn't even need to be breeding, it could be CRISPR technology. How close is that to the mass market? To some parents it could be very defensible as technology to fix a child's genetic defect, which was preventing longer life or peak brain function.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    Is CRISPR suitable for doing more than single location fixes? I feel that breeding would work better for traits such as intelligence or longevity that seem to be controlled by many genes, each of which has only a tiny influence.
  - perlgeek 9y ago
    According to this article, it's not yet ready for the mass market: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/gene-editor-crispr-won-t-fully-fix-sick-people-anytime-soon-here-s-why http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/gene-editor-crispr-wo... I'm not a biologist, but reading this sounds more like a few years till mass market, not the ominous "30 years" you hear when people really have no clue how long it's going to take :-)
- has2k1 9y ago
  Top down control is kind-of hard. Given increased availability of genetic data, democratised action is easier to envision. You start off with compatibility tests against genetic disorders [1]. Then those that lead to potentially the better offsprings [2]. That opens the door for egg/sperm selection [3]. Then third-party gene introductions [4]. All the way to complete designer babies. These action may even completely cut out evolution from the equation, but evolution can be sneaky. At every step of the way it becomes slightly more acceptable to push the boundaries just so slightly. [1] Been the case for many decades now in the case of sickle-cell anaemia, this affects partner selection. In the last decade selection against mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 i.e the "breast cancer genes", has lead to searches for egg donors. Also, some people with history of severe depression that runs in the family are self selecting against child bearing (this selection is more common among females). [2] This could even be pseudo-science at the beginning. [3] Sperm and egg banks already allow for a crude version of this. [4] Either natural or synthetic.
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  Some believe that Britain did this in the past; with the combination of the richer in society having many more children, and hanging (gene pool removal) criminals on a regular basis.
Arcsech 9y ago
There are two big risks, as I see it: 1) the human tendency to turn statistical averages into absolutes. Imagine genetic testing saying that gene A is associated with a slightly higher than average propensity for coding ability (say, 3%). Then we see people saying "Oh you can't code? Must not have gene A!" Or genetic testing revealing that someone doesn't have gene A, so they're told they can't code, even though they could very well have been great at it. All because of an extra 3% probability. 2) Making it impossible/unbearably expensive for people with genes that are correlated with higher risk of whatever conditions to get health care/insurance. We need to be really careful with how we talk about genetic insights as we gain more and more understanding, as well as what uses of that information we allow, or we're going to get ourselves into another period of atrocities justified by what boils down to eugenics. Perhaps not on the scale of genocide of entire populations, but still bad enough.
- zo1 9y ago
  I'd add 3) A Genetic arms race between nation states. It's only a matter of time before a nation state starts spending a not-so-insignificant amount of money on IVF + DNA-based screening to start picking good genetic offspring for their populace. It's only going to start becoming more and more plausible the cheaper we make this technology. Very awkward and important questions/decisions await us in the near future.
  - tosser350 9y ago
    China already paid people with high intelligence to ship them DNA for research in 2013, they are already doing embryo gene manipulation. They are years ahead of us due to not caring about ethics. Political correctness will be the death of the west. https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985 https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genet...
    - mcbits 9y ago
      Different ethics != not caring about ethics. And if not caring about ethics were the key to winning the nation-state game, the ethical response would be to tear it all down ASAP, which is usually quite unethical in practice.
tosser350 9y ago
The distribution of IQ scores by gender is also a big one. To deny differences is race you would have to basically throw out the theory of evolution, I've seen many already calling to ban studies on differences in intelligence. China will take over the world if that happens because they will create superhumans with it. If you want something really uncomfortable you should look into genetic heterozygosity and differentiation in humans. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woo...
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Yes, but let's not forget that the variation in IQ within races and genders is larger than between them.
  - Will_Parker 9y ago
    With gender, it's easy. There appears to be no solid evidence for any difference in IQ between men and women, in terms of averages.
  - haihaibye 9y ago
    The variation in altitude between the highest and lowest aircraft is greater than the difference between average altitudes of planes and cars.
    - hyperdunc 9y ago
      I could have worded it better but I'm sure you understand what I was trying to say.
balance_factor 9y ago
> instead of relying on twin and adoption studies Twin and adoption studies have never been reliable. They have ranged from dubious methodology to outright fraud such as in the case of Cyril Burt.
probe 9y ago
Siddhartha Mukherjee had a fantastic point about this on a recent Sam Harris Podcast - "The more specific we make tests, the more likely we'll find genetic reasons". If we define beautiful as having blue eyes and blonde hair, of course beauty is genetic! That's equally analogous to how we define intelligence and find it similarly heritable. More work needs to be done on the former before we can for sure talk about the latter.
- corporateslave3 9y ago
  That's a sly attempt at trying to eschew the existence of superiority, make no mistake, it exists
otakucode 9y ago
Luckily we already have ample proof that nothing is more important than diversity for survival of populations. Any desire to "optimize" for certain traits is inherently flawed and dangerous. 'Wouldn't it be great if everyone had the gene for a high IQ?' No, it wouldn't. It would make our population a target for parasitic and pathogenic systems which every successful system leads to. And without variation, they could eliminate us no matter how brilliant we might be.
- red75prime 9y ago
  Yeah, bacteria should not be taken lightly, they can evolve drills to chop through hazmat suits any moment.
  - otakucode 9y ago
    Bacteria are worrying with their exponential reproduction, but viruses are what worry me. Radically smaller, not alive (so there isn't anything to kill), just a little jumble of parts that if they happen to get bumped into one of your cells, hey, it hijacks everything and forces the cell to create copies of the little jumble of parts until it explodes.

adrianN 9y ago

I wonder how long it will take until some enterprising society will start a new eugenic breeding program, this round with a faster feedback loop. It could start as simple as extra tax breaks for desireable genotypes if they have children, or tax reductions for undesireables if they get long-term birth control. Already in you can reduce prison sentences by voluntary sterilization in Tennessee.

0xfeba 9y ago
IIRC, China is trying to do just that.
PrimalDual 9y ago
I am probably being naive but I see nothing wrong with the examples you listed. Isn't this how iceland essentially erradicated downs syndrome? Using information about genetics to inform how we steer the populations' gene pool sounds very good to me.
Will_Parker 9y ago
It doesn't even need to be breeding, it could be CRISPR technology. How close is that to the mass market? To some parents it could be very defensible as technology to fix a child's genetic defect, which was preventing longer life or peak brain function.
- adrianN 9y ago
  Is CRISPR suitable for doing more than single location fixes? I feel that breeding would work better for traits such as intelligence or longevity that seem to be controlled by many genes, each of which has only a tiny influence.
- perlgeek 9y ago
  According to this article, it's not yet ready for the mass market: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/gene-editor-crispr-won-t-fully-fix-sick-people-anytime-soon-here-s-why http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/gene-editor-crispr-wo... I'm not a biologist, but reading this sounds more like a few years till mass market, not the ominous "30 years" you hear when people really have no clue how long it's going to take :-)
has2k1 9y ago
Top down control is kind-of hard. Given increased availability of genetic data, democratised action is easier to envision. You start off with compatibility tests against genetic disorders [1]. Then those that lead to potentially the better offsprings [2]. That opens the door for egg/sperm selection [3]. Then third-party gene introductions [4]. All the way to complete designer babies. These action may even completely cut out evolution from the equation, but evolution can be sneaky. At every step of the way it becomes slightly more acceptable to push the boundaries just so slightly. [1] Been the case for many decades now in the case of sickle-cell anaemia, this affects partner selection. In the last decade selection against mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 i.e the "breast cancer genes", has lead to searches for egg donors. Also, some people with history of severe depression that runs in the family are self selecting against child bearing (this selection is more common among females). [2] This could even be pseudo-science at the beginning. [3] Sperm and egg banks already allow for a crude version of this. [4] Either natural or synthetic.
patrickg_zill 9y ago
Some believe that Britain did this in the past; with the combination of the richer in society having many more children, and hanging (gene pool removal) criminals on a regular basis.

Arcsech 9y ago

There are two big risks, as I see it: 1) the human tendency to turn statistical averages into absolutes. Imagine genetic testing saying that gene A is associated with a slightly higher than average propensity for coding ability (say, 3%). Then we see people saying "Oh you can't code? Must not have gene A!" Or genetic testing revealing that someone doesn't have gene A, so they're told they can't code, even though they could very well have been great at it. All because of an extra 3% probability. 2) Making it impossible/unbearably expensive for people with genes that are correlated with higher risk of whatever conditions to get health care/insurance. We need to be really careful with how we talk about genetic insights as we gain more and more understanding, as well as what uses of that information we allow, or we're going to get ourselves into another period of atrocities justified by what boils down to eugenics. Perhaps not on the scale of genocide of entire populations, but still bad enough.

zo1 9y ago
I'd add 3) A Genetic arms race between nation states. It's only a matter of time before a nation state starts spending a not-so-insignificant amount of money on IVF + DNA-based screening to start picking good genetic offspring for their populace. It's only going to start becoming more and more plausible the cheaper we make this technology. Very awkward and important questions/decisions await us in the near future.
- tosser350 9y ago
  China already paid people with high intelligence to ship them DNA for research in 2013, they are already doing embryo gene manipulation. They are years ahead of us due to not caring about ethics. Political correctness will be the death of the west. https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genetics-of-genius-1.12985 https://www.nature.com/news/chinese-project-probes-the-genet...
  - mcbits 9y ago
    Different ethics != not caring about ethics. And if not caring about ethics were the key to winning the nation-state game, the ethical response would be to tear it all down ASAP, which is usually quite unethical in practice.

tosser350 9y ago

The distribution of IQ scores by gender is also a big one. To deny differences is race you would have to basically throw out the theory of evolution, I've seen many already calling to ban studies on differences in intelligence. China will take over the world if that happens because they will create superhumans with it. If you want something really uncomfortable you should look into genetic heterozygosity and differentiation in humans. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woo...

hyperdunc 9y ago
Yes, but let's not forget that the variation in IQ within races and genders is larger than between them.
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  With gender, it's easy. There appears to be no solid evidence for any difference in IQ between men and women, in terms of averages.
- haihaibye 9y ago
  The variation in altitude between the highest and lowest aircraft is greater than the difference between average altitudes of planes and cars.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    I could have worded it better but I'm sure you understand what I was trying to say.

balance_factor 9y ago

> instead of relying on twin and adoption studies Twin and adoption studies have never been reliable. They have ranged from dubious methodology to outright fraud such as in the case of Cyril Burt.

probe 9y ago

Siddhartha Mukherjee had a fantastic point about this on a recent Sam Harris Podcast - "The more specific we make tests, the more likely we'll find genetic reasons". If we define beautiful as having blue eyes and blonde hair, of course beauty is genetic! That's equally analogous to how we define intelligence and find it similarly heritable. More work needs to be done on the former before we can for sure talk about the latter.

corporateslave3 9y ago
That's a sly attempt at trying to eschew the existence of superiority, make no mistake, it exists

otakucode 9y ago

Luckily we already have ample proof that nothing is more important than diversity for survival of populations. Any desire to "optimize" for certain traits is inherently flawed and dangerous. 'Wouldn't it be great if everyone had the gene for a high IQ?' No, it wouldn't. It would make our population a target for parasitic and pathogenic systems which every successful system leads to. And without variation, they could eliminate us no matter how brilliant we might be.

red75prime 9y ago
Yeah, bacteria should not be taken lightly, they can evolve drills to chop through hazmat suits any moment.
- otakucode 9y ago
  Bacteria are worrying with their exponential reproduction, but viruses are what worry me. Radically smaller, not alive (so there isn't anything to kill), just a little jumble of parts that if they happen to get bumped into one of your cells, hey, it hijacks everything and forces the cell to create copies of the little jumble of parts until it explodes.