5 ms·

"Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations"... Where in the world are you getting this from? This is unlikely to be true for a long time. Intell

"Changes in traits, such as IQ, by 5+ standard deviations"... Where in the world are you getting this from? This is unlikely to be true for a long time. Intelligence, as far as genetics controls it, is a complex trait... with few if any large effect (especially positive) mutations.

wycs 8y ago
Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editing. Editing hundreds of alleles may sound incredible to you now, but I don’t think it will sound so incredible for long. Even ignoring GM, embryo selection can get us pretty far with current technology: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection
- krastanov 8y ago
  Just checking: you do know that there is a difference between change of "5 standard deviations" and change of "5 IQ points". 5 standard deviations is equal to "1 in 3.5 million", which makes your claim fairly farfetched with the tech of today or of the future decade or two, especially given how IQ is much more function of nurture than of nature.
  - wycs 8y ago
    I am aware of this. Genetic engineering implies far more power than Gwern mentions for one round of embryo selection. 5 standard deviations may sound a lot for you, but in animal breeding we have changed the distribution of various traits by far more than 5 standard deviations. Into the dozens.
- skosuri 8y ago
  What you are saying is just not supported by evidence. For example, polygenic analysis of the latest meta-analysis from >250K individuals seems to say that the top several hundred variants explain in aggregrate only 5.2% of the variation in intelligence. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 (Supplement section 2.3.3 if you don't have access).
  - carbocation 8y ago
    In addition, even with that much or more explanatory power, we generally do not think we have necessarily identified causal variants in most cases. We identify groups of associated variants that signify an interesting locus. There isn’t currently a generic framework that lets us decide which ones are causal.
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      You need causal variants to do editing, but tagging variants are sufficient for selecting.
  - wycs 8y ago
    There is no human with all the positive variants; it is the the distribution of these variants that explains 5.2%. GM would allow you to create such a human. That paper does not imply what you think it implies: that editing all these variants in an individual embryo would have a small effect. An individual with the top 200 IQ-enhancing variants edited in (and an otherwise normal genome) would be far, far smarter than than than you seem to think, even though the variants edited only explain 5.2% of the differences within the population.
    - skosuri 8y ago
      Ahh I see, you are just making stuff up.
      - wycs 8y ago
        No. I think the claim "one can raise IQ several standard deviations by editing <200 alleles" is likely true:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf
        skosuri 8y ago
        Yeah, know his work, and I don't think he'd agree with you: http://www.genetics.org/content/210/2/477 http://www.genetics.org/content/210/2/477
- blueblimp 8y ago
  I'm bullish on selection approaches generally, but I think editing is not as promising at the moment. Editing via double-strand breaks is just way too unreliable for use in embryos, and base editing is too limited to make use of GWAS info. This could change if the tech improves, but it would need to improve A LOT.

wycs 8y ago

Though thousands of alleles contribute to intelligence, we would only need to edit a few hundred to get extremely large increases in IQ, especially if you perform a round of embryo selection (or even iterated embryo selection) before editing. Editing hundreds of alleles may sound incredible to you now, but I don’t think it will sound so incredible for long. Even ignoring GM, embryo selection can get us pretty far with current technology: https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

krastanov 8y ago
Just checking: you do know that there is a difference between change of "5 standard deviations" and change of "5 IQ points". 5 standard deviations is equal to "1 in 3.5 million", which makes your claim fairly farfetched with the tech of today or of the future decade or two, especially given how IQ is much more function of nurture than of nature.
- wycs 8y ago
  I am aware of this. Genetic engineering implies far more power than Gwern mentions for one round of embryo selection. 5 standard deviations may sound a lot for you, but in animal breeding we have changed the distribution of various traits by far more than 5 standard deviations. Into the dozens.
skosuri 8y ago
What you are saying is just not supported by evidence. For example, polygenic analysis of the latest meta-analysis from >250K individuals seems to say that the top several hundred variants explain in aggregrate only 5.2% of the variation in intelligence. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6 (Supplement section 2.3.3 if you don't have access).
- carbocation 8y ago
  In addition, even with that much or more explanatory power, we generally do not think we have necessarily identified causal variants in most cases. We identify groups of associated variants that signify an interesting locus. There isn’t currently a generic framework that lets us decide which ones are causal.
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    You need causal variants to do editing, but tagging variants are sufficient for selecting.
- wycs 8y ago
  There is no human with all the positive variants; it is the the distribution of these variants that explains 5.2%. GM would allow you to create such a human. That paper does not imply what you think it implies: that editing all these variants in an individual embryo would have a small effect. An individual with the top 200 IQ-enhancing variants edited in (and an otherwise normal genome) would be far, far smarter than than than you seem to think, even though the variants edited only explain 5.2% of the differences within the population.
  - skosuri 8y ago
    Ahh I see, you are just making stuff up.
    - wycs 8y ago
      No. I think the claim "one can raise IQ several standard deviations by editing <200 alleles" is likely true:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf
      - skosuri 8y ago
        Yeah, know his work, and I don't think he'd agree with you: http://www.genetics.org/content/210/2/477 http://www.genetics.org/content/210/2/477
blueblimp 8y ago
I'm bullish on selection approaches generally, but I think editing is not as promising at the moment. Editing via double-strand breaks is just way too unreliable for use in embryos, and base editing is too limited to make use of GWAS info. This could change if the tech improves, but it would need to improve A LOT.