Genetic Testing For Geekiness?

Paul Johnson writes "MSNBC is carrying an article wondering about how to handle a possible future genetic test for autism. Raising a severely autistic child is a heartbreaking grind, and many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome. But this might also prevent the birth of future geniuses too. The article flippantly uses Bill Gates as an example (Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome), although Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are also thought to have been similarly "different". And there is some reason to believe that "geekiness" in general is actually the place where autism shades into 'normal'."

Comments

The same is true for most inventors and scientists

[WillAffleckUW]

Parents will tend to choose the jocks with five year lifetime careers who contribute nothing to humanity instead, dooming us to a world of know-nothings and really really boring parties - I've been at a bunch of them, and let me tell you, they'll bore the paints off you ...

Genetic testing will probably cause more harm than good - we need to have it screened for medical uses only, such things as fatal diseases, not What's Hot This Week ...

Let the State decide

[Pope Benedict XVI]

Many people believe that "God" alone should determine how many and what sort of babies we have, but I really think that is stupid. Serious matters like this should be decided by the State.

This is wrong

[John Seminal]

Raising a severely autistic child is a heartbreaking grind, and many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice

So, science is so good now that we can predict with 100% accuracy if someone will be able to contribute OR OR OR live a happy life?

I know so many people with IQ's over 110, well educated, well employed, good citizens who are miserable. I also know one girl who is in a wheel chair, she has some genetic disorder, and she lights up a room with her smiles and laughs.

Re:This is wrong

[01000011011101000111]

That's not surprising. The higher the IQ, the more of the crappyness of the world you actually *understand*. And the more you understand, the more miserable it makes you.

Re:This is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually smarter people tend to be better adjusted than most folks. It is a myth that intelligence leads to misery.
Also this entire topic is hilarious. Linking autism to geekiness?
I can only assume most people have never genuinely encountered an autistic or person with aspergers.
They don't function well, and if newton or einstien had it, it is to their credit they achieved what they did, inspite of their condition.

Re:This is wrong

[Dormann]

Also this entire topic is hilarious. Linking autism to geekiness? I can only assume most people have never genuinely encountered an autistic or person with aspergers.

Current estimates place someone with Asperger's Syndrome in every few hundred people. TFA doesn't do a good job of pointing out that Asperger's is what they call "high functioning autism", meaning that most of those with it can function and blend in with society if they choose to.

The correlation seems so reasonable to me, it's barely worth mentioning. I would speculate that a typical layperson definition of geek would be "An intelligent, but socially awkward person. A loner." Autism literally means self-ism. "One who is drawn into one's self."

Given the site you're reading now, I'd say odds are pretty good that you're working with someone that has some form of autism. They probably forgot to mention it to you.

Social awkwardness != genius

[the_rev_matt]

What drives me crazy is all the programmers I've known who make the connection "I'm socially awkward and like computers, so I am a misunderstood genius and I'm better than everybody!"

And this goes hand in hand with every kid who can stack blocks by the age of 3 being 'gifted'. Of course, there's a whole industry dedicated to 'helping' (read: profiting off of) parents who believe their child is gifted.

Gratuitous Dilbert - THE KNACK!

[dsginter]

The Knack!

so sad

[danheskett]

consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome


That makes me very, very sad. My wife and I are expecting our first child, a girl, to be born in the next 4 weeks. There is a strong chance she will be born with Downs Syndrome.

Our doctors wanted to advise us about our "options". They wanted to run all kinds of tests, including amniocentesis and genetic testing, in order to be sure one way or another,so we could make an "informed" decision.

So, so sad. I just can't imagine anyone wanting to do such a thing - especially since we've seen her in full motion 3D video on two seperate occasions - smiling when we stroke her head, sucking her thumb, yawning when we wake her up after a nap - things that any baby would do.

My point of view -- not a political statement really. It's just heartbreaking. I fear for any culture that so highly values convenience, pride, and "perfectness" that it would cast aside those who we should be called to love and care for even more than the "perfect" little baby everyone hopes and prays for. And for the worst shame of all, doctors who repeatedly promote termination of even marginally defective babies and are constantly harping about options -alternatives! - to life.

I am under no illusions about how painful, difficult, and disappointing raising my daughter maybe if she turns out to have Downs, but believe me, I will love her and treat her as my daughter till I draw my last breath.

I really hope our culture doesn't continue to devolve into one that values only designer, perfect, genetically correct babies.

Re:so sad

[utexaspunk]

don't be so quick to judge those who don't make the same decisions as you. in other cultures a child born with such a defect would be left in the woods, or similarly cast out. there are many of us who would rather invest our parenting efforts and limited time raising a child who will grow up to be independent and able to carry on our genetic line.

not all of us believe that that cluster of cells which has implanted itself in a woman's uterus has a soul, or is even yet a human being with all the rights that accompany such status, and would rather stop a frustrating and problematic situation before it develops into an irreversible one.

don't get me wrong- i respect your choice. it's noble, and all that. but nobody should be forced to live with an avoidable anomalous situation and accept it as "god's will", as not everyone believes that.

Re:Where?

[damsa]

You can abort a fetus for any reason. Most popular reason is the prom dress won't fit right.

I probably would have been aborted

[Vile Slime]

I,

Am a decently successful human being, I run my own business, have held numerous significant jobs, have an advanced college degree.

But, I was born with a small level of Cerebral Palsy.

Just enough to make me limp and trip occasionally.

And other than constantly overhearing 4 year olds asking their parents why does that man walk that way in public I am just as "normal" as the next guy. Ok, normal might be too nice:-) But I'm trying.

When I entered pre-school I was automatically placed in the "special education" (that's what it was called then) class. Not one question was asked of my parents as to my cognitive abilities, etc. My Dad was livid to say the least.

But, what if I had been diagnosed in the womb with my CP would I even exist? Would a doctor have "convinced" my parents to abort?

The kind of testing described should be outlawed as far as I'm concerned.

We have already seen what happened in China, I believe it was, or was it India, when people started getting ultrasounds to determine if they were having a girl or a boy, then aborting the girl fetuses.

It's just a place society shouldn't go, at all.

Re:best ever headline on msnbc !

[Rei]

The whole "would you not have allowed X to be born" argument against abortion is somewhat of a fallacy: there's no way to tell in advance precisely what will become of a person in their lives, so if you want to create "geniuses", by the argument, you should spend your entire life having more children. So what if aborting a child has a 1/N chance of destroying a world-changing genius - having an additional child has that same 1/N chance of creating a new world-changing genius, so you better get started!

There may be some truth in an argument that "culling all people with 'Gene A' before they're born" (with the natural assumtpion that there will be other people born in their place) may have downsides if 'Gene A' has some positive side affects that aren't widely considered. But "would you have allowed (insert person here) to be born?" is a fallacy.