Genome Researchers Wants Your Genes

ACT score of 35 or 36? by _0xd0ad · 2011-08-20 09:08 · Score: 1

Those with a 33 (like me) need not apply, I guess.

Re:ACT score of 35 or 36? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-08-20 10:57 · Score: 1

"Those with a 33 (like me) need not apply, I guess."
Nonsense! I'm sure they'll need a control group. At least that's what I suggested when I applied.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:ACT score of 35 or 36? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 11:08 · Score: 2

Logically, they'd want both those with high and low intelligence, to see what the differences were. This sounds more like a breeding program (let's breed intelligent western-looking kids to be our next generation of spies) or, more likely, just another hoax.
Of course, if it IS an attempt to get western-looking donors of high intelligence for a breeding program, they'll be disappointed - most of them will look asian :-)
Re:ACT score of 35 or 36? by KingMotley · 2011-08-20 12:52 · Score: 1

But those with a 36 (like me) could.
Re:ACT score of 35 or 36? by Kreigaffe · 2011-08-20 14:12 · Score: 1

Wow, and they're looking for 1580 SAT scores or better (verbal/math only, apparently, which is how it was when i took it, 1600 max).
That's 780V and 800M. Nothing less than perfection in math. There's a joke about the chinese and math in here somewhere, I'm sure of it.

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:ACT score of 35 or 36? by mrchaotica · 2011-08-21 08:59 · Score: 1

There's no reason that SAT score couldn't come from an 800V and 780M, you know.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Intrusion by Wowsers · 2011-08-20 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

After World War 2 people were appalled to find out that the Nazi government were building up files of peoples measurements of faces and other such measurements to show / prove their master race theory. Isn't having DNA taken the exact same thing? There should be outrage over this kind of thing and where it could possibly lead mankind.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.

Re:Intrusion by _0xd0ad · 2011-08-20 09:12 · Score: 1

There should be outrage over this kind of thing and where it could possibly lead mankind.
Better?
Re:Intrusion by icebraining · 2011-08-20 09:16 · Score: 2

It's not intrusion since they're looking for volunteers.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Intrusion by elsurexiste · 2011-08-20 09:39 · Score: 2

Consider this scenario: let's say that, due to whatever correlation (e.g. exposure to testosterone/finger length), those measurements indeed mapped to greater brain weight, less cancer risk, you name it. What happens next? Shall we drop those scientific findings because they are politically incorrect?

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:Intrusion by zakeria · 2011-08-20 09:57 · Score: 1

Your bang on the ball mate, and China should be feared!!
Re:Intrusion by simcop2387 · 2011-08-20 15:43 · Score: 1

While it is true we don't really know why they're after this (their motivations are what we should be appalled at), in this case it's voluntary. With the Nazi's many of their subjects for those purposes did not have a choice. So at least their methods in this case are better in that regard.
Re:Intrusion by KingAlanI · 2011-08-20 20:28 · Score: 1

I'm leery of committing the "reductio ad Hitlerum" ("it's wrong just because Hitler did it") fallacy here. (However, "Hitler did this, and this is wrong because X, so Hitler was wrong in this regard” is perfectly logical; you do seem to take that approach.
This particular discussion also doesn't get into other things the Nazis did, or other things that China is doing.
However, I wonder if eugenics based on things like severe mental/physical disability is different in a practical sense from racial/ethnic/religious purges. I wonder if it would make any sense to take a genetic approach to the issue of genetic disabilities; please note that this specifically excludes nongenetic disabilities.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Re:Intrusion by nukenerd · 2011-08-20 21:36 · Score: 1

I call Godwin's Law, and BS.

Of course people were not "appalled". It was once quite common to take head measurements; it was called "Having your head examined". It was regarded on a similar level as fortune telling - seriously by some, or as a bit of fun by others. Thomas Hardy had it done for example, and there is a scene in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" where Marlow has it done as part of a company medical.

Later "Having your head examined" became a joke term, eg saying to someone about to try someting risky: "You ought to have your head examined!".

Anyway, you think any research and knowledge DNA should be banned? Burn all the books about should we?
Re:Intrusion by khallow · 2011-08-20 21:53 · Score: 2

After World War 2 people were appalled to find out that the Nazi government were building up files of peoples measurements of faces and other such measurements to show / prove their master race theory. Isn't having DNA taken the exact same thing? There should be outrage over this kind of thing and where it could possibly lead mankind.
Two observations to note here. First, the files of measurements would have made no difference to the conclusion. The Nazis already knew what the "master race" was going to be. It was an empty ritual with a predetermined outcome. Second, how would you have expressed your disapproval of the Nazi's gimmick in a way that would matter?

In other words, the Nazi research didn't cause the Nazi government nor their loathsome ideology. Nor would outrage at such research have made one wit of difference. So why should there be outrage at this Chinese research and what form should it take? My concern here is that there will be outrage and it will harm ethical developed world research instead.
Re:Intrusion by andymadigan · 2011-08-21 02:43 · Score: 1

Incorrect, while the One Child Policy actually targets one specific ethnic group, it has led to a large number of female abortions. Of course, that issue may be specific to China. The policy also really isn't effective in selecting certain genes, it will simply reduce the percentage of the population in that ethnic group (which is current the largest in China).

If the same policy were applied to a smaller ethnic group, say the Amish (I choose the Amish because they are an isolated group that occasionally faces discrimination in the U.S.), it would have the effect of slowly destroying their communities and culture. That may not constitute an atrocity but it certainly isn't moral.

Further, I think anyone can immediately see the problem with fining a family for having too many children (they're likely strapped for cash as it is). The effect of this might be reduced in a communist country, I'm not clear on the level of social programs for families in China.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Re:Intrusion by AmiMoJo · 2011-08-21 23:34 · Score: 1

Well you can either ignore the findings or start genetically selecting or modifying babies and hope you know what you are doing.
We already do that kind of thing by looking for problems in the unborn, and optionally terminating the pregnancy if the child has a severe disability. Well, actually it doesn't have to be that severe, in the UK something like cleft palette is enough. I'm not going to get into making a judgement here, I am just pointing out that we are already half way down that very slippery slope.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Intrusion by AmiMoJo · 2011-08-21 23:37 · Score: 1

The goal was to try and breed the master race by favouring parents who were more likely to produce children with the traits they wanted. It is unknown how far that would have gone but there was consideration given to enforced sterilisation on an even larger scale than they were already doing it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Intrusion by khallow · 2011-08-22 03:20 · Score: 1

The goal was to try and breed the master race by favouring parents who were more likely to produce children with the traits they wanted. It is unknown how far that would have gone but there was consideration given to enforced sterilisation on an even larger scale than they were already doing it.
Yes, this is all well known. Again I ask the question. Why protest when the protest would be insignificant? Even if the Chinese (or some private entity that happens to be working with the current Chinese government) are trying to breed a master race behind the scenes, so what? Your and Wowsers's disapproval means nothing to them. Nor does global "outrage" which traditionally is toothless.

To state the obvious, only overthrow of the current Chinese government by peaceful means or by force would make any difference. Nobody seems willing to touch that.

Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it... by deains · 2011-08-20 09:09 · Score: 4, Funny

It's got to be super-soldiers.

Re:Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it... by Soralin · 2011-08-20 09:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

They'll engineer super-soldiers to be so smart that they'll end up resolving conflicts through rational discussion rather than violence.
Re:Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it... by KingAlanI · 2011-08-20 20:32 · Score: 1

I'll spell out the apparent XKCD reference: http://xkcd.com/356/

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Re:Everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-20 21:01 · Score: 1

So what happens when the soldiers suggest that each of the Chinese minorities gets their own country?
In fact the EU model is something that would work if each of the Chinese provinces became countries. The differences between the provinces are far more than those between the US states, and differences between EU countries are too great for it to stay as it is for too much longer.

Valid evolutionary strategy? by benjamindees · 2011-08-20 09:17 · Score: 1

Anyone smart enough to qualify should be smart enough to hold out for a better offer. :|

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"

Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by hedwards · 2011-08-20 09:34 · Score: 1

My thought was that they shouldn't be using SAT, ACT or GRE scores as they're known to be more influenced by ones household income and motivation than intellect. Despite the complaints, the reality is that a properly designed and normed IQ test would be far more informative than any of those tests would be in this area.
As for the other qualifications, not going to be of any sort of meaningful help as there are tons of ways in which one can win them, they aren't likely to find any useful genes as a result.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by greg1104 · 2011-08-20 10:16 · Score: 1

Given when he was born and normal school progression, Feynman's IQ test would have happened around somewhere around 1933. At that point in time, it was likely an early Stanford-Binet test, which was only slightly older than Feynman himself then. I seriously doubt the 124 score had any accuracy, given it's believed Feynman was already wandering around doing Calculus around the same age he took the test.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 11:37 · Score: 1

IQ tests are like Mensa - more than 99% of the people qualified to join are also smart enough to realize Mensa is a scam.
The ones who bleat the hardest about how IQ is so important are the ones who are so stupid that, despite having a high IQ, they have to pay $60 a year to a club that will attest to their worth so they can feel good about themselves.
If they were really smart, they would have quoted Grouch Marx instead when someone tried to pitch it to them - "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by SomePgmr · 2011-08-20 11:45 · Score: 1

Or they just like the company of reasonably intelligent people once in awhile and the various social events they hold.

I'm not a member, nor would I likely qualify, but I don't see a problem with people joining a group based on something they all have in common. That's what most groups are, after all.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 12:16 · Score: 1

I'm not a member, nor would I likely qualify, but I don't see a problem with people joining a group based on something they all have in common. That's what most groups are, after all.

Try this on for size. "We want you to join our group of blonde, blue-eyed, fair-skinned people." I qualify, but if someone asked me that, I'd be creeped out. Are they KKK? Neo-nazis? White Supremists?
"We want you to pay $60 a year to belong to a group of people whose IQ puts them in the top 2%. Benefits include being able to meet others who belong to the same group." Like more than 99% of those who qualify, I am not that lame. Intelligence is WAY more than a culturally and economically biased test score.
Why would I want to hang out with people like me, when I can hang out with people who are different, and thus we're more interesting to each other?
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by hedwards · 2011-08-20 12:20 · Score: 1

I take it your score wasn't high enough to gain entrance.
Believe it or not, sometimes it's nice to have people available that are cognitively strong enough that they represent some challenge. It's astonishingly annoying to argue with people that lack the education and cognitive faculties to put up a decent argument.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-20 13:03 · Score: 1

So.. everyone with a high IQ must be a boring Buzzkillingtong that can only make jokes about the archduke?
How can the mensa test have cultural bias? I remember doing it when I was 17 I didn't see a single cultural or economically-biased question, passed barely, but I was not motivated to join because everyone started to script my future (oh you should be doctor, oh you should be a lawyer) I made myself friend of the head of the local office and "dumped the database" in a floppy. I'm still in touch with some of the people I knew then, the ROI from that test was like over 9000%.
You can have smarts and you can have mischief in the same envelope, thats more related on how you were raised. IQ is like an specification not a qualitative insight of anybody.
Trompe le monde!
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 13:18 · Score: 1
I take it your score wasn't high enough to gain entrance.

You take it wrong.

Believe it or not, sometimes it's nice to have people available that are cognitively strong enough that they represent some challenge. It's astonishingly annoying to argue with people that lack the education and cognitive faculties to put up a decent argument.

Then make it fun (or do you lack the *ahem* education and cognitive faculties to do so???). That's what white-hat trolling is for. Fun AND educational. Troll Tuesday exists for multiple reasons. You get out of it what you put into it, including the odd insight, as well as practice in dealing with people who suffer from illogical thinking or have never challenged their basic beliefs (and may be unable to do so without help and sufficient prodding).
Albert Einstein was once asked why he, an important professor, spent so much time helping an 8-year-old girl with her math homework. He said "It's simple. I help her with her math, and she shares her jellybeans."
He obviously wasn't in it for the jellybeans - he could have simply bought as many as he wanted. He probably also learned more from observing her than she did from him. More importantly, he also was smart enough to know that there's more to a person than just what they know or how "smart" they are.
Mensa ... the only intelligent thing to come out of that was the original idea of starting a group to soak people for $60 a year based on their IQ score being in the top 2%. And like someone who over-pays for anything else, they are now psychologically invested in justifying their irrational behaviour.
From an example mensa web site:

Becoming a member of Mensa can add new dimensions to your life. Making new friends and finding intellectual stimulation are givens, but what may be even more important is the feeling of belonging that grows when you are surrounded by honest-to-goodness peers --- people who are unique, yet paradoxically, are very much like you: inquisitive, fun-loving, open to new ideas and alternative viewpoints, and well-read.

Bunch of poseurs. If they're so smart, why can't they make new friends and find intellectual stimulation on their own. It sounds more like a program to help the socially retarded breed.
Or this - annotated by yours truly:
Membership Benefits
- Prestige & Exclusivity - because 99% of all geniuses won't join - they're not that stupid - you're "special", cupcake;
- Social & Friendship - because it's safe to be surrounded by people who are similarly lacking in social skills;
- Special Interest Groups - because nobody else will laugh at your collection of Star Wars figurines;
- Annual & Regional Gatherings - because we want to soak more money out of you;
- Networking / International Contacts - because you're too stupid to find them yourself;
- Confidence & Self-Esteem - hey - if you're so smart, why do you need to join a group of people who lack confidence and self-esteem to build up your confidence and self-esteem??? Go see a therapist. Get some counseling.
- Newsletters and Magazines - because we want still more of your money;
- Mensa Merchandise - because we want still more of your money;
- An Edge In Career Prospects - we threw this in because we know you're so desperate to believe this one you'll never question it, dumb-ass;
- Help For Gifted Children - because growing up with a parent who is so needy, any children will be "gifted" or "special" or "f*'d up" - they'll need all the help they can get to avoid shooting up the local school;
- Annual Scholarships for university students - because we'll give out $1,000 every year to one student who writes a 250-word essay on their plans ... it makes us look good and doesn't cost us anything, since the award is donated by someone else equally needy to see their name associated with Mensa, and it gives us a great prospect list.
+1 Great scam!
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by greg1104 · 2011-08-20 13:38 · Score: 1

I was pointing out that the predictive power of a circa 1933 IQ score and that of a more recently designed one are not necessarily the same. You can't prove they aren't useful nowadays with data about how well they tracked ability from eighty years ago.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 13:56 · Score: 1

How can the mensa test have cultural bias?

Sample questions that exhibit cultural bias:
Q.One of the following proverbs is closest in meaning to the saying, "Birds of a feather, flock together." Choose one:
Q. One of the following sentences given below means approximately the same as the proverb: "Don't count your chickens until they are hatched." Choose the one:
Two questions that depend on knowledge of a specific culture and common language idioms.
Many tests depend on "inside knowledge" of a particular culture. For example, this one at a recent job interview:
Q. Make a name out of this number with one line: 20100
One of my favourites is this one:
Q. What is this postal address (this is a true story - the letter was properly delivered - but it requires some country-specific knowledge (formatting of addresses - it's not the same all over the world) as well as knowledge of common names and various place names, so it is definitely culturally biased):
WOOD
JOHN
ENGLAND
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by hedwards · 2011-08-20 15:02 · Score: 1

Thanks for proving my point for me. This is precisely what I was talking about. Einstein didn't only hang out with 8 year olds, he also hung out with some of the most intellectually advanced individuals of his generation a group which one would have a really hard time typically meeting.
It's not that they can't make friends, it's that sometimes it's nice to spend time with folks that are actually interested in carrying on an intelligent conversation. And for somebody that is apparently anti-intellectual, I'm sure it would surprise you to learn that being the apex of the world around you intellectually is frequently a source of confidence problems as you never know when you're full of it because nobody is capable of calling you on it.
BTW, thanks again for proving my point for me.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 16:05 · Score: 1

Einstein didn't only hang out with 8 year olds, he also hung out with some of the most intellectually advanced individuals of his generation a group which one would have a really hard time typically meeting.

That was a consequence of his job. Helping an 8-year-old with her math in return for jelly beans, was not. And since they questioned it, they weren't that smart if they couldn't see the value in it. So no, I didn't "prove your point for you", Einstein.

It's not that they can't make friends, it's that sometimes it's nice to spend time with folks that are actually interested in carrying on an intelligent conversation. And for somebody that is apparently anti-intellectual, I'm sure it would surprise you to learn that being the apex of the world around you intellectually is frequently a source of confidence problems as you never know when you're full of it because nobody is capable of calling you on it.

I am not anti-intellectual - quite the contrary. It os observation has has led me to conclude that intelligence by itself lacks any utility, and that high IQ leads to early developmental problems, as the person often uses their "precocious intelligence" as a way to handle social situations, ultimately incurring a social skills deficit.

I'm sure it would surprise you to learn that being the apex of the world around you intellectually is frequently a source of confidence problems as you never know when you're full of it because nobody is capable of calling you on it.

Even the smartest people do amazingly stupid things, and they're rarely the "apex of the world" - even their own circumscribed one. Thinking that having the highest IQ in the room makes you the "apex of the world" is not only stupidity incarnate, but a sign of someone who is rationalizing their lack of value as a person in their own eyes. That's pitiful in both senses of the word.
And people who they regard as their intellectual inferiors have working baloney detectors. To paraphrase justice Potter Stewart: "I may not be able to describe BS, but I know it when I hear it!" The problem is from people who lack the confidence to be able to take advice from someone they dismiss as being their intellectual inferior - it means admitting that someone else might be right for a change.
But back to Mensa - a truly brilliant scam if it were able to rope in all the geniuses - but more than 99% of the top 2% see it for what it, and its' members, represent - lameness incarnate.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by SomePgmr · 2011-08-20 20:13 · Score: 1

I have no idea what you're getting at with the first half of that. But as for the second, I guess they'd probably say they have every kind of diversity you can think of, among smart people. Which is to say, every kind except being dumb.

I guess I just don't see why, of all the groups out there, you'd pick Mensa to hate on. It seems like a pretty benign group.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by Your.Master · 2011-08-20 20:16 · Score: 1

Argumentation is not your strength. Your argument has this form:
You:
1. You're too stupid to be like me.
2. I'm better than people like you.
He/she counter-argues.
You:
1. I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument).
2. Irrelevant statement that shows you misses the point.
3. Casual, incredible arrogance, combined with strawman attacks.
4. BTW, I win the argument (implied: because you are too stupid to understand your own argument).
Their most frequent ambassadors on the web are so incredibly arrogant, yet they frequently fail to display intelligence in their facile arguments, instead trying to overwhelm their opponent by unnecessarily and, frankly, inappropriately using uncommon words for common ideas. "Cognitively strong" should very rarely be used instead of "smart", especially if you're going to use the phrase "cognitive faculties" in the very next sentence. One use of cognitive might make your writing more varied and interesting per Orwell's sixth rule; two in as many sentences indicates that your active vocabulary is eclectic rather than large.
I don't want to be like that, and that's what I see of that group, ergo I do not want to be in that group. I fear I am being a bit rude here in giving a critique of one random sentence on the Internet, but in my defence, I find it very, very, very irritating -- one might say, "astonishingly annoying" -- to see people try to convince others not on the basis of sound reasoning but on their own unrelated and ephemeral achievements. That's what feeds anti-intellectualism.
This is a large part of why Mensa's membership is fewer than 1% of the 2% of the world population that qualifies for Mensa. I'll grant that a significant portion of the world population does not have access to Mensa, but then you have to grant that well over 2% of the population can actually qualify for Mensa, given that you can just keep taking tests until you pass and there is significant variance in test results, especially when you're measuring people who are already near the second standard deviation. Most people who can join don't want to. That's okay, but it means that there's basically a 2% chance that anybody not in Mensa, complaining about Mensa, is eligible for Mensa. It's intellectually lazy and fallacious to automatically bucket anybody who disagrees with you as an outsider anti-intellectual who just doesn't understand the struggles of being smart. And yes, the top 2% can be anti-intellectual, but being anti-Mensa is not the same as being anti-intellectual. Not to mention that you don't have to be even near the top 2% to be an intellectual.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · 2011-08-22 13:14 · Score: 1

WTF is that?
All my questions were abstract reasoning, cattell raven model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices
Is this really from Mensa? Well then, theres a regional bias, they actually look for high IQ outside developed nations. Everything else IT'S A TRAP, glad I didn't joined.
Re:Valid evolutionary strategy? by tomhudson · 2011-08-22 13:39 · Score: 1

From Mensa International Click to start the quiz, then click Grade at the first question to avoid having to answer the questions. Scroll down about half-way and you'll see the questions in question (pardon the pun :-).

Can you GPL your genes/body? by houghi · 2011-08-20 09:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

My great aunt has given her body to science so people will learn as to why she became that old. I would like to do the same thing, but be sure that not some Monsanto makes a shitload of money from it by patenting the shit out of my dead body.

I would realy like it to be some sort of GPL where findings are actually intended for the general public.

Does anybody have any experience with such a thing?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by hedwards · 2011-08-20 09:35 · Score: 1

That's easy, she lived to become that old because she didn't die. As noble as it is, it's doubtful that they'll find any useful information as the people who lived to be 100+ years old are just the tail end of the distribution, there's as much luck involved as anything else.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by DRJlaw · 2011-08-20 09:56 · Score: 1

I would like to do the same thing, but be sure that not some Monsanto makes a shitload of money from it by patenting the shit out of my dead body.
I would realy like it to be some sort of GPL where findings are actually intended for the general public.
Does anybody have any experience with such a thing?
Yes.
Don't have a surgical procedure. Request cremation upon death. Those are your options.
The surgical consent forms will specify that tissue removed during surgery is medical waste that becomes the property of the hospital. The hospital will not negotiate with you. If you're at all notable, after death your DNA can be collected with the consent of your next of kin. You'd better hope that they agree with you -- for several generations afterwards. That's assuming that the trait doesn't have a stong genetic link that can be determined merely by looking at the genetic code of your willing-to-participate descendants.
A political movement may change these practices. You yourself cannot. Not everything can be GPLed.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by Jazari · 2011-08-20 09:59 · Score: 1

be sure that not some Monsanto makes a shitload of money from it by patenting the shit out of my dead body.
It takes work to turn a dead body into a potential cure, and then it takes lots of money to test that cure and make sure it's safe and effective. I expect that any company that undertakes such a project will want to be sure that they can get something back for their investment.

Personally, I'd give my DNA away for free, and hope that I or my descendants can benefit from the new discoveries even if we have to pay for them. It's much better than not having access to these discoveries at all because they don't exist.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by starless · 2011-08-20 10:20 · Score: 2

That's easy, she lived to become that old because she didn't die. As noble as it is, it's doubtful that they'll find any useful information as the people who lived to be 100+ years old are just the tail end of the distribution, there's as much luck involved as anything else.
You give no citations to support your hypothesis.
Sheer luck might perhaps be the case, but without research one might miss a genetic connection, which could then potentially enable either medical or lifestyle changes that could mimic the genetic differences.
As one example of a possible genetic link to some aspects of aging see e.g.
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/news.asp?id=454
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by level_headed_midwest · 2011-08-20 10:32 · Score: 1

They wouldn't refuse to use your body. A likely use would be as a cadaver for medical and nursing/allied health students to dissect and learn anatomy. Teaching anatomy via dissection requires a large number of cadavers on an annual basis, and there is nothing patentable in doing a dissection.

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by kenj0418 · 2011-08-20 12:16 · Score: 1

...body to science..but be sure that not some Monsanto makes a shitload of money from it by patenting the shit out of my dead body.
Damn. There goes their plans to make "Plants vs. Zombies" into a reality TV show.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by tomhudson · 2011-08-20 12:20 · Score: 1

That's easy, she lived to become that old because she didn't die. As noble as it is, it's doubtful that they'll find any useful information as the people who lived to be 100+ years old are just the tail end of the distribution, there's as much luck involved as anything else.

Lazarus Long, is that you?
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by AthanasiusKircher · 2011-08-20 15:35 · Score: 2

I would realy like it to be some sort of GPL where findings are actually intended for the general public.
Does anybody have any experience with such a thing?
Yes.
Don't have a surgical procedure. Request cremation upon death. Those are your options.
Even then, you might run into problems. Many state governments are routinely keeping samples of all citizens from birth -- and many store them indefinitely, with no easy way for parents or citizens to get them released or destroyed. There have been cases where these samples have made it into the hands of private researchers with little or no oversight.
Whether or not such policies have affected the GP is a different question, but for new people born nowadays, it's getting ever harder to stay out of such databases.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by houghi · 2011-08-20 21:08 · Score: 1

Getting old because she didn't die is true. The question is WHY she didn't die where others do. Why did she not develop malfunctions that others do>
It might be luck, but there are many indications that that is not the case. About her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikje_van_Andel-Schipper.
Hers was the first to have no signs of Alzheimers at that age. From time to time we still have contact with the doctor doing the investigation, so we know already that it isn't just getting old.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Can you GPL your genes/body? by u38cg · 2011-08-20 21:42 · Score: 1

I hate to break it to you, but "leaving your body to medical science" is equivalent to "agreeing to let medical students learn anatomy on you".
Old people are old because they haven't died of the things that kill people. That sounds trite, but it is literally a summary of everything we know about increasing longevity. People aren't living longer, the survival function is simply getting squarer.

--
[FUCK BETA]

obligatory reading on this subject matter: by circletimessquare · 2011-08-20 09:30 · Score: 4, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

limited selection by scrccrcr · 2011-08-20 09:30 · Score: 1

the fact that they are limiting their selection to certain standardized test scores says a lot about the kind of society these people wouldn't mind creating.

Re:limited selection by benjamindees · 2011-08-20 10:14 · Score: 1

Realistically, the trade deficit says just as much about the type of society that the Chinese are interested in creating.

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Re:limited selection by MagusSlurpy · 2011-08-20 10:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, the fact that they're limiting their selection means that they are looking for a specific link between high standardized test scores/academic achievement and the inability to recognize people by face. No one is apparently bothering to read the first paragraph on that web page.

We are recruiting subjects for a Genome Wide Association Study of intelligence. Our study of prosopagnosia has not yet begun; if you wish to learn more about this condition, please visit faceblind.org.

--
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Re:limited selection by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2011-08-20 13:16 · Score: 1

No, the fact that they're limiting their selection means that they are looking for a specific link between high standardized test scores/academic achievement and the inability to recognize people by face. No one is apparently bothering to read the first paragraph on that web page.
Why are you surprised that the Chinese are interested in studying why people lose face?

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Researchers can damn well get their own jeans by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-20 09:35 · Score: 1

No way, I just bought these!

Then they are looking in the wrong place. by borgheron · 2011-08-20 09:39 · Score: 1

From brutal experience I can attest to the fact that most people on Slashdot, save myself, are not that smart. ;)

GC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

Very narrow definition of intelligence by bkmoore · 2011-08-20 09:41 · Score: 1

From the ad it looks like they are looking at a very narrow definition of intelligence, that is the ability to perform on standardized exams or a PhD in Math, Physics, EE, or theoretical computer science from a "top" U.S. university. Not to be China bashing, but I think China is over emphasizing rote memorization or test taking ability to the exclusion of developing other, more creative forms of intelligence. I think China is in search of the SAT-taking gene, not the smart gene.

Re:Very narrow definition of intelligence by sydneyfong · 2011-08-20 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

All you people need to RTFM (and click the FAQ):
https://www.cog-genomics.org/faq/

What is intelligence?
No one knows precisely what intelligence is, and even experts disagree as to how it should be defined. However, it has been known for over a century that performance on different cognitive tests is positively correlated: for example, someone who is good at math puzzles is also more likely to have an above average vocabulary. Given a battery of tests and their correlation matrix, one can use probability theory to define a single parameter that, in a sense, optimally compresses the information from administering them all.
In practice, a wide range of intuitively sensible test batteries and functions of their score vectors yield very similar estimates of this parameter. As a result, psychologists consider these functions of test batteries to all be reasonable estimators of a parameter called the General Factor of Intelligence, or g for short.
From the use of phrases like "intuitively sensible", it should be clear that the definition of g is a little bit arbitrary. However, we believe that it's the most promising metric to base an intelligence GWAS on. The most important properties of g are:
stability (scores tend not to vary significantly after adolescence),
heritability (twin and adoption studies suggest that much of the variance in g is due to genetics), and
predictive power (g scores are correlated with academic and job performance, income, longevity, etc., even after controlling for other variables such as social class).
At least they know their results have limited scope.

--
Don't quote me on this.
Re:Very narrow definition of intelligence by WorBlux · 2011-08-20 10:20 · Score: 1

Not really. People with these sorts of scores are much more likely to have children with autistic traits or be autistic themselves. They are trying to find a gene linked to prosopagnosia, which is a characteristic on the autism spectrum.
Re:Very narrow definition of intelligence by chinakow · 2011-08-20 11:23 · Score: 1

I would take my sample and teach them something new, then see if they picked up that skill. Or I would throw a bunch of parallelograms and triangles on a table and overlay them over a silhouette of a paper crane. then I'd flip the page to a different silhouette, and look at the test subject and time them to see how long it takes for them to get the clue. Then I would call it an Intelligence Quotient test and I would call the median test results at 100 and call people who fall more than a standard deviation or two above the standard geniuses, and those who fall one or two below, developmentally disabled. I would think that the ability to learn in general, not just rote memorization that tests involve. would be a good way to find genes that helped with learning. But I'm American and definitions of intelligence differ among cultures.
Re:Very narrow definition of intelligence by slazzy · 2011-08-20 15:02 · Score: 1

To start with, if they sent their DNA off to China, not very smart.

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out

Re:resolving conflicts through rational discussion by TaoPhoenix · 2011-08-20 09:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Lin Yutang once wrote that if you gave leaders a good meal and a comedy show, they wouldn't get into wars.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Can't resist asking... by Charmonium · 2011-08-20 10:03 · Score: 1

Since the researchers are in China...what about DNA piracy? Like creating your clone without you knowing it (assuming they have the capability).

Re:Can't resist asking... by noodler · 2011-08-20 22:29 · Score: 1

If we could do it with sheep 20 years ago then why would you think that we cannot do it with humans right now?
I think that the ONLY barrier is ethics and general denial from the general public.
I mean, it's not as if they ask for people with a common genetic illness that they can study and cure.
They specifically ask for very smart people to be studied, but what kind of study will this be and how will the results be applied?
Cloning a bunch of super-smart people seems certainly like something they may asspire to.
And if they do there will be very little in their way.
We now live in a time where we should consider such things very seriously and very carefully.
Be prepared to see humanity radically change in the near future.

sounds like a good screwing over by ThorGod · 2011-08-20 10:26 · Score: 1

What? You want my genes so you can patent them and start charing me a monthly fee, to live?

Screw you!!!!!

Where's a provocative, definitive Captain Picard lecture when you need one?

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.

Re:sounds like a good screwing over by mfnickster · 2011-08-20 16:19 · Score: 1

"You can have my DNA when you biopsy it from my cold, dead hand!"

--
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."

Re:Boo hoo... by NeutronCowboy · 2011-08-20 11:12 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that the tea party argument is identical to the one advanced by the Nazis? Making Tea Partiers and similar right-wing movements the American equivalent of Nazis?

Niiice.... I wonder who the equivalent of Hitler would be then? Bachmann?

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

the pendulum swings... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-08-20 12:36 · Score: 1

A couple of generations ago, eugenics got a bad name by taking things too far under the Nazi's.

Social liberalism experiments of breading a permanent underclass of welfare recipients should get just as bad a rap.

Unless you love the smell of barbarians burning your civilization.

Re:the pendulum swings... by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-08-20 15:56 · Score: 2

Well, I'm a clod you insensitive barbarian. Intelligence is more than just puzzle solving and number crunching. Intelligence is not a continuum, it's a spectrum. This reductionism of intelligence to what basically amounts to math skills (let's face it, even the verbal GRE test is really a logic test) is limited. Useful in some dimensions, but limited.
I don't know any personally, but I'm willing to bet that most sports geniuses wouldn't score that well on an ACT or SAT. Nor would a lot of artists who are incredibly gifted.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:the pendulum swings... by Your.Master · 2011-08-20 19:35 · Score: 1

While I agree that there's lots of types of intelligence, that doesn't mean that puzzle solving and number crunching isn't a thing worth studying. Like if they asked for people who could pitch the fastest fastball, it's accurate to say that there's a lot of other ways to be a great pitcher, but that doesn't mean that fastball speed isn't a thing that can be looked at.
As for whether gifted artists would score well on those tests -- I'm not really familiar with those tests, since I'm not American, but I think that depends on the type of artist. And, for that matter, what you think is "incredibly gifted", art being highly subjective compared to puzzle-solving and number-crunching.
What's a "sports genius"? An athlete? Somebody who can strategize in team sports? Somebody who memorized sports statistics?

Re:Reminds me of this fringe medical theory by AthanasiusKircher · 2011-08-20 15:51 · Score: 1

HeLa cells can multiply ad infitum, unlike any other kind ... but they're not Henrieta's native cells, but cancer-derived cells (as far as wikipedia tells).

Cancer cells are not generally invading cells with an origin outside the body. (Only about 20% of cancers are caused by viruses.) Most of their genetic makeup is from the person they inhabit. They just have some small genetic mutation that leads to unfettered reproduction.

It may not have been a desirable change, but it was in fact an internal change in someone's body that caused this. Therefore I'm not sure that these are not "Henrietta's native cells." They may not have the exact DNA that the original embryo did that created her, but neither do a lot of cells in people's bodies. Carcinogens cause mutations in DNA; enough of them will cause one to happen in the wrong place and cause cancer.

What do you think defines "native cells" in a person? Does any cell that has a random mutation from the original DNA prototype fail the test as a "native cell"? If so, that opens up an easy way for lots of companies/governments to get away with taking samples and using your DNA... except not quite "your" DNA... but that of many cells in your body.

Let the clone wars begin! by wisebabo · 2011-08-20 16:01 · Score: 1

I mean isn't this where this is headed?

Actually, as long as they're doing this, does anyone know if the volunteers get a copy of the sequence? Even for The forseeable future, a full sequencing of your DNA would cost thousands(?) of dollars. Might be worth it! (I wonder if I qualify).

I also wonder if they're trying to obtain the DNA of some very smart people, dead or alive. For example the DNA from Einstein's brain which is preserved somewhere or perhaps Feynman (if they can find any samples, maybe on his bongo drums). My personal favorite would be the indian mathematician who coming from an Indian village around 1900, taught himself math from books and sent a letter (I think) to the chair of mathematics at Oxford who immediately had him come to England (where he died from the bad food! ducks.)

Anyway, sounds like someone could make a comedy out of this; there's a mix up and a supposed genius is introduced to the world (sort of like the Peter Seller's film where he plays "Chauncey Gardner", sorry forget the name of the film).

Re:Let the clone wars begin! by H0p313ss · 2011-08-20 16:44 · Score: 1

Being There. A wonderful film.
And yes, I like to watch...

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction

Read "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by trildan · 2011-08-20 16:05 · Score: 1

Read "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" (http://books.google.com/books?id=LBBhikJpLjwC&lpg=PP1&dq=henrietta%20lacks&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false) to find out why you should not necessarily volunteer your genetic material. You may save the world... but will you be remembered?

I used my intelligence by Nyder · 2011-08-20 17:05 · Score: 1

to avoid taking those tests or letting the government know how smart I am (or am not).

=)

--
Be seeing you...

As one who would qualify ... by sgunhouse · 2011-08-20 18:02 · Score: 1

let me say: You need to work on your subject/verb agreement. "researchers wants"?

While I qualify, I don't think I'll participate. Thanks but no thanks.

First they came for the geniuses, by djirk · 2011-08-20 18:30 · Score: 3, Funny

and I didn't speak out because I was not a genius.

Maths smart or what? by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · 2011-08-20 19:12 · Score: 2

This is contentious. Do they mean maths/science smart? Or like art/abstract smart. Because it seems you can have different kinds of intelligence. For instance, someone could be a mathematician and be terrible in other subjects that involve different kinds of thought. I think it would be more useful if they got people who were accomplished writers, artists, musicians etc. and mapped their DNA as well, rather than just focussing on one particular kind of intelligence (scientific/analytical intelligence).

Re:Maths smart or what? by Intropy · 2011-08-20 20:30 · Score: 1

The best current science on that issue says that there are indeed different areas of intelligence. But there's also an overall intelligence correlated to all of those areas to different degrees.
Re:Maths smart or what? by SlowGenius · 2011-08-21 01:59 · Score: 1

They mean "at a very minimum, smart enough to read the FAQ so people know what they mean by smart."

--
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...

"wants" by Maritz · 2011-08-20 20:07 · Score: 1

"Genome researchers wants" our genes..? I think maybe our genes are belong to them already...

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Ummmmm fake? by SlowGenius · 2011-08-21 02:01 · Score: 1

Porky?

--
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...

Re:Any American willing to send their genes/info by gregor-e · 2011-08-21 04:14 · Score: 1

On the other hand, you'd be donating information to researchers who are not as constrained by those pesky regulations regarding human genetic manipulation, so the world would be more likely to see the tangible results of your contribution sooner.

Cylons? by rizole · 2011-08-21 04:20 · Score: 1

Is it just me or does the front page "China" graphic look like a Cylon's head?

Just me then.

Boycott by ohnocitizen · 2011-08-21 05:10 · Score: 1

Who cares what they want it for? An organization that reports to a brutal and oppressive government is asking for intelligent volunteers. Does it really matter if our DNA would be used for research or something else? The gall of doing what they did to Google then asking their employees for DNA is mildly shocking. When you consider what they've done to Democracy activists and Tibetans, for them to ask anyone of conscience is even more ridiculous.

No way! by ascrewloose · 2011-08-21 12:45 · Score: 1

They can't have my genes. I'm wearing them! O wait... guess I'm not a candidate, anyways.

Hmmph by return+42 · 2011-08-22 02:42 · Score: 1

Help China? They can suck my dick.

Oh wait...

Slashdot Mirror

Genome Researchers Wants Your Genes

89 of 165 comments (clear)