Slashdot Mirror
Scanning Embryos For Super-Intelligent Kids Is On the Horizon
An anonymous reader writes: Stephen Hsu, a professor in theoretical physics at Michigan State University, has an article discussing the genetic underpinnings of intelligence, and how our understanding of it will eventually lead to smarter children. Researchers have detected genes that influence cognitive ability, but the effect of any one gene is very small — less than 1 IQ point at best. Genetically modifying such genes is unlikely to happen any time soon, but our ability to analyze an embryo's genome is becoming quick and cheap. As we isolate more and more genes that affect intelligence, this means prospective parents will soon be able to analyze a batch of zygotes and figure out which ones are likely to be the smartest. Hsu says a batch of 10 zygotes will probably have an IQ range of 15 points or more. As our understanding of intelligence genetics grows, that range will only expand. He adds, "The corresponding ethical issues are complex and deserve serious attention in what may be a relatively short interval before these capabilities become a reality."
Even if we do figure out even a few of the hundreds of factors that contribute to our (currently valued form of) intelligence, without a way to effectively cause the optimal configuration to happen, you're at best encouraging abortions of otherwise genetic-defect-free children in favor of another chance at one that would be smarter.
If I were to choose a child from a huge batch of zygotes, I'd want the one that's generally disposed to be happy - easy going, social, even tempered, and not too fussy growing up. But apparently, geneticists aren't working on identifying the genetic correlates of those traits, even though we know that they are just as heritable as intelligence.
I don't think that I'll have kids, but if I did, the thing I'd want most is that they grow up happy. I would work hard to make sure they grow up in an environment that encourages it. But genetics contributes a lot to happiness outcomes, and if I were offered well-tested genetic help, I wouldn't refuse it. Maxing out their intelligence would not be at all high on my list of priorities. Is this a weird attitude? I thought it was a kind of typical parent attitude, but apparently, geneticists have different ideas.
Gattaca was a cautionary tale, not a blueprint for future eugenics. What if someone like Newton or Einstein didn't have the perfect genetic signature for IQ (as we *think* we understand it), and instead the parents select for a more 'intelligent' specimen with a higher IQ, but one that lacks creativity and 'genius' or a million other factors that would be important for a child's success?
Example: Hawking: 150ish IQ, John Sununu 190. (Granted those are 'internet' numbers, so take with a grain of salt.) Point being, IQ is not everything.
Stuff like this is a pretty stark reminder that we're just a bag of chemicals, even though we've evolved the capability to do things like...post on Slashdot.
This kind of thing is done in a somewhat limited fashion with high-risk pregnancies/IVF to select for embryos that don't have Down syndrome or other profound mental handicaps. And if an ultrasound indicates something wrong further along, amniocentesis is performed. Those tests are easier because it's the absence or malformation of a chromosome, and they're less controversial because the difference between a kid with 10 fewer IQ points in the normal range and a Down syndrome or Fragile X kid is huge. Someone who is otherwise normal might not be as smart, but someone with a mental handicap is never going to have a full life and be a hardship on their family.
Given what we know about genetics now, I actually don't think selecting out traits that are clearly undesirable is a bad thing as long as there's some randomization and some things left to chance. 100 years ago, we only understood that "something" was responsible for traits, not that a particular sequence of nucleotides in your DNA causes the cells they create to behave differently. The problem is that there are still lots of religious people who reject all of this and blame diseases and defects on God's will. Not that Gattaca's a good example, but the main character's defects were a direct result of his parents rejecting genetic engineering and having kids the "old fashioned way," similar to religious people having a huge family, getting a couple of kids with issues, and just shrugging it off as unavoidable because, well, you know, God.
Except that the Republican party in its current incarnation is more akin to a special interest group for the wealthy and multinational corporations. To that end their politics and governing style is pretty radical.
But you seem to think that Republicans are conservative in the same way they were 40 years ago, when that's just not the case. Furthermore, equating maturity with getting your facts from Fox News is pretty immature.
This Sig does not Exist.
Yes, Science tells us when life begins it's unfortunately at conception.
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
Now, we can argue if that life has a right to impose it self on another person or if forcing people to give birth to unwanted children is a good thing for society. But life begins at conception. Try to scientifically tell when else life begins? At birth? When the eyes are first exposed to light? Disconnection of the umbilical cord? At some hard to define time of brain development? a life becomes a unique organism at conception and thus that is when it begins.
And before you try any BS about me being me being religious, am not, I was raised agnostic and am now an atheist. I convinced a long time girl friend to get a copper IUD(Which I do believe can be abortifacient, assuming the copper doesn't kill all the sperm) when she was having trouble with birth control hormones. She dumped me a about two months later probably due to use not having compatible chemistry once she was off the pill the effect in the bedroom was quicker still. I think marriage rates would benefit tremendously if we stop fucking with women's hormones.
I think the real problem with abortion is that women through biology and social conditioning have a want and a need to have babies, making a conscious decision that is contrary to this goal is not good for them sociologically, even if they believe it to be only temporary. So I think things like the morning after pill, IUDs, etc are fine because the women don't really know if they are aborting or not. I am also not against legal abortion because I think it's dumb to force people to have children they don't want. But I do think women need to be aware of the statistics surrounding post abortion women. Also, copper IUDs are not promoted enough probably because they don't make large sums of money like patented medical innovations and pills due.