Slashdot Mirror
Genetic engineering boosts mouse intelligence
hurin wrote to us with the story about scientists raising the level of learning and memory in the subject mice. Of course, they get into the potential for human genetic manipulation as well, something which is sure to spark a conflagaration of right vs wrong genetic engineering debates.
Ok, so two neurons are connected if the axon from one contacts the dendrite from another. Axons are the part of the neuron that do the signaling (transmit a 1 or 0, if you want to think of it computationally, a 1 being an action potential, a 0 being inactivity). The dendrites receive this signal and are excited. When the excitation of the neuron reaches a critical value (due to the activity of many axons), that neuron will transmit its own action potential. Now the axons and dendrites don't actually contact, there is a tiny gap between them where chemicals are transmitted.
The chemicals (neurotransmitters) come out of little things called synaptic vesicles, and are picked up on the other side by receptors, which are usually connected to ion channels. So there are a bunch of different kinds of receptors, some that respond to glucose, some to dopamine, there are a lot of different chemicals involved.
So here's the deal with the NMDA receptors. Usually they are blocked off by a little bit of magnesium, which has a positive charge. So they are usually inactive. However, if the neuron is excited a lot, it depolarizes (gets more positive) and the magnesium floats away, allowing chemicals (probably calcium) to come into the neuron. When that happens the synapse (the connection between the two neurons) is strengthened (meaning next time round the same signal will elicit a larger response). So the NMDA receptors don't create connections, they strengthen existing connections.
Memories are stored in large networks of neurons, with information distributed throughout it. There is no information in any neuron sitting on its own. Only in its interactions with the rest of the network does it contain any useful information.
I've simplified a lot, but one thing I'd like to say is this. Just because the rats have enhanced NMDA receptors, doesn't mean they are smarter. Ability to solve problems and ability to remember that you've been shocked in a particular room are different things. The rats can remember things longer, but in the real world (outside the lab environment) the rats would probably be at a disadvantage. Otherwise rats would have evolved this increased set of NMDA receptors a long time ago (if it had any survival value)
That's all I have to say.
Sean
smp2e@virginia.edu
polyn.com comics and such.
The report I saw on the BBC News, said that the intelligence (ability to form memories) was increased by changing the activities of ion channels in the brain.
:) I'll leave that to nicer people
Normally when two nerve cells feel like joining (forming a memory, according to the news) they brush together, and one sends chemicals to the other. If an ion channel is open at the correct point a connection is made, but otherwise its not.
The GE'd mice have permanently open ion channels. This is supposed to improve memory formation. The quesions I ask are:
If a memory is recorded for EVERYTHING wont you run out of neurons to interlink?
Will the reliability of the memory suffer, like happens with some memory enhancing drugs, which increase recall, but decrease accuracy.
How many of these mice are epileptic, would it be possible with all these ion channels open for 'wires to get crossed' or something?
There are of course the moral and ethical arguements too
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
I first saw this story last night, on a Yahoo headline that read "Scientists boost mouse IQ". (I'm reproducing it from memory; the important bit is "mouse IQ"). Yeah right, as if someone gave a mouse an IQ test. I am aware that one may quantify increased performance on some kind of exercises that mice do (e.g., running mazes), but to call this "IQ" and compare it to human intelligence is at best silly, and at worst ideological doublespeak.
Simply, what we call "intelligence" both in people and in mice are qualitatively different things. And we know that human intelligence has a lot to do with upbringing; i.e., no matter what their genes are, if humans don't develop in an environment conducive to the development of their intelligence, they will turn out to be sub-optimal relative to their potential.
When I say above that equating mice "IQ" with human IQ (which, BTW, is a dubious idea anyway) is "at worst ideological doublespeak", what I have in mind is the fact that establishment is interested in propagating a certain view of the state of science and of human intelligence, one that downplays precisely what I stated above, the decisive role of upbringing in the development of human intelligence. Understandable when millions go hungry and uneducated on a planet that produces enough to feed and educate everyone well, and only a minority gets good conditions under which to develop.
---
hehe
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
--
I find it strange that people are interested in trying to artificially increase our intellegence and capabilities, when we as humans are nowhere near our limit. There are so many things that keep us from achieving great things (government, institutionalised education, parents, religion, republicans). Why not work on moving forward naturally before we resort to this aspect of science?
Case in point: If you've ever watched a martial arts master, it's really amazing. Human beings are capable of throwing a punch in less than 1/10 of a second. No genetic engineering is necessary.
We need to focus on breaking down those institutions and barriers to our progress, and then increasing our capabilities naturally. If, at that point, we find that we have met some restrictive limiting point, then playing God might be justifiable. But I don't think we'll meet that point for a *long* time.
The "Uplift" books from David Brin have an interesting perspective on the "smarter animal" idea. I encourage anyone who wants to pursue a line of speculation like this to pick them up and read them.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Am I the only one that was thinking of Pinky and the Brain after reading this? :)
--
Okay, I think it's obvious who hasn't had their morning coffee yet... I'll leave /. alone for awhile now. :)
--
Let's think about that one for a sec.
If bomb sniffing dogs were any smarter, they'd realize that they're looking for bombs. That would take out the fun and put in the fear. They would know they're at risk, and wouldn't want to do it anymore.
Then we'd have to rely on all the soon to be out of work Y2K consultants to do the job.
But then again, with a little gene therapy, the BOE of Kansas might actually learn a thing or two.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
But the American Dairy Council is funding the reasearch, since even though the I.Q. benefit may be small, all people who undergo the treatment will have an insatiable appetite for cheese.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Could Pinky and The Brain become a reality? I dunno about you, but if I see a big headed mouse walking on it's hind legs down the street, I'm gonna run.
Well I think so Brain, but if they called them sad meals the kids wouldn't buy them.
-matt
Wasn't this the plot of some (bad) horror movie recently released -- they genetically increased the intelligence of some sharks and the sharks all became Einsteins and killed everyone?
When will we learn.
rooooar
> Am I the only one that was thinking of Pinky and the Brain after reading this?
No.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I thought the work of Dr. Adams in this field long ago revealed that mice where the most intelligent beings in the universe already.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Since "building a better a mouse trap" has become a cliche, now we're building better mice.
/., see this story, and have a nervous fit.
I bet all of those mouse trap builders have been slacking off these past few years, sitting around in their R&D labs reading email, eating cheese samples, etc.
One of them will eventually load up
Time to get back to work..
I hope I quoted that right.
Anyway, how accurate are they with this gene manipulation. I would also imagine that intelligence, like skin colour isn't specific to one gene but of several genes. This would increase the possibilty for error. Its no longer a slip of the knife but now a drug which isn't as well targeted.
Another problem I have with this experiment is that intelligence isn't rated solely on what they provided. They showed that these new super mice have better retention amd quicker ability for a trained operation to be forgotten.
In psychological terms, the curve for training and extinction has grown taller (graph-wise). Let's wait for the cognitive psychologists to have a field day with this one.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Was that the name of the story? God, it has been a while since I read that. Trying to remember, didn't they use the same medicine on a retarded man after they experimented with the mouse. If I remember, the guy grew to superhuman intelligence then it all slipped away. Seem to remember the mouse dropped off first and dies before the guy had the same thing happen.
GRANT PROPOSAL:
I am requesting $4 million in grant money for the purpose of reviewing the effects of genetically-enhanced mice on the biological ecosystem.
To put more fine a point on it (bonus for referencing old slashdot article), I wish to study what happens when mice become smarter than their feline predators.
My research will consist of several hours of reviewing Tom and Jerry cartoons. Sylvester cartoons involving the "giant mouse" (actually a kangaroo) will also be included in the study.
My proposal has already gained support from the Cartoon Network. Johnny Bravo himself has stated, "Well, that sounds like a fine idea you got there, mister."
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Humans also are smarter when they are kids, if you measure intelligence in certain ways. Certainly before the age of six kids are way better at learning languages than adults are, and I suspect there are a lot of other things that kids learn more easily than adults. But I don't think that kids are actually smarter than adults. They just have different ways of learning.
All the measures of intelligence they used were simply measures of memory. How quickly the mice could learn and remember something. In humans, intelligence is more often associated with the ability to reason than with the ability to memorize. Except in elementary school and anatomy classes, in which case the ability to memorize is equated with intelligence.
Basically, I think this is a very interesting development, but to generalize from smart mice to smart people seems a bit silly.
Another case of reality catching up to science-fiction. I love it; it makes me feel like we really are living in the Year 2000! (Well, we will be in 4 months.)
What exactly are the ethical oppositions to this? Except from bad sci-fi warnings, I fail to see how it would be wrong to augment the intelligence of the human race as a whole. Of course, learning ability has nothing to do with social or emotional intelligence, so it might just turn all of mankind into socially-misadapted geeks.
Of course, a real problem arises if the procedure is not dispensed to the whole of mankind, but to some sort of ethnic or social elite. We don't need the rich to get more intelligent as a whole: the beauty of intelligence right now is that it comes up in unexpected places, and gives a real edge to anyone to change their destiny.
Other than that, I don't have a problem with intelligence augmentation. We seem to think of intelligence as a God-given gift, whereas, say, an athletic build is just a lot of work. By this I mean people think you can work up to a strong built, but you have to be "gifted" to display intelligence. I say, if we can artificially augment strength, why not augment intelligence.
What would that imply? Less stupid lusers, more Linux-savvy... I bet Microsoft are shitting their pants. :):)
Hey, I'd love to see the next Kasparov disqualified for unlawful IQ boosting. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Does, say, heart transplants provide an unfair advantage to the rich? Perhaps it does, because it lets them live longer (and reproduce and have more children and make more money while alive, blah blah Darwin blah.) College? Yep, that's definitely an advantage too.
Would the solution be to ban it for everyone because some people cannot afford it? Your point is, I think, very valid on this: no, of course not. We shouldn't deprive someone of something because others cannot afford it. I don't want anyone to take away my ISP access because the guys on the streets cannot access it, and I don't demand that Pentium III's be banned because my current computer can't run the next Quake. :)
I think the moral imperative is, naturally, for the Government to help those without funds to access such things as medical care and college, but that's a liberal position and the more conservative-minded of you will disagree. The more radical ones will call me a filthy Red. :)
In the end, augmentation of intelligence, if practical, would be considered an enhancement of the kind of plastic surgery, breast implants (I know, depressing) and laser surgery. The argument would naturally be that the ability to learn is enough to get one through life except in the most drastic cases (such as a certified idiot at less than 70 IQ.)
So, the Government will likely sponsor idiots to get an IQ boost, and the rich will shell out tons of cash to get their learning abilities enhanced and get their otherwise moronic jock boy through Princeton with A grades.
And while this endures, the common-day idiots, those who can tie their shoelaces but are still looking for the any key, will endure. Pretty grim, really.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Arg, I submitted this after I found it next to the comics in the paper this morning. I even tracked down a website with info. Gargle! Those super mice are already outsmarting me! IT'S A BIG CONSPIRACY!!!
/. effect........
I know it is..
Rat of Nimh, Pinky and the Brain, NAZI SUPERMEN! Think of the possibilities, people!!
It's all a plot! They're out to get you all! Bwuahahahahahahaha!!!!
You know they are what's *really* behind the Amiga, Transmeta, First posters,
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.