1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
|
<head>
<script>
function loadPercentile(name, k5, k50, k95) {
var args =
{
"caption": "Loaded our interpretation of " + name + "\'s probability.",
"Q9-3.y50.0k5.0": k5,
"Q9-3.y50.0k50.0": k50,
"Q9-3.y50.0k95.0": k95
};
top.loadData(args);
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in;">Keeping in mind your
given probabilities for genome sequencing costs, how quickly will we learn what
genes tend to make people into good researchers?</P>
<P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">Phrased differently:
how much more productive will individuals created using
multi-generational <I>in vitro</I> embryo selection be when they grow
up, given our knowledge at the time, and given that the technology is
permitted and used? (If you think it won't be, that will be addressed
in the following question.) Consider a productivity of 1 to be
equivalent to that of the average (mean) non-embryo-selected
scientist.</P>
<P>We acknowledge that children selected for traits
contributing to research ability may be a minority of children
selected for any reason, but assume that at least some group will
still be selected for traits such as working memory, curiosity, and so on,
and state how much more productive they'll be if they
choose to go into research.</P>
<UL>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B>
Above a certain level of cognitive
ability, further increases have minimal value. For instance, the famous
California Terman study of high-IQ youth failed to include two
future Nobel laureates in physics because they were somewhat below
its IQ cutoff for entry.<BR>
<B>Implication:</B> Selection for
general cognitive function is unlikely to have great effects on
scientific output.
<input type="button" onclick="loadPercentile('Gladwell', 0.01, 0.11, 0.21);" value="Load distribution"</input><BR>
<B>Sources:</B>
Gladwell, Malcolm. <I>Outliers</I><SPAN STYLE="font-style: normal">.
New York: Little, Brown, and Company, 2008.</SPAN></P>
</LI>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B>
The personality trait
of openness to experience, which involves active imagination,
aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference
for variety, and intellectual curiosity, which makes important
contributions to research ability, is known to be heritable, and
therefore could be selected for in multi-generational <I>in
vitro</I> embryo
selection procedures. Identical and fraternal twins reared apart
correlated .43 and .23, respectively, for Openness, while identical
and fraternal twins reared together correlated .51 and .14. This was
the highest correlation of any of the five major dimensions of
personality.<BR>
<B>Implication:</B>
To the extent that psychological Openness correlates to research
ability, it can be selected for fairly effectively.
<input type="button" onclick="loadPercentile('Jang et al.', 0.01, 0.2826, 0.5552);" value="Load distribution"</input><BR>
<B>Source:</B>
Jang et al. "Heritability of the Big Five Personality Dimensions
and Their Facts: A Twin Study". <I>Journal
of Personality</I> 64:3, September 1996.<BR><<U><A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall06/yoonh/psy3135/articles/Jang%20et%20al_1996.pdf">http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall06/yoonh/psy3135/articles/Jang%20et%20al_1996.pdf</A></U>></P>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B> The <A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability">heritability</A>
of IQ can be estimated at anywhere between 0.4 and 0.8, depending on
the data used, e.g. twin studies, correlations between siblings, and
adoption studies.<BR>
<B>Implication:</B>
IQ, which contributes to research ability, is at least somewhat
heritable, so extensive embryo selection could increase it
significantly. However, the impact
of such an increase would depend on the degree to which science is
limited by the supply of highly intelligent talent
and how to estimate the effects of embryos with more
favorable genetic predispositions to cognitive ability than any past
humans have enjoyed.
<input type="button" onclick="loadPercentile('Neisser', 0.01, 0.3010, 0.59);" value="Load distribution"</input><BR>
<B>Source:</B>
Neisser et al.
"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". <I>American
Psychologist</I>. Vol 51(2), Feb 1996, 77-101.<BR><<U><A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://psychnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77">http://psychnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77</A></U>></P>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B>
"The
research, led by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in
London, identified six genes that were strongly associated with high
or low intelligence, but even the most powerful of these accounted
for just 0.4 per cent of the variation in intelligence between
individuals. The six together accounted for about 1 per cent of the
variation in intelligence. Dozens of previous studies on twins and
adopted children have established that about half of the variation
in intelligence is down to environment." (2007)<BR>
<B>Implication:</B>
Though there are correlations between abilities useful for research
and genetic variations, any individual genetic variation explains
only a very small portion of differences between people in cognitive
ability. Very large studies sequencing the genomes of hundreds of
thousands or millions of individuals may be required to identify a
substantial fraction of relevant variation. Some variants will be so
rare that statistics cannot be assembled, forcing researchers to
infer their effects from functional and other information, taking
years after large-scale genome sequencing data become available.<BR>
<B>Sources:</B>
Coghlan, Andy.
"'Intelligence genes' reveal their complexity."
<I>New Scientist </I>29 Nov. 2007.
<<U><A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626324.100-intelligence-genes-reveal-their-complexity.html">http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19626324.100-intelligence-genes-reveal-their-complexity.html</A></U>>.<BR>
L M Butcher, O S P Davis, I W Craig, and R Plomin. "Genome-wide
quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive
ability using pooled DNA and 500k single nucleotide polymorphism
microarrays." <I>Genes, Brain, and Behavior</I>
7 (2008): 435-446.
<<U><A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2408663">http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2408663</A></U>>
</P>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B>
"Talent-search participants
(286 males, 94 females) scoring in the top 0.01% on
cognitive-ability measures were identified before age 13 and tracked
over 20 years. Their creative, occupational, and life
accomplishments are compared with those of graduate students (299
males, 287 females) enrolled in top-ranked U.S. mathematics,
engineering, and physical science programs in 1992 and tracked over
10 years. By their mid-30s, the two groups achieved comparable and
exceptional success (e.g., securing top tenure-track positions) and
reported high and commensurate career and life satisfaction. [...]
Individuals identified solely on the basis of one very high SAT
score before the age of 13 achieved occupational success comparable
to that of individuals attending world-class mathematics, science,
and engineering graduate training programs."<BR>
<B>Implication:</B>
If there is a substantial correlation between genes and research
ability, and this genetic material can be used to select embryos
that will grow into adults with this exceptional ability, then the
practical impact could be quite large. The ability multiplier for
embryo-selected children could be as high as 100 or even
1,000.
<input type="button" onclick="loadPercentile('Lubinski', 0.5, 2, 3.5);" value="Load distribution"</input><BR>
<B>Source: </B>
Lubinski, David, Camilla P. Benbow, Rose Mary Webb, and April
Bleske-Rechek. "Tracking Exceptional Human Capital Over Two
Decades." <I>Psychological
Science</I> 17 (2006): 194-99. Retrieved 9 Aug. 2008.
< <U><A TARGET="_blank" HREF="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/PsychScience2006.pdf">http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/PsychScience2006.pdf</A></U>>.</P>
<LI><P CLASS="western" STYLE="margin-bottom: 0in">
<B>Claim:</B>
"Within the United States, the regional differences in intellectual
accomplishment have been nothing shy of astonishing...The population
of Texas has exceeded that of New England for the last hundred years
by a factor of 3 or 4...But a visit to <I>Who's
Who</I>
establishes that Texans have achieved virtually nothing in the
sciences or philosophy (though there have been notable achievements
in literature, music, and the arts in recent decades)."<BR>
<B>Implication:</B>
Research output critically depends on a culture of science:
increasing abilities may not be channeled into advancing the state
of scientific knowledge.<BR>
<B>Source:</B> Nisbett, Richard.
<I>Intelligence and How
to Get It</I>. New York:
Norton. 2009.<BR>
</P>
</UL>
</body>
|
