
A genetic code for genius - sonabinu
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578303992108696034.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks
======
guylhem
_"Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to
target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them,""_ says
a watchdog group eager for money and public support for its pet cause.

WHO CARES?

I mean, from what we understand so far of the genetics of IQ, there might be
some slight differences based on ethnicity - which is nothing unexpected, as
you can see the same variability for blood groups, hair color, HLA, etc.

Basically different groups of people have a different distribution of some
genes than other groups of people, and therefore a show a difference in the
expression of these genes that can be aggregated at the group level to show...
a difference in the visible characteristics between groups. Wow, what a
shocking discovery.

The really interesting thing is these genetic differences between ethnic
groups are dwarfed by the difference a good upbringing (alimentation and
education) can get. And since there are also promising results about the
inheritability of IQ, these inter ethnic group differences might also be
dwarfed by INTRA group differences.

 _That_ is the best argument if this watchdog group really want to disprove
that "targetting of particular racial groups"

So instead of crying wolf, they should embrace such research- after all, when
we have pinned down some alleles that confers good advantages, one can think a
drug could be created, or gene therapy, or whatever - in the end, the whole
human population would benefit from it.

Stop thinking about ethnicity. Only the end result matters. It's a shame
people in north america and europe are such crybabies about these issues.
Thanks China for taking such an endeavour that might benefit humanity - even
today naysayers.

(and I say this as someone who does not believe that IQ can be accurately
identified or measured with todays techniques, but still there is some
noticeable difference between people innate abilities - and trying to
understand causes them is a good thing. many genes are likely to be involved,
and 10 000 certainly won't be enough, but it's a good start)

~~~
jbattle
I suppose people groups who have had hundreds of years of experience of being
oppressed with excuses from the Bible, Social Darwinism or the like might
care.

As a species we have considerably more experience with racial/ethnic judgement
leading to suffering than leading to something beneficial.

Not to say that it's impossible, but it strikes me as very reasonable for us
to argue very thoroughly about the potential implications of this kind of
research. I hope we _can_ find a way to improve life for all people. When
vaccines first became available there were probably jerks like me moaning
about imagined terrible consequences. But that doesn't mean every change made
possible by science would necessarily be as equally beneficial.

If we find out that people from East Whateveria have a mean IQ 25 lower than
the global target, does that mean we have a right or obligation to "fix" them?
What if they don't want to be fixed? I'll attempt stop short of pulling a
Godwin, but note that this sort of 'fix defective populations for the benefit
of the whole human populations' has a mixed record.

~~~
guylhem
People are free to do what they want. No moral obligation - just freedom.

But if by any chance I found that I had this same mutation and could take
advantage of their fix, _I_ would be interested.

If you found out say your son had the same mutation, wouldn't you be
interested as well? Please note we are not taking about East Whateveria or how
West Whateveria might gloat about _not_ having this mutation. We are just
talking about how oneday we might have the freedom to take such a decision for
ourselves.

Because it's all about freedom, and unfortunately without having the
scientific know-how it's pointless to speculate about what we might do.

This is why I support such initiatives- it will offer more possibilities,
possibilities that we can only dream about now.

~~~
jbattle
> People are free to do what they want. No moral obligation - just freedom.

You assume that, I don't. At least not for enormous numbers of humans past and
present.

~~~
icelancer
The fact that science has scared off a sufficient amount of idiots in the past
doesn't make it a bad thing.

------
defen
Is anyone at all concerned with a Chinese eugenics program? We already know
the extent to which China has gone to produce high-caliber athletes,
especially for the Olympics. (Yao Ming is basically their Kwisatz Haderach[1])
Let's say for the sake of argument that there _is_ an identifiable genetic
component to genius/IQ/intellectual achievement. Is the following sequence of
events particularly outlandish?

1) This study and others like it discover genetic components to intelligence.

2) China conducts large scale genetic analysis of the intelligentsia / upper
classes etc. to find carriers

3) Strong incentives provided for couples to use IVF/embryo selection/whatever
to produce children with the maximum number of these intelligence genes

4) 25+ years from now China all of a sudden has a _lot_ more smart people than
anywhere else does

[1]
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1126765,00.html)

~~~
bthomas
Yes - (1) and (4) are extremely unlikely, though (2) and (3) are certainly
plausible :)

More specifically, this study may publish some marginal results about genetics
of extreme IQ, but any single effect will likely be so small that nothing
actionable will come from it.

If (4) is the goal, I suspect they'll have much more success exploring drugs
and other cognitive enhancements. What genetics _can_ do is help inform how to
discover those drugs - ie. what genes should you study.

(Shameless plug: if you like genetics and writing python, drop me an email if
you want to work on studies like this!)

~~~
Scaevolus
Why do you think discovering genetic components to intelligence is extremely
unlikely?

I expect it to be easier to find genetic components for intelligence than for
other polygenetic traits like height -- the brain has fewer components
influencing development.

~~~
bthomas
> the brain has fewer components influencing development

What do you mean by that? I'd argue the opposite. In a sense, we already have
discovered genes for high height with Marfan Syndrome.

I think IQ is orders of magnitude more complex. Awesome conversation but
probably hard in an online forum, so I'll just cite my favorite example:
Dickens and Flynn [1]

I absolutely think this study has a chance of revealing some signal, my
skepticism is just that it will have any actionable conclusions. Here's a
litmus test: what results would allow you to choose from a group of 10 men and
10 women, _based only on genotype_ , which pair is most likely to have a high
IQ child. And how would your power compare to just reading all their resumes?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Dickens_and_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Dickens_and_Flynn_model)

~~~
Scaevolus
Barring specific diseases like Marfan Syndrome, we can't yet explain most of
height -- "Height is a highly heritable trait, with estimates of heritability
as high as 90%. Recent genome-wide association studies of height have
discovered over 180 common variants associated with height. These variants
have small effect sizes and collectively explain approximately 10% of the
heritability." [1]

Growth involves many systems with many types of cells interacting --
digestive, skeletal, endocrine, etc. There's a lot of complexity when you have
so many systems involved.

By comparison, there are relatively few distinct types of cells in the brain,
so the effects of different alleles should be more apparent. In particular,
genes controlling sensitivity to and production of neurotransmitters directly
impact brain function.

If they find many specific mutations that cause better performance on specific
tasks (working memory, pattern matching, verbal ability, ...) it should be
possible to predict high IQs.

I don't expect 100% accurate predictions, but to not find _anything_ would be
surprising. Maybe that's your point-- if they only get 10% heritability, it's
not really enough for breeding decisions.

[1]
[http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...](http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002439)

------
SatvikBeri
One of the fun facts about IQ is that it seems to be highly genetic, but not
particularly hereditary. There's a .76 correlation for identical twins
separated at a young age, but only .22 between a parent and child, when the
child was lived apart from the parent[1]. Compare this to height, which is
much more heritable[2]. So they'll probably need more than the 10,000 samples
they needed to find height-related genes. It'll be interesting to see the
findings.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Correlations_between_IQ_and_degree_of_genetic_relatedness)

[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_study>

~~~
xaa
To me, this suggests that the trait is highly combinatorial, involving
potentially large combinations of polymorphisms instead of individual loci
acting relatively independently (in an "additive" fashion).

Of course, such combinatorial traits are much harder to tease out of data.

------
capnrefsmmat
I'll be curious to see if they pull this off. Finding genetic associations
reliably is notoriously tricky, simply because of the enormous potential for
false positives.

When there are thousands of possible genes to consider, there are thousands of
opportunities for a gene to be "lucky" and have a coincidental correlation
with intelligence in your sample. Previously published efforts have produced
almost entirely false positives:

"Most Reported Genetic Associations With General Intelligence Are Probably
False Positives" - <http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/11/1314>

Let's hope that BGI doesn't merely torture the data until it confesses, as so
many have.

------
davidf18
There are those (generally average people) that wish to democratize IQ
insisting that unlike beauty and athletic ability that IQ is nurture and not
nature. But like beauty and athletic ability high IQ and giftedness in science
and the arts is mostly genetic. It should also be noted that IQ tests
frequently do not indicate true intelligence -- at least among the truly
gifted. For example, Genius Richard Feynman was reported to have an IQ of 125
-- clearly not a true measure of one of the greatest minds of the 20th
century.

Regarding Ashkenazic Jews (disclosure, I am one) and their high IQ, Jews
instituted universal education until 6th grade for all males beginning 2,000
years ago -- about 1,750 years before any other ethnic group. It was required
of all Jewish males to study the Old Testament and The Talmud and Jewish law
since that time. It was around that time that Jewish males were encouraged to
move away from agriculture to occupations that required reading, writing, and
math.

The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History, 70-1492
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-
Princeton/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Few-Education-
Princeton/dp/0691144877/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
How can you disentangle upbringing from genetics? They are hopelessly
intertwined, especially in your example of Ashkenazic Jews.

Athletic ability is especially sensitive to nurture as well.

Talent is fine; most of accomplishment is application and practice. I can
completely believe that Feynman had an IQ of 125. Applied with a depression-
generation self-discipline, it can (did) accomplish amazing things. It's
disingenious to take a counter-example to an argument and pretend its
supporting that argument.

------
datz
This article is not genius - it is nonsense. There is no one "genetic code"
for genius - this is polygenic. IQs measured by the stanford-binet or wechsler
are actually variable - one can work to bring these scores up dramatically -
they are completely game-abale. Furthermore there are many types of
intelligence, people with high general intelligences can consciously hone
specialty intelligences. Or, people with low general intelligences may possess
high specific intelligences. This depends on the structure of the brain from
macro to a micro perspectives. Also, intangibles govern the way we interact
and as the environment changes around us, as we near a "singularity,"
"intelligences" we value today may not be the same "intelligences" we value
tomorrow. The definition of intelligence will change over time. This article
is nonsensical and loserish.

~~~
bromang
Citation needed for the claim that IQ tests are highly game-able. And nobody
denies that there are different types of mental abiltiy, so I'm not sure who
or what you are trying to argue against.

------
MichailP
When someone reduces human intelligence to one number, that is really a good
indicator of that someone's intelligence. We don't know much about
intelligence except that it is diverse. There is a bunch of excellent ideas
about intelligence, talent and creativity in [1]. I particularly liked a bit
where current model of education is compared to strip mining of Earth for
commodities i.e. only small fraction of human talents is developed while
others are ruthlessly squandered.

[1] TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson, "Do schools kill creativity".

~~~
bromang
When someone trots out the same old "multiple intelligences" line, that is a
pretty good indicator of their intelligence. or at least their intellectual
laziness.

------
networked
If they are successful I assume this will likely _not_ result in a way to
improve the intelligence of existing individuals though gene therapy because
their brains are already wired a certain way and unlike other cells of the
body the neurons in the brain do not regenerate rapidly. Is this a correct
assumption?

~~~
xaa
If they find specific genes or non-coding RNAs with relatively strong
associations (a big if), drugs could be designed to alter the expression
levels of those transcripts.

Since it is unclear how much of IQ is determined by the "macro" structure of
neurons and synapses and how much is caused by intracellular events, it is
really impossible to say how much an intervention could do to increase
intelligence. The current state of the nootropics field, however, is not very
encouraging.

In any case, I would not pin my hopes on gene therapy. The hurdles that would
be required for regulatory approval of "cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would
be classified) are nearly insurmountable.

~~~
networked
>"cosmetic" gene therapy (as this would be classified)

Since higher IQ (at least up to a point) correlates positively with good
health and other desirable characteristics including overall happiness [1]
would this really be considered "cosmetic"?

[1]
[https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromP...](https://journals.cambridge.org/action//displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8698047&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0033291712002139)

~~~
xaa
Personally, I agree with you, but the NIH does not. So far, "stupidity" is not
a disease (nor is aging, for that matter).

------
batgaijin
How did he get that position if he is a dropout? Especially in China where
it's metricopia?

------
31reasons
In future, there won't be any need for interviews and resumes. just send your
genome for admission to harvard or a job a google!

------
tokenadult
From the article, which I read in the print edition this afternoon: "The
majority of the DNA samples come from people with IQs of 160 or higher." I
call baloney on that, as there is no currently normed, well validated IQ test
that yields a score of higher than 160. From farther along in the article:
"Those samples were obtained through a U.S. project known as the Study of
Mathematically Precocious Youth, now in its fourth decade." There is nothing
so amazing about the genes of the participants in the Study of Mathematically
Precocious Youth (one of whom is my immediate descendant, also a participant
here on HN) compared to what is amazing about their upbringing, including
having the opportunity to take the SAT college admission test before age
thirteen as part of regional Talent Search

<http://cty.jhu.edu/talent/>

to qualify for inclusion in the Study of Exceptional Talent.

<http://cty.jhu.edu/set/index.html>

As another few replies have already noted, IQ is polygenic, and no one can
identify any genes with a strong effect on IQ. But there are plenty of
educational practices that spare a minority of United States young people the
lousy elementary mathematics instruction that most receive, and the pupils who
got a good start in mathematics stand out when they take a mathematics test at
an unusual age, if the parents think to arrange the test.

A really good bibliography about IQ and human intelligence topics can be found
at

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations)

as part of Wikipedia userspace, references to reliable sources that ought to
be used by more Wikipedians to update the articles there.

Prediction: the study reported on in the article kindly submitted here will
not find any genes with strong effect on IQ. The review article Johnson, W.
(2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn
Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182

[http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/...](http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Johnson%20Current%20Directions%20Psych%20Science%202010%20\(G%20and%20E%20in%20IQ\).pdf)

looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by
gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial
selection.

"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA and height, the likely
influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their
developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and
environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic
variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce
identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the
same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different
genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would
be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are
only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic
genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing
capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences
in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be
straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through
investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental
processes."

~~~
icelancer
>I call baloney on that, as there is no currently normed, well validated IQ
test that yields a score of higher than 160.

I know the WAIS caps at 155, but the Stanford-Binet test accomodates 160+,
does it not?

~~~
lutusp
> I know the WAIS caps at 155, but the Stanford-Binet test accomodates 160+,
> does it not?

Maybe, maybe not. Know why there's so much uncertainty? The population of
possible subjects is too small. For a population with a mean IQ of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15, the proportion above 160 IQ is only 0.003%. For a
population of 300 million, that's about 9500 people. And remember that
choosing the subjects would be a self-referential quandary -- you need an
accurate IQ test even to select the population to submit to the IQ test.

So no, there's no basis for asserting accurate measurement in that part of the
IQ distribution.

Extra credit -- Marilyn Vos Savant is supposed to have an IQ of 228. Oh,
really? I'm not disputing that it's possible, only that there's no way to
accurately measure an IQ like that. It's not reliable science or statistics.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_Savant>

~~~
icelancer
I definitely understand your argument and agree with it. Thanks for
clarifying; didn't quite get the gist of where you were going with that.

