
A new type of genetic profiling - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/09/a-new-type-of-genetic-profiling-promises-cleverer-better-looking-children
======
whack
I know this stuff scares the heck out of everyone, but how is this really
different from:

\- Hiring childhood development specialists

\- Pre-K programs

\- Kindergarten enrollment

\- Providing kids with excellent nutrition

\- Providing kids with a home that is safe and free from abuse

Every single factor listed above is demonstrably correlated with lifetime
intelligence, body development, mental/physical health and athleticism. Is it
fair that some kids get to grow up in a safe and loving environment, while
other kids worldwide grow up in malnourished or abusive households. Is it fair
that some kids get best-in-class schooling and attention thanks to rich
parents, while others are left watching TV all day. If we're going to ban
genetic profiling because it is unfair, should we be banning all of the above
as well.

Instead of trying to pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator,
perhaps we should instead focus on pulling everyone up to their highest
potential. I for one welcome a world of universal access to genetic
improvements, and generations of kids who are healthier and smarter than we
can ever hope to be.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
_" I for one welcome a world of universal access to genetic improvements"_

The stuff that's scary is not that there is universally accessible genetic
improvements.

The fear is that these improves are _not_ universally accessible.

~~~
bilbo0s
Even if they were universally accessible, you don't want your kid to be stuck
with "last year's model" so to speak.

Today's genetically improved babies could be sub-optimal by the time they hit
kindergarten and just plain old obsolete before they go into high school. And
the bad news is, I could see the rate of improvement increasing over time. So
that material improvements are being made year to year.

Doesn't bode well for when you're going to look for a job at 29 and you have
to compete with 28 year olds. Even worse if you're 29 and you have to compete
with 25 year olds. And heaven help you if you're 29 and you have to compete
with a 20 year old.

~~~
jlawson
This is a fixed-pie fallacy.

Someone of mediocre intelligence is not harmed by being in a society of people
much smarter than him. On the contrary - he benefits greatly because smarter
societies are safer, fairer, and take care of citizens (including the dumb
ones).

This is revealed by real-life preferences: People from low IQ countries
consistently try very hard to migrate to societies of smarter people. People
from low IQ regions try to get into neighborhoods and schools of higher IQ
people.

It's like complaining that Einstein existed because my grandpa didn't get to
invent relativity. Well, my grandpa was never going to invent relativity. The
fact that Einstein existed just means that the rest of us now get to enjoy the
positive externalities created by his ability.

It's true that if everyone else is smarter, your _relative_ social status
would be lower. But this isn't an argument that scales up, since relative
social status is in fixed total supply anyway.

~~~
Chris2048
Can you give any examples of "low IQ countries"?

~~~
jlawson
Lots of data here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence)

------
pjscott
The obligatory article on this subject is, as always:

[https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection](https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-
selection)

It's long, but there's a concise summary at the top that's _definitely_ worth
a read.

Embryo selection works best when there are a very small number of genetic
variants that you want to select over. Want a child to not be born with Tay-
Sachs disease? Can do! Want a child to be smarter or better-looking? That's
going to be a lot harder, since those traits are influenced by a huge number
of genetic variants, each with small effect, and we've only got a handful of
embryos to choose between, which limits the amount of influence we can have
here.

~~~
toasterlovin
FWIW, your last paragraph is a little misleading. I think a better way to
state it is that you can be 100% certain of selecting embryos that do not have
diseases caused by specific, known single genes. Selection can still be
extremely effective on polygenic traits (traits influenced by a huge number of
different genes), it's just that there isn't a single switch that you're
turning on or off. After all, you're selecting the most intelligent (or, more
specifically, the most likely to be the most intelligent) out of several dozen
embryos. That is like artificial selection on steroids. And I should add: _in
theory_. Right now we still don't know all the various genes that are
responsible for intelligence and, as I understand it, there's a good chance
that a significant number of the genes involved in a polygenic trait like
intelligence are what are called rare variants. IE, they're not widely present
in the population and are instead specific to certain lineages. If that's the
case, then it will be hard to identify those and select the ones present in
you and your mate's respective lineages.

~~~
jakobegger
> That is like artificial selection on steroids

No, it's not, because you are selecting on genotype rather than phenotype.

Embryo selection only works when there is a simple connection between genotype
and phenotype (eg. what type of earlobes do you prefer). For complex traits
like "intelligence", selecting based on genotype is not going to work. To much
noise, too little signal.

~~~
sanxiyn
Note that we are already doing genotype selection on dairy cattles using "net
merit", a proxy for lifetime profit, and succeeding. That's pretty complex
too.

------
brenden2
Humans have also been doing this for many years through a process colloquially
known as "dating".

~~~
tasogare
Yes but let's pretend dating is only about love instead, and that intelligence
is not well defined so that everyone can feel good.

------
designium
One of the biggest issue is that the traits and the genetic selection will be
passed down to future generations and that is a permanent advantage for that
individual and his/her offsprings.

When we compare to Pre-K programs and other current enhancement that can be
bought with money, they are no guarantee that the enhancement will go to the
next generations, unless the family can keep paying for those things in the
future. So the issue is the starting point of the human life.

Today, we still can believe that all human are born "equal"; but the moment a
whole set of human beings are enhanced on a genetic level, a lot of our moral
values will be changed forever.

No longer we can say that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights." if that happens, it will upend things like the "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" and many other concepts that today's society
relies on to organize itself. Imagine to live in a society where you are
genetically "inferior" and there is no way you can "change" or upgrade who you
are.

~~~
buboard
Why would it? People are already quite the unequal genetically, sometimes
unequivocally so (e.g. women are less strong than men) but we accept that we
have the same rights.

~~~
ahje
The LGBTQ-movement, for example, is extremely vocal about any technique that
could potentially be used to determine the sexual orientation of a person.
They've spent a huge amount of time and resources in order to get society to
redefine homosexuality from an illness and into a personal matter which should
be included in societal norms.

If someone discovered a reliable way to detect the future sexuality of a child
then those efforts would suddenly be contradicted, because 1) it would be
harder to argue that it's not just a condition, and 2) no matter how
controversial, there would be a demand for such screenings, and the LGBTQ-
community would most likely interpret it as an existential threat.

Obviously, I chose sexuality as an example as it's an easy metaphor that most
people get, but this reasoning can be applied to quite a few other things that
are (possibly) caused by genetical factors and where there's a community
involved. As an example, I've heard people mention an on-going "genocide" of
people with Downs syndrome, simply because pre-natal screenings are quite
effective at detecting it and that parents therefore terminate the pregnancy
instead of having a child with Downs.

EDIT: Simply put: If you start screening for X, thereby allowing it to be
prevented or treated in any way, then you imply that the X is something
negative. People with X might take offence to that.

------
Merrill
It's already routine to do genetic screening of in vitro embryos before
selection for implantation. It is done to check for some of the more common
deleterious genetic variations. But there is no reason that they couldn't
check for other things like eye color.

Eventually, of course, the embryos could also be modified by CRISPR or some
similar technique, and those for which the genetic modification was successful
would then be chosen for implantation.

Outlawing this sort of thing is likely to have two effects:

\- ordinary folks will do it illegally in back street genetic engineering
operations, and

\- rich folks will engage in medical tourism to some place set up to cater to
their needs - a Cayman Islands of genetic engineering.

PS - I'm not sure what the problem with cloning is, since identical twins,
triplets, ... are naturally occurring clones.

------
rtkwe
Often when topics of genetic modification and screening like this come up
comparisons get made to eugenics which I kind of get but ultimately the big
moral distinction between the two for me comes down to the distinction between
eugenics which seeks improvements by forcing people not to have kids and the
newer techniques that just modify particular embryos. I do think we need to be
supremely careful on things that go beyond screening since there people are
making decisions that will stick with someone the rest of their life.

~~~
haihaibye
>> people are making decisions that will stick with someone the rest of their
life.

The minimum possible effect time, if they have no descendants.

------
rolltiide
I think the thing that scares people about these concepts is that they know
everyone will choose it.

This article chose to use the word "profiling"

People choose to refrain from other loaded words like "eugenics"

but this is exactly what people do pursuing others that they consider
attractive. nobody would say they are, with the idea of eugenics reserved for
1930s state sanctioned medical pogroms, but their actions of "choosing
inheritable traits" undermine that.

~~~
hanniabu
What they won't tell you is they will also select ones that are signal greater
civil obedience so you're easier to control

 _takes tin foil hat off_

~~~
mattnewton
One thing an adolescence of reading dystopian sci fi didn't prepare me for is
the seemingly sheer incompetence of Western governments in the real world
compared to the ones of Orwell and Huxley. If we needed to be further bred for
complacency it would have to compete with bread and circuses for cost
effectiveness.

------
raven105x
To classify mutation as "artificial" or "natural" is a fool's errand. Nature
makes mistakes all the time, just like us humans - the only difference is we
don't have hundreds of millions of years to even ours out. In the current age
this may still be a "but religion and ethics" argument. This is conjecture,
alas it will be a "if your nation isn't doing this, it is obsolete" fact by no
later than 2100.

------
Darth_Hobo
Good news. I hope it will be very expensive, so that only smart and hard
working people can afford it for their children. Eventually we will need to
leave lazy and stupid people behind, and creating a class of genetically
superior humans is a good way to do it, because it will create a group
identity and they won't consider themselves as normal humans. And when it is
US vs THEM the hard choices are much easier to make.

------
nwah1
Once genetic editing becomes more fully developed, the approach of selecting
only modal genetic variants is another not-so-risky approach because it would
be relying on existing selection criteria and simply removing the mutations.
Like a genetic spell-checker.

[https://archive.md/cD1fn](https://archive.md/cD1fn)

------
neonate
[https://web.archive.org/web/20191107203831/https://www.econo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191107203831/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/09/a-new-
type-of-genetic-profiling-promises-cleverer-better-looking-children)

------
jahaja
This is after all, and always will be, a symptom of our sick society. In a
competitive environment the traits that are socially desirable will be sought
after. Currently these are, among others, being attractive, tall, male, white
and so on.

~~~
buboard
Technically society would be more (physically) ill if sexual selection didnt
exist

~~~
jahaja
That is given? Independent of culture and society.

~~~
buboard
we can only assume that sexually-unselective societies died out

------
Zenst
I'm sure this will become the next drama to play out in sports and genetic
enhancement becoming the next doping scandal. I say next, but looking at 20-30
years from now.

------
searine
Looks are subjective. There isn't and will never be a SNP for "attractive".
Tall yes, but not hot.

Also, the understanding isn't there yet to detect casual SNPs. We know roughly
where these SNPs are, but not which ones they are. We can tell that if you
have this region of the genome you may be taller, but along with it might come
linked diseases.

So no, no designer babies yet, but some kinds of selection are possible in
theory.

~~~
Tehdasi
Tallness is in and of itself will get you more heart disease since it put more
strain on the heart to pump blood ever further. And tallness as an attractive
trait only works in comparison, if everyone was 7 foot high, then they are all
of average height, and equally attractive from that perspective.

~~~
klipt
> tallness as an attractive trait only works in comparison

In real life yes, because people see your height relative to others.

In online dating it's all in comparison to nice round numbers like 6'. 80% of
men are under 6' in real life, because the literal average is below that. But
online 6' becomes the magic marker and anyone shorter is judged "below
average".

~~~
buboard
Which raises the question: does online dating mess with human evolution?

~~~
haihaibye
7 years post Tinder it should be obvious humans are currently undergoing
computer algorithm based sexual selection.

------
buboard
Many of these mutations can be edited with crispr/cas9 techniques which are
becoming increasingly better

------
kylek
"We didn't want... Diseases, yes, but-"

"We were just wondering if it's good to leave a few things to chance?"

"We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have
enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more
additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply the best of
you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a
result."

\-- Gattaca

~~~
wang_li
Not that anyone here cares, but this is my favorite movie.

~~~
conception
I love talking about this film because you can argue its theme really either
way. There's the standard "you can't gene edit heart" or whatever: hard work
means more than what you're told you can be at birth.

However -

The story of the film tells us time and time again that Vincent -isn't- able
to compete and measure up to the standards needed for space travel. He fails
his cardio tests, he can't see well enough to cross the street. But his vanity
and pride causes him to cheat the system to make it seem like he passes all
the tests. He has the heart of a fighter figuratively but not literally and I
always imagined after the end of the movie that his actual faults would come
to light and it would cost someone their lives in space.

What if he lost a contact lens in space? They don't have more. What if there
was an emergency and they needed someone with an expected amount of endurance
to help save everyone? Gattaca for me always told a different, darker story. I
think the story they wanted was a caste story - if he was just as able and
strong but beat out the genetically superior people on their terms then that
would have been the story they were trying to tell. In the end, they told the
story of a clever cheater who put his own wants above those in a delicate
mission and it's left to a guess if that cost lives or no.

During a talk with another person on this, he supposed that this is why Jerome
incinerates himself at the end. He needed a lowly sort as such as Vincent to
fulfill his own dream, and in the end just could not reconcile how he may have
just destroyed and polluted the whole of his pure society for his own selfish
reasons.

~~~
ad404b8a372f2b9
You can do that exercise with most movies: analyze a decision or character to
its logical, or most likely, outcome and figure out its limitations but I feel
like it really strips the movie of all its spirit to take it so literally.

To have Vincent be just as genetically able and strong would defeat the whole
point. Not all men are born equal, life is unfair but we should all aspire to
reach for our dreams despite our limitations. If we take things to their
materialistic dead-end we get a single man optimally selected for a single
task from his birth unto his death like a machine with no room for error, or
chance, or humanity.

------
bprater
Lots of paywall entries in Hacker News today. How are you folks viewing the
articles?

~~~
brenden2
I don't think anyone reads the articles. I certainly don't, I'm just here for
the comments.

~~~
buboard
Same, some paywalls have become too hard to overcome

------
lyqwyd
GATTACA

