
DNA tests can predict intelligence, scientists show for first time - esalazar
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/03/12/dna-tests-can-predict-intelligence-scientists-show-first-time/
======
danieltillett
This is the actual paper for those interested [0].

0\.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-017-0001-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-017-0001-5)

------
conistonwater
From the paper:

> _Between 3.64 and 6.84% of phenotypic intelligence (as measured by the VNR
> Test in UK Biobank) could be predicted (Supplementary Table 10); the upper
> limit is an improvement of ~43% on the largest reported estimate to date, of
> 4.8% [16]._

Doesn't 7% seem quite small (though better than previous studies)? What am I
missing?

~~~
barry-cotter
You’re not mssng anything. This is not the end, it’s just the end of the
beginning. Ten years from now we’ll have tests that come within a narrow
margin of error of predicting IQ from spitting in a test tube. Modulo
malnutrition and serious physical abuse but the first at least is not common
in the developed world.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ten years from now we’ll have tests that come within a narrow margin of
> error of predicting IQ from spitting in a test tube. Modulo malnutrition and
> serious physical abuse but the first at least is not common in the developed
> world.

Malnutrition and serious physical abuse aren't the only environmental factors
with a known significant impact on intelligence, and nutrition (particularly
childhood nutrition) patterns with a serious adverse effect on IQ have been
identified in research focussed on first world areas of study; they certainly
aren't rate enough to be insignificant sources of variation in the first
world.

~~~
xyzzyz
What are other important environmental factors affecting IQ in first world? I
haven't really heard of any other are as important as these, so I'm interested
in learning about them.

~~~
OrganicMSG
There are many environmental poisons that affect brain development,
consumption of lead, for instance. Also there are many diseases that can
effect brain development, such as congenital syphilis.

~~~
xyzzyz
Are these significant in the first world though? I thought that phasing out
leaded gasoline and lead paint happened enough time ago to not be a
significant factor anymore these days. Similarly, congenital syphilis
prevalence is not high either, especially as syphilis is quite easy to treat
today.

~~~
OrganicMSG
Well, there is the continuing mass lead poisoning in Flint -
[http://time.com/5197427/flint-water-samples-lead-
increase/](http://time.com/5197427/flint-water-samples-lead-increase/) \- and
congenital syphilis is on the rise in the USA -
[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/syphilis-
newborns-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/syphilis-newborns-
partner/index.html)

~~~
xyzzyz
Based on your article, congenital syphilis is extremely, extremely rare. Lead
poisoning seems to also be rather low, compared to 50 years ago. I know these
two things happen. I asked if they are significant. Seems like they are not.

~~~
OrganicMSG
On their own, maybe not. If taken as examples of two classes of environmental
effect, namely environmental toxins and transmissible diseases, I would be
surprised if those two broad types did not have a significant effect on the
variability of developmental IQ in rich countries.

------
montrose
This is novel, as far as I know:

"And some of the genetic variants that are linked with an increase in
intelligence are also linked with an increase in life expectancy."

------
chiefalchemist
Is it still correct / accurate to equate intelligence with IQ? I was under the
impression that the IQ test has a number of biases (e.g., cultural) that leave
it flawed.

Also, what about creativity? Or (pardon me, just an example) emotional
intelligence? An over-emphasis of the IQ just feels so 20th century.

~~~
swebs
>Is it still correct / accurate to equate intelligence with IQ?

IQ is simply a way to quantify intelligence.

>I was under the impression that the IQ test has a number of biases (e.g.,
cultural) that leave it flawed.

There is actually no standardized way to measure IQ. You've heard criticisms
of a certain test, but that is just one of many. There are tests that do no
use any sort of cultural knowledge at all, such as Raven's Progressive
Matrices. Theoretically, a cave man and a Harvard professor could reach the
same score, assuming all other factors are the same. It only measures visual
pattern recognition, but it is generally assumed that that is highly
correlated with overall intelligence.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices)

There are also g factor tests that attempt to measure overall intelligence.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_\(psychometrics\))

>or emotional intelligence

Pretty much pseudoscience

------
andrei_says_
And soon employment/salary?

Unless we establish laws which compensate for the asymmetrical distribution
and power, we will see technology used to amplify it.

Gattaca was truly great for many reasons, including showing us a (benign)
version of such a society.

~~~
ellisv
> And soon employment/salary?

If you just check for two X chromosomes...

------
Scaevolus
Not the first study showing this: see
[https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185](https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185)
and its citations.

------
AcerbicZero
Regardless of where the "average" intelligence level (As measured by IQ tests)
is for any specific race/ethnicity/etc, all the data I've seen so far shows
far more variation inside each group than between groups. For example, a group
might have an average of ~100, and another ~90, but inside each group you have
individuals varying between ~60 and ~180.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that people are individuals, and
should be treated as such.

~~~
xyzzyz
Yes, but if the variance is the same in both groups, then in the group with
higher mean you might have orders of magnitude more people above certain cut-
off.

For example, suppose you have two groups, each one consisting of 1 billion
people. Both groups have standard deviation of 15 IQ, but the mean of group 1
is 90, and the mean of group 2 is 100. Then, the IQ of 160 is 4 sigma above
the mean of group 2, but 4.6 sigma above mean of group 1. This results in
31670 people above 160 IQ in group 2, but only 1531 people above 160 in group
1. With your cut-off of 180 IQ, only 1 individual out of 1 billion from group
1 will have IQ above 180, but almost 50 in group 2.

Of course, each individual should be treated as such, but you have to take
things like above into account if you are wondering for example why so many
top sprinters are of certain genetical ancestry.

------
pmoriarty
Predict intelligence or predict IQ scores?

~~~
omegaworks
The definitions of intelligence these researchers choose to use are just as
interesting as the predictive method.

Intelligence is such an amorphous concept in our society.

~~~
chiefalchemist
It changes over time. It's cultural. What's labeled intelligence today might
not be the case in the future.

~~~
hyperdunc
It's not as ephemeral as you might think. As long as humans have existed there
have been cognitive traits that confer an advantage in competitive
environments. But our understanding of these traits has improved.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Ok. Question:

Critical thinking and problem solving, for me, fit your criteria. Are these
nature or nurture?

And what of drive and ambition?

There are plenty of really smart people on the dole, yes? But they're probably
just in the wrong place at the wrong time. How is an advantage an advantage if
you're a genius ice sculpturer in say FL? :) Is that not a case of it being
relative?

------
purple-again
Well I hope this turns out to be true instead of another one of those sci pop
headlines that never turns into anything (looking at you type 2 diabetes).

It would really help a lot of people if we could segregate children as they
enter the school system into more refined groups based on their needs rather
than waiting for someone to select you for gifted programs like we do now.

Then each group could focus on its unique challenges in trying to eliminate
whatever portion of intelligence is derived from the environment.

~~~
stormbrew
I'm sure segregating students based on a genetic test that tries to predict
their intelligence wouldn't cause any kind of reinforcement of those trends at
all or create disadvantages for those now branded dumb for their entire school
career.

Surely this could never happen.

~~~
Scaevolus
Why bother doing that when we already segregate students by more accurate IQ
tests for gifted programs?

~~~
barry-cotter
Indeed. And the older the testees get the more stable the results are. Infant
and early childhood tests are predictive but by 14 or so the results are
basically the adult results

------
matte_black
To me this kind of tech has great applications for gig economy type jobs,
where workers with higher detected intelligence can be efficiently and
accurately categorized and made available for a wide spectrum of problem
solving tasks.

~~~
dragonwriter
> To me this kind of tech has great applications for gig economy type jobs,
> where workers with higher detected intelligence can be efficiently and
> accurately categorized and made available for a wide spectrum of problem
> solving tasks.

A genetic test that can predict a single-digit percent of the variation in a
value which can reasonably inexpensively be measured more directly isn't even
a step toward useful tech for that purpose.

~~~
matte_black
Well, then I guess we’ll settle for IQ tests.

------
swebs
""" Intelligence could be measured with a swab of saliva, or drop of blood,
after scientists showed for the first time that a person’s IQ can be predicted
just by studying their DNA.

In the largest ever study looking at the genetic basis for intelligence,
researchers at the University of Edinburgh and Harvard University discovered
hundreds of new genes linked to brain power.

Previous studies have suggested that between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of
intelligence is inherited, and the rest comes through upbringing, friendship
groups and education. That figure was calculated by studying identical twins
who share the same DNA, therefore any differences in IQ between them must be
non-genetic.

But nobody knew which were the ‘smart genes.’

Now by studying the genetic data from more than 240,000 people, scientists
have found 538 genes which are linked to intelligence.

Researchers were even able to predict intelligence just based on a person’s
DNA, a breakthrough which could potentially help doctors to diagnose impaired
cognitive ability, or allow children to be given an tailor-made education
based on their innate abilities.

Scientists knew that a large part of intelligence was inherited but did not
know the genes responsible

Dr David Hill, of the University of Edinburgh’s Centre for Cognitive Ageing
and Cognitive Epidemiology (CCACE) who led the research, said: “Our study
identified a large number of genes linked to intelligence. “We were also able
to predict intelligence in another group using only their DNA.”

The study also showed that the same genes which influence intelligence are
also linked to other biological processes such as length of life.

Although it is known that intelligent people live longer it was generally
assumed that the link was due to social causes, such as a better education,
leading to a more well-paid job, which brings a higher standard of living and
a healthier life.

But the new research suggests that intelligent people are biologically fitter.

The team also found that genes linked with problem-solving powers were
associated with the process by which neurons carry signals from one place to
another in the brain.

A biological intelligence test could help create an individual curriculum for
children

“We have shown is that two biological processes neurogenesis, the process by
which new brain cells are created, and myelination of the central nervous
system are associated with intelligence differences,” added Dr Hill.

“And some of the genetic variants that are linked with an increase in
intelligence are also linked with an increase in life expectancy.”

The study’s principal investigator, Professor Ian Deary, also from CCACE,
said: “We know that environments and genes both contribute to the differences
we observe in people’s intelligence.

“This study adds to what we know about which genes influence intelligence, and
suggests that health and intelligence are related in part because some of the
same genes influence them.”

Previous studies by King’s College London discovered that up to 65 per cent of
the difference in pupil’s GCSE grades was down to genetics, after analysing
genetic data from, 12,500 twins. They found that all exam results were highly
heritable, demonstrating that genes explain a larger proportion of the
differences between children.

The research was published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. """

------
m3kw9
This is great, probably elimate a portion of interviews. :/

~~~
Arbalest
Could just say "Gattaca"

------
starpilot
And also, race:

[https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/](https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/)
(2007)

When will be comfortable accepting that "race" is biological? We need to test
drugs on multiple races for this reason.

~~~
fullshark
Who doesn’t think race is biological?

When people connect race and talents/abilities is when people get
uncomfortable though for fairly obvious reasons. Which is likely how many will
interpret this result (Race related to intelligence) and probably what you
really wanted to say.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Who doesn’t think race is biological?

People that observe that “race” is a highly malleable concept (there isn't
even a broad agreement on how many races there are) that evolves with social,
demographic, and economic shifts in the culture whose views of race are
examined.

~~~
Yetanfou
In other words people who don't know the difference between race - a
biological phenomenon - and ethnicity - a social phenomenon.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In other words people who don't know the difference between race - a
> biological phenomenon - and ethnicity - a social phenomenon.

No, people who recognize that despite the conceit that race is a “biological
concept”, the identification of race (both ascription to others and self-
identified) has always been driven by the same sociological phenomon that
drive ethnic identity, and that, in practice, the concept of race operates as
simply a broader set of ethnic categories, which is why identification of
_what_ races exist and _how_ people are identified as being in one race or
another vary not only between cultures, but within the same cultures over
time.

------
viperscape
Gattaca, here we go

