“First, let me tell you how smart I am. So. Fifth grade math teacher said I was clever at maths and, looking back, I have to admit that she was right. I can tell you that time exists, but it cannot be integrated into the fundamental equation. And do not have to believe me. A big part of what people say, only partly true. And I say”.
So begins a story of computational biologist from Cambridge Jim Kozubek. In a paper published in Nature Genetics in 2017, it was reported that after analyzing tens of thousands of genomes, scientists have linked 52 gene with a human intelligence, although no single variant has not provided more gain than a few hundredths of a percent, to the intellect. As has told the senior author of the study Daniel posthuma, statistical geneticist from the University of Vrije in Amsterdam, “it will be a long time before scientists can actually predict intelligence using genetics. Despite this, it is easy to imagine the social consequences of concern: students, prikladyvaya the results of genome sequencing to the application for admission to the College; employers, rummaging in the genetic data of suitable candidates; ECO, promising the child a high level of intelligence due to the use of CRISPR-Cas9.
Some people are already ready for this new world. Philosophers like John Harris from the University of Manchester, and Julian Savulescu of Oxford University claimed that we will be required to manipulate the genetic code of our future children, for the benefit of them. Also, the term “parental neglect” was expanded to include “genetic disdain”, suggesting that if we do not use genetic engineering or cognitive enhancement to improve our children is wrong. Others, like David Correa, who teaches at the University of new Mexico, foresees a dystopian future where the rich will use the power of genetic engineering to transfer the power of the social sphere in the form of the genetic code, creating a “blue blood” in the literal sense.
Such problems are perennial in nature; the public alarming change in genetics ever since scientists invented the recombinant DNA. Back in the 1970-ies David Baltimore won the Nobel prize, have wondered whether the show was his pioneering work that “the differences between people are genetic differences, not environmental”.
As it turned out, genes influence intelligence, but only in a broad sense and in an indirect manner. Genes involved in complex relations, creating neural systems that may be impossible to reproduce. In fact, the scientists who are trying to understand how genes interact to create the optimal network, are faced with the so-called “traveling salesman problem”. Biologist-theorist Stuart Kauffman in “On the origin of order” (1993) wrote of her: “the Task is to start with one of the N cities to go into each city and to return to the start by the shortest route. This problem is easy to state, extremely difficult.” Evolution first confined to a few business models, and then thousands of years perfecting the solution but the best that I can do computers to create the optimal biological network from multiple inputs is to use heuristics, that is, abbreviated decision. The difficulty reaches a new level, including because the proteins and cells interact in higher dimensions. Importantly, genetic studies do not allow to diagnose, treat, or eliminate mental disorders, nor does it explain the complex interactions that give rise to intelligence. We will not be able to create Superman in the near future.
In fact, all of this complexity can withstand, the ability of species to evolve. Kauffman introduced the concept of “complexity catastrophe”, the situation of complex organisms, when evolution’s already done its job and the genes are so intertwined that the role of natural selection has declined, giving way to the health of an individual. That is kind of made his way to the form, which cannot easily evolve or improve.
If the complexity is a trap, it will and the thought about the elitism of individual genes. In the 1960-ies Richard Lewontin and John Hubby used a new technology — gel electrophoresis — to separate unique variations of proteins. They showed that different forms of the same gene, or alleles, was distributed where variative than expected. In 1966, Lewontin and Hubby discovered the principle of the “balancing selection,” which explains that sub-optimal gene variations may remain in the population because contribute to diversity. The human genome works in Parallels. We have at least two copies of any gene on all autosomal chromosomes and the presence of copies of the gene will be useful, especially for the diversity of the immune system, if evolution wants to try a relatively risky option, while retaining tested and working version of the gene. Over time, genetic variants that can contribute some risk or novelty, will return or follow a positive genetic variant. If it has any consequence for the human intellect, the parasite genes have a tendency to follow each other; none of them would be so great to use other genes did not make sense.
It is important to note that we know that 30,000 genes can not determine the organization of the 100 trillion synaptic connections of the brain, pointing to an undeniable reality: intelligence, to a certain extent, tempered by challenges and loads during brain development. We know that evolution sometimes takes the risk, so we will always have the genetic variation responsible for autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression and schizophrenia; therefore, the view that science will eventually solve the problem of mental health is fundamentally wrong. For evolution does not exist, the excellent genes related to the risk and appropriate to specific tasks and conditions.
Trust a biologist, he should know.
While genes do affect intelligence, we cannot improve the mind
Ilya Hel