Genetics a large factor in influencing intelligence? (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

Scientists are a step closer to a genetic test for intelligence after a study of Australian teenagers identified two regions of DNA linked to performance in IQ tests.

Nicholas Martin, of the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, said between 40 and 80 per cent of the variation in intelligence between people was estimated to be due to genetic factors.

Researchers had generally assumed that hundreds of genes would be involved, each with a small effect, which would make them extremely difficult to find. "We thought: 'That may be true, but we have the ability to detect genes of large effect so we may as well have a look for them,"' Professor Martin said.

His team used a technique called genome-wide linkage scanning to analyse all the DNA of 725 teenagers from 329 Australian families. Non-identical twins and pairs of siblings who had very different IQ scores were found also to have significant differences in two small regions of DNA, one on chromosome two and one on chromosome six. To confirm the findings, Dutch researchers conducted a similar study on 225 people. The two teams' results were published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Advertisement
AdvertisementProfessor Martin said the two regions contained hundreds of genes and a lot more work was needed to identify the ones influencing intelligence. "We have reduced the search from a needle in a haystack to a needle in a hay bale," he said.

The research could improve scientific understanding of intellectual disorders such as autism, dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity. "Finding new therapies for intellectual disability would have great social benefit," Professor Martin said.

If a genetic test for intelligence was developed there was a risk, as with any new technology, that it could be misused to discriminate against individuals, he said. In democratic countries, society would decide on appropriate uses, but he thought it was unlikely that Australians would allow genetic testing of IVF embryos to select those with a predisposition for high intelligence.

But Ian Findlay, of Brisbane company Gribbles Molecular Science, said he thought there would be pressure for screening of embryos, even though a test would be imprecise.

Some parents may want to test young children to identify those academically inclined so they could push them in that direction, Professor Findlay said. "Parents are already very competitive about getting their children into schools. They want the best for them."

The region on chromosome two was found to overlap with a stretch of DNA linked to autism, and the region on chromosome six overlapped with an area implicated in dyslexia.

So were the social Darwinists actually right?

 

[Xayma]

Well I'm not suprised that it is a large factor but I'm not too happy on the idea of parents only pushing the ones with the genes. IQ tests do not always reflect how one will go academically or how successful they could be in the future (which education could help them with).

 

[loquasagacious]

Interesting...... Gataca anyone?

 

[santaslayer]

We can blame our parents if we didn't make it to med school??

Awesome.

 

[nick1048]

An interesting study in terms of those with an intellectual disability, however I'm not too sure about the other end of the scale. Intelligence may become part of genetics (which I highly doubt) but what implication does this have? Do we really want to set up yet another discriminating factor within our lives, because ultimately this is where this technology is going. On your job application forms you will have to include what type of "intellegence" you have based on genetics, or perhaps be put into different classing through school. Is this Brave New World or what???

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hmm... I see genetics as often determining intellectual potential, and I do believe some people have higher potential than others.

 

[Xayma]

Hmm... I see genetics as often determining intellectual potential, and I do believe some people have higher potential than others.

That may be true, but how far they reach in that potential is going to depend on more then just those genes.

They might have no interest in the areas in which they are gifted or are pushed into the wrong areas (they might have great spatial and mathematical talent but are pushed by their parents into law etc).

 

[MoonlightSonata]

(Note that of course very few scientists in the realm of intelligence and psychology actually agree on what intelligence is and how to measure it.)

Most believe that it is a combination of environment and genetics. It is a major controversy in psych as to the actual extent of genetic influence over intelligence, and there are various examples of evidence to support either view. I remember there was a family with an average IQ husband and wife who produced four genius children; it had to do with the particular way they were raised. The father told them about how things worked when they were very young, for instance.

40-80% is a very vague estimate... but it's what I would have expected

 

[Slidey]

I personally subscribe to nurture over nature. I'll be examining that over the coming years, but I would like to believe everybody has equal potential to do well or "be smart". I believe I've seen evidence to support my views, too.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I agree with Xayma, that even if people are genetically predisposed to be intelligent there are other factors involved which will decide whether they will reach their potential.... like motivation, the conditions they grow up in, etc. I think it would be bad to decide how smart people are based on their genes.

 

[paper cup]

Well I'm not suprised that it is a large factor but I'm not too happy on the idea of parents only pushing the ones with the genes. IQ tests do not always reflect how one will go academically or how successful they could be in the future (which education could help them with).

yep.

age old question, nature or nurture? inclined to think it's a mix of both. remember discussing this in junior science, we were going to get some twins and send one to russia and the other to africa...but of course looking back it wouldn't work. too many factors to consider. what would you use as a control...hmm

 

[santaslayer]

It IS a mix...

but there are always exceptions...

like the genuises that start working in a hopital at the age of 12...

I really think that's pure nature doing it's work...
of course, these genuises needed some guidance...but not a lot...

 

[jt.]

(Note that of course very few scientists in the realm of intelligence and psychology actually agree on what intelligence is and how to measure it.)

Most believe that it is a combination of environment and genetics. It is a major controversy in psych as to the actual extent of genetic influence over intelligence, and there are various examples of evidence to support either view. I remember there was a family with an average IQ husband and wife who produced four genius children; it had to do with the particular way they were raised. The father told them about how things worked when they were very young, for instance.

40-80% is a very vague estimate... but it's what I would have expected

Moonlight... If you are referring to the children in the story "The children on the Hill", then youre well informed. That is one of my favourite books, no one I know has heard of it.. Very good story. Four genius children in the UK, who were raised by a special 'process' developed by the parents..

 

[mr EaZy]

So were the social Darwinists actually right?

it has nothing to do with social darwinism

Social darwinism is related to non biological factors which allow a country to be superior to another and wipe the other guy out.

i think i first read it when fmr attorney general ramsey clark of the U.S used it to describe American Imperialism, but this was back in yr 8, so i forgot all the details.

btw just assume this is a case of social darwinism, what did they say to make them right?

 

[mr EaZy]

with the nature or nurture thing... my textbook says it is 50:50

with nature on its own, we must realise that the genes may state what we are "meant to be" but our development eg: of our brain during infacy or pregnancy will have more of a factor in deciding our overall intelligence. i think this was pointed out before more or less.

 

[neo o]

with the nature or nurture thing...

Once you link intelligence to genetics, you're creating a reason why the poor stay poor and the wealthy propser (because of genetics).

 

[Comrade nathan]

Once you link intelligence to genetics, you're creating a reason why the poor stay poor and the wealthy propser (because of genetics).

It does not confirm that genetics are the major factor. Even if they did prove that it is gentics that play a role in intelligence, the social darwinist wouldn't be right, because it doesn't disprove that other factors as culture and economics are a major factor.

 

[neo o]

It does not confirm that genetics are the major factor. Even if they did prove that it is gentics that play a role in intelligence, the social darwinist wouldn't be right, because it doesn't disprove that other factors as culture and economics are a major factor.

The social darwinist comment was rather tongue in cheek, the post was meant to create a nature v nurture debate not try to push forward one test as a definitive answer.

 

[Meldrum]

The whole concept of an IQ was birthed from social Darwinists who wanted to further their Masonic/White supremist movements.

 

[mr EaZy]

The social darwinist comment was rather tongue in cheek, the post was meant to create a nature v nurture debate not try to push forward one test as a definitive answer.

no! your assumed definition of social darwinism was incorrect as its real definition has nothing to do with genetics. social darwinism is more like : the struggle of the fittest - but in a literal sense.

neo - ur azn arent u? ok well, just say your chinese: Go to China and you'll see lots of poor people right? well when they migrate here, we see them bulging their brains out in every domain. They are intelligent- but society in china pushed them down (too little opportunities). Hence Genetics does not explain why the poor get poorer - thats just an apologetic view to how the developed countries are exploiting the 3rd world.

You didnt have to give me this report of intelligence being genetically linked. i suspected it a long time ago. im not criticizing your intentions ; rather, just your definition of one term!