tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post1173110065996466218..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Should we eat eggs? Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89533103775843539872015-05-08T10:55:33.334-04:002015-05-08T10:55:33.334-04:00Jim,
In part yes, what you say. But it's not ...Jim,<br /><br />In part yes, what you say. But it's not always true. Epidemiology and genetics both do fine when the risk factor has a strong effect. So, it's not that it's never possible to predict at the individual level -- it's that when it takes a bunch of genes with minor effects, and then you throw in environment x gene interaction, and everyone's genome and environmental exposures are unique, it's a lot harder to retrodict (credibly figure out cause retrospectively), never mind predict. Especially given that future environments can never be predicted. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-72254062925528699112015-05-07T20:28:44.718-04:002015-05-07T20:28:44.718-04:00The problem is that it's so hard to know what ...The problem is that it's so hard to know what works or not. Current issue of Nature has a commentary on drug and other kinds of trials, pointing out that many expensive, approved drugs are known only to work on a small fraction of patients....but the reason isn't known. The commentary is about the sorts of studies that might, miraculously, give answers. Epidemiology, even with huge samples, can't figure risks out.<br /><br />Until somebody tries to rethink the question and/or the methods, we'll keep on with this expensive, ineffective wheel-spinning, I think.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-60493164288568886082015-05-07T20:17:30.005-04:002015-05-07T20:17:30.005-04:00Back to the original post on "Should we eat e...Back to the original post on "Should we eat eggs?"<br />Thank you, Anne, for a coherent stab at explaining in relatively simple terms the fundamental problem with establishing cause, even plausible association, whether it be genetics or environmental factors.<br />For me your key statement is "then we're stuck trying to figure out how to apply what we think we learned from the group to individuals who are probably as unalike as they are alike." Based on this statement and other musings, do you think that causal (epi') studies are best limited to studying potential risk factors that can be addressed at the population level (eg, improving air quality), rather than attempt to get from pop. level to individual level "prediction"? And if this is (largely) the case, does this (largely) rule out the value of trying to identify causal genetic variants because, of course, they can't be changed?Jim Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-49425822550176158302015-04-28T11:55:43.009-04:002015-04-28T11:55:43.009-04:00The trait itself is culturally defined and may not...The trait itself is culturally defined and may not have evolved for what is being measured per se. That adds some aspect of inferential complexity. <br /><br />Clearly we know genes are involved in IQ, regardless of what the trait actually is. Tens or more genes are clearly able to damage intelligence severely when badly mutated. So the question is about 'normal' range intelligence.<br /><br />But if large number of genes are involved, each person has a unique genotype, and prediction from that genotype is essentially useless, given the environmental and other factors. This seems to be clearly the case.<br /><br />Then why are so many so obsessed with this? Is it a form of lascivious peering into peoples inherent worth? When we know life experience, nutrition, etc. etc. have great, if not preponderant, effects on societally relevant performance, what is to gain by estimating the fraction of variation due to large numbers of small-effect genes? Why not just measure achieved abilities and society allocates resources accordingly?<br /><br />One reason to resist this obsession is the lesson of history. Racism and societal discrimination lie just beneath the surface, either in the minds of investigators themselves, or in the minds of those seeing these studies. There are, in our view, far more important problems to spend resources on. For example, doing something directly to help those with clear, truly genetic, intelligence problems. <br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-52838035313406598992015-04-27T20:04:23.356-04:002015-04-27T20:04:23.356-04:00Oh, forgot to add that Penke and Arslan do seem to...Oh, forgot to add that Penke and Arslan do seem to have made their choice. Intelligence is going to be genetic. To me, that's ideology, not science. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-26472771549256666652015-04-27T20:02:04.023-04:002015-04-27T20:02:04.023-04:00Anonymous,
We'll get back to your question. ...Anonymous,<br /><br />We'll get back to your question. Been traveling, came home sick!<br />Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-57701842080875983072015-04-27T20:01:09.896-04:002015-04-27T20:01:09.896-04:00Dr M al-L,
Thanks for alerting us to this. To me,...Dr M al-L,<br /><br />Thanks for alerting us to this. To me, the following seems a reasonable way to think about this, foregoing all the arguments about what IQ is, whether it's measurable, whether it's changeable, and so on.<br /><br />Let's say we're trying to figure out the cause of some disease. Actually, let's say diabetes, which is common in Native Americans, e.g., and Mexican Americans, who have a history of admixture with Native Americans, and it looks as though there's a genetic component. We wouldn't have thought so 60 years ago, because diabetes was uncommon in these groups, and it would never have occurred to people that a major pandemic, with perhaps genetic underpinnings, was about to strike. There was no way to know this. (And, even if they all had had their genome on a chip back then, it couldn't have been predicted.)<br /><br />Anyway, strike it did. Diabetes rates, as everyone knows, began to rise sharply after World War II, and lifetime risk for someone with high Amerindian admixture is currently very high, if the person lives in an environment that provokes the disease. <br /><br />So, there was essentially no disease before whatever environmental change happened that 'caused' the epidemic (dietary changes, activity level changes, whatever it is), but it does run in families, and in populations, so there seems to be some genetic predisposition. Is this a genetic disease, or an environmental one? The same question can be asked of many diseases. <br /><br />And, I think, of intelligence. We know that the brain shows great plasticity as it grows, responding to and to some extent being molded by environmental input. But that response, as everything, has a genetic basis. <br /><br />People usually study either the genetic or the environmental epidemiology of diabetes. People who study the genetics do so for some reason -- that's what they know how to do, that's what interests them, etc. Likewise for those who choose to study environmental causation. But that choice doesn't make the other aspect less important, or less essential. Diabetes is still 100% genetic and 100% environmental. <br /><br />People who decide to study intelligence are making the same kind of choice, but in addition, they make a political choice. Why intelligence? And then, why the genetics of intelligence? Or associated environmental factors? This is political, not scientific. Neither side is going to come out on top of this one and explain intelligence completely with genes or environment. Intelligence will always be environmental and genetic, just as diabetes will. <br /><br />But, as with diabetes, because there are environmental risk factors, that's where intervention can be done. But again, that's a sociopolitical choice, not a scientific one. <br /><br />As for the evolutionary history, without going into why we would think modern IQ tests have anything to do with what traits might have been useful millennia ago, suffice it to say that adaptability is more likely to be what was selected, if anything was. The very plasticity of the brain that is being increasingly documented and understood. That's not just true of how the brain works; adaptability is so evolutionarily useful and so ubiquitous that it is likely to have been among the earliest traits that arose, and is why species can adapt to changing environments, which is a key to survival. <br /><br />Ken may still weigh in on the GWAS/GCTA aspects of this, and whatever else, but that's my 2 cents.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-261073219535051662015-04-27T11:32:36.752-04:002015-04-27T11:32:36.752-04:00I have a question for the EcoDevoEvo bloggers, and...I have a question for the EcoDevoEvo bloggers, and it's about a recent online publication that attempts to fluff sociobiology and deride it's opponents within evolutionary biology and biological sciences.<br /><br />http://www.unz.com/announcement/robert-trivers-on-gould-lewontin-william-hamilton-and-others/<br />http://www.unz.com/article/vignettes-of-famous-evolutionary-biologists-large-and-small/<br /><br />The reason I ask you is that your writers have more experience with these figures than I and can tell me if what is being said here is true or not. Many people who've tried to use sociobiology and such to promote racist and sexist views have made the same arguments about people like Lewontin and Gould, and as a consequence I am taking it very seriously as per whether I should take what is said above at face value or not...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-77701896516563614462015-04-26T10:16:50.194-04:002015-04-26T10:16:50.194-04:00Dear EvoDevoEco writers, there is a new paper that...Dear EvoDevoEco writers, there is a new paper that published by Lars Penke and Ruben Arslan that I think you will find interest in. You have written before on the topic of GWAS and GCTA and in general the genetics of IQ. I think you might agree with many of the reasons they give about the results of these studies so far and how the heritability of the IQ studies (twin studies) can be genetically explained. Link is here: http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/3/2/41/htm<br /><br />I would love to hear your opinion on this and your thoughts on whether it's a good review of recent population genetic advances.<br /><br />Have a good one,<br />al-LunduniDr. Mahmud al-Lunduninoreply@blogger.com