tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post2936113143967469764..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: The significance of (looking for) genes for educational achievementAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-51089456923208434162013-10-03T17:54:19.820-04:002013-10-03T17:54:19.820-04:00If people can divide into groups and exclude other...If people can divide into groups and exclude others based on genes pertaining to skin pigmentation, why couldn't they decide to exclude others based on other genetic markers defined as significant by the members of one such group? "Race" is a social fiction no matter how you define it in physical/genetic terms. <br /><br />A real link between gene x and intelligence is not necessary to promote this view. A statistical association between the presence/absence of gene x and high intelligence may be enough to form a basis of discrimination. Later science may debunk the earlier research, but the damage would already be done. <br /><br />Science has gone on a tear before hyping early results. People can react to that hype. Not all of the people reacting are scientists, & some have agendas that can be furthered by promoting it.<br /><br />There are people who claim that everyone is looking out for their own self interest... except politicians, or everyone has an ideology... except themselves. <br /><br />RealityPleasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06133193509019526409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-68609527349288241552013-10-03T16:20:21.962-04:002013-10-03T16:20:21.962-04:00So substitute studies of the effects of programs l...So substitute studies of the effects of programs like Head Start, or even just the effects of having a good teacher. The point is only that many non-genetic factors surely have much more effect on success in school than shown by this GWAS. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-45415800477666820472013-10-03T14:34:35.734-04:002013-10-03T14:34:35.734-04:00That breastfeeding study? No correction for parent...That breastfeeding study? No correction for parental intelligence (which is likely the missing correlation given certain groups' issues with breastfeeding), and a stupid focus on 'social class', an increasingly useless variable. Worthless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-41061538108921652232013-07-21T09:40:44.322-04:002013-07-21T09:40:44.322-04:00I'm with you Stephane! Our post tomorrow, whi...I'm with you Stephane! Our post tomorrow, while not directly answering your questions, addresses the issues you raise.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-51771500430573166472013-07-20T23:37:23.050-04:002013-07-20T23:37:23.050-04:00Anne, thanks to answer my comments
The question i...Anne, thanks to answer my comments <br />The question is why scientific are fascinated by this social Darwinism ?<br />Is there any scientific argument against this elite legitimation through genetics.. Are we going to repeat the XVIII and those revolutions. <br />Is there not a scientific argument to totally separate the « biological » genetics which can serve to cure disease from this mad science which is social genetics ?<br />Anyway should explain to these scientists that a 2% explanation power is not a valid result in human science.<br /><br />Stephanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-43083943062023943002013-07-20T12:33:35.418-04:002013-07-20T12:33:35.418-04:00At risk of torturing an analogy here, Stephane, I ...At risk of torturing an analogy here, Stephane, I think your comment is interesting because the world you describe is basically the world as described by strict Darwinians. And I think your critique of ideas about intelligence is very apt. In the Darwinian's world, the one in which "survival of the fittest" rules, and there's one good solution to who survives to reproduce and evolve, the adaptive solution is chosen by natural selection. Less fit solutions don't exist, and there's no mechanism other than selection. <br /><br />But a better description would be "failure of the frail" -- in this world there are many ways to survive and reproduce, and not all traits are here because of natural selection. Just as you note about many forms of intelligence and multiple good solutions, there's not simply a best, genetically determined way.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-76660659723728046142013-07-20T10:49:51.095-04:002013-07-20T10:49:51.095-04:00I will try to make a contribution to this debate,u...I will try to make a contribution to this debate,using a philosophical concept.<br />Lest imagine that the intelligence is determined by our genome. That would mean that the 'clever" or "stupid" decision we take are pre determined by definition.<br /><br />Is this world only one good solution exist and preference and/or opinion do not.<br /><br />In that case, no free will exist as our preference and opinion are determinate by our genome.<br /><br />Does anyone can really believe we could analyze a gene which has been responsible for the best decision in the history of humanity ?<br /><br />Should analyses the genome of Einstein or Churchill. Why not Hitler ? It was kind of intelligent as well ?Stephanenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-31796744513190061752013-07-08T15:06:41.760-04:002013-07-08T15:06:41.760-04:00I'll make another few points about this study ...I'll make another few points about this study that critics of my views may find suprising, but that to me show even further why this kind of study, not just this study, has serious problems.<br /><br />First, if the authors want to make the no-effects point, they could clearly say that, including in the title. That not the wording nor the tenor of the title.<br /><br />Second, if this big a study can't account for more than a trivial fraction of the clear heritability (ignoring the amount of controversy about how much that is), then it is hardly very useful.<br /><br />Third, related to the second point, there are tens (hundreds?) of genes that have been identified and in which mutations have substantial effect on cognitive ability (ignoring what that may mean), and essentially none of which were identified as having any effect in this study. This shows the problems with this sort of ascertainment and its interpretation. It tells us very little about genetics, even when we know from heritability that this trait, like any trait, is substantially affected by genes (in aggregate, even if no one gene has major effects).<br /><br />Fourth, with this trait like others, it is almost certain that you can have major mutations including complete inactivation, individually, in some if not most of these genes and no cognitive problems. This is a general finding.<br /><br />We are simply not taking what we know about genetics seriously. That's difficult and is not amenable to a steady flow of grant funds or of publications. We need to fix our system so we can think harder and learn from what we know.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-69362112401714644872013-07-08T15:03:59.437-04:002013-07-08T15:03:59.437-04:00If this is in fact the report of negative results,...If this is in fact the report of negative results, it is certainly not clear to me. The title certainly doesn't suggest this ("GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment"). I had read the FAQ, yes, and have read the Chronicle piece and they don't suggest it either. What I see in both of these is the usual "more research needed." <br /><br />And, from the paper abstract: "Genes in the region of the loci have previously been associated with health, cognitive, and central nervous system phenotypes, and bioinformatics analyses suggest the involvement of the anterior caudate nucleus. These findings provide promising candidate SNPs for follow-up work, and our effect size estimates can anchor power analyses in social-science genetics." <br /><br />This doesn't sound like a report of negative effects. <br /><br />And, from the Supplemental Material:<br /><br />"Exploring possible explanations for very small effect sizes<br /><br />The effect sizes we find are much smaller than those found for other replicated SNP association results for complex physical traits such as body height (15), BMI (18), or metabolite profiles (47). In this section, we explore three possible explanations:<br /><br />A. Measurement error attenuates the estimated effect;<br /><br />B. The genetic effect is conditional on specific environmental circumstances, and hence a meta-analysis approach that averages across different environments partially masks the genetic effect;<br /><br />C. “Biologically distal” phenotypes such as years of education have smaller effect sizes than more ”biologically proximal” phenotypes such as body height."<br /><br />What this suggests, as I read it, are reasons why a true genetic effect was not found. It would have been if A, B or C hadn't been true. Again as I read it, there is nothing here that suggests that this paper is reporting a true negative result. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-21081810035688007652013-07-08T14:25:01.380-04:002013-07-08T14:25:01.380-04:00Do not be afraid. "That which can be destroye...Do not be afraid. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." -P.C. Hodgell <br /><br />The brain is extremely complex and something like 80% of our genes are expressed in the brain, I wouldn't be surprised if an enormous number of SNP are involved. <br />R. Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-40822330601337981022013-07-08T13:03:37.207-04:002013-07-08T13:03:37.207-04:00Regarding funding -- how much did this study cost?...Regarding funding -- how much did this study cost? It was piggy-backing on a series of other studies designed to find genes influencing other traits. This study should have been very inexpensive for its large sample size. It shows what it intended to show -- that Weiss is right about vanishingly small effects on complex traits. Given the pro-Weiss design, pro-Weiss finding and low cost, it's hard to see what you all are complaining about. Do you think the authors disagree with you on some point?<br /><br />Disclaimer: I'm one of the 100+ coauthors.<br /><br />Have you read their FAQ?:<br /><br />http://ssgac.org/documents/FAQsRietveldetal2013Science.pdf<br />Mike Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11147502231875505613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-55024794491363640522013-07-08T12:59:22.932-04:002013-07-08T12:59:22.932-04:00First, for so-called "complex disorders"...First, for so-called "complex disorders", genetic heterogeneity completely confounded efforts to find really rare mutations, and our inability to define a biologically relevant phenotype (especially in psychiatry) confounds all attempts to define segregation patterns and penetrance. So early failures or apparent lack of Mendelian segregation do not argue against the existence of many rare mutations with large effects.<br /><br />For quantitative traits, it is not clear whether the phenotype is more affected by a combination of (very many) common variants or by a much smaller number of rare mutations in each individual. Either way, the inheritance patterns would be very complex and would look pretty much the same. We have not had a method to look for rare mutations and assess their impact on phenotype to date but, given: (i) traits like intelligence are highly heritable, and (ii) common variants don't seem to explain much of this, it makes sense to look at the rare ones. That being said, there is another possible explanation for intelligence in particular, which is that it is a general fitness indicator, reflecting a very general mutational load, rather than (or in addition to) the effects of mutations specifically affecting (mostly presumably lowering) intelligence.Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-88532419764756084952013-07-08T12:55:55.210-04:002013-07-08T12:55:55.210-04:00The authors who planned this study intended to sho...The authors who planned this study intended to show that all individual genetic effects are vanishingly small and that studies finding large effects are not credible. Maybe the authors were reading Weiss. Read this:<br /><br />http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/there-is-no-gene-for-finishing-college/33045Mike Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11147502231875505613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-61188371786470478282013-07-08T12:39:48.778-04:002013-07-08T12:39:48.778-04:00Here I'd say that we're human, and we'...Here I'd say that we're human, and we're these days bourgeois: we need our careers and status and so on. And, thanks to Thatcherism even in the UK you need a steady stream of grants. The bigger and less-endable they are, the better. And then big investment has to be justified.<br /><br />Thinking originally is very hard if a problem is a substantial one.<br /><br />Thinking of consequences of this kind of research doesn't lead to tempering. Thinking of history rarely works in human societies, hence our repeatedly falling victim to Santayana's warning about repeating past mistakes. Past abuses have resulted from otherwise seemingly beneficent research,but we usually only close the door after some horse has gotten out. Some of us are old enough to have direct memories of such things.<br /><br />Even our IRBs are less than strict watchdogs, and tolerate all sorts of research that is thinly justified but causes all sorts of torment to animals, and is under pressure not to turn down faculty requests for human research either, certainly not if nobody is immediately harmed by it. We can always envison great positive benefits for work we propose. <br /><br />But self-censoring for societally appropriate reasons is not very effective.<br />And many justify laissez faire because we can blithely say that our job is to understand Nature however she is, and censorship does, of course, have its negative side.<br />Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89333699717275738232013-07-08T12:35:34.862-04:002013-07-08T12:35:34.862-04:00Thanks for this. Yes, hype is not a game. There a...Thanks for this. Yes, hype is not a game. There are consequences. <br /><br />And indeed, sometimes "It's complicated" is the answer. We do understand. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-52554980582485766012013-07-08T12:30:07.086-04:002013-07-08T12:30:07.086-04:00There's no magic answer. Many do argue that wh...There's no magic answer. Many do argue that what we should be seeking is rare variants with major effect. That's like going back in circles, because that was the basis of genetics in the first 2/3 of the 20th century. <br /><br />Clearly there are rare variants, when they are important they segregate in families, with high penetrance. That's not the general explanation for high heritability of complex traits. And segretation can arise in purely polygenic traits (that's been clear only since Falconer and others pointed it out in the '60s).<br /><br />Common variants for common disease was the even-then BS rationale for mega genomic funding. It never had a serious theoretical basis, but of course there are instances where that's the case.<br /><br />The retreat (never so acknowledged, of course) of some was to say that GWAS was a bust and what we need is even more whole-genome sequence data, and we'll find the rare variants and combinations of rare variants that are responsible for your-favorite-trait. But the role of rare combinations of variants is something discussed (and controversial) roughly 80 years ago. <br /><br />Rare and hence essentially unique genotype combinations will not account in epistemically useful medical application, and probably have little evolutionary relevance, for various reasons.<br /><br />That almost everything that's not cultural has substantial heritability is not at all new, and indeed was implicitly the basis of Darwin's argument for how evolution worked. But complex genomic etiology is not best studied by enumeration of individually unique genotypes even if (as we said in a series of posts not too long ago) each is highly determinitive.<br /><br />The truth is that life is a mix of these and that we have no a prior theory for what that mix will be. And the truth of the structure of science is that me-too projects with predictable but incremental results and exaggeration of importance and the like, are the way our system works. That tends also to obfuscate what we know and to alter priorities from accurately reflecting that.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-12575979502496842842013-07-08T12:22:59.570-04:002013-07-08T12:22:59.570-04:00Having only last night been through yet another IQ...Having only last night been through yet another IQ twitter storm with Stuart Ritchie, I'll keep this short.<br /><br />It seems to me that IQ is correlated with all sorts of things, but the problem of causality makes the correlations impossible to interpret.<br /><br />It seems self-evidently silly to suppose that the attributes of a human can be described by a single number (whether IQ or any other number).<br /><br />The paper failed to discover anything useful about the genetics of IQ. That itself is interesting (but the hype isn't).<br /><br />The fact that UK politicians were silly enough to listen to the exaggerated claims of psychologists in the 1930s led to selection of children at 11 and that did much social harm. Hype is not a game: it has consequences.<br /><br />As I think rather often, whatever happened to the ability of scientists to say "I don't know. It's too complicated to understand"?David Colquhounhttp://dcscience.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-20157260841251304762013-07-08T12:20:23.215-04:002013-07-08T12:20:23.215-04:00I will not banish genetics entirely when I am quee...I will not banish genetics entirely when I am queen. We have long said that genetics should legitimately deal with truly genetic disorders. But getting from the age of everything being genetic to only truly genetic traits being genetic is proving to be a long haul. (For those who didn't see our Aeon piece on genetic determinism, which might be relevant to this discussion, or at least help expand on our ideas a bit, it's <a href="http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/kenneth-weiss-anne-buchanan-genetics/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.) Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-78495226056668179812013-07-08T11:55:02.156-04:002013-07-08T11:55:02.156-04:00I also think that GWAS are not the most useful way...I also think that GWAS are not the most useful way to spend scarce scientific funds. But conflating genetic research generally with GWAS does the wider approach a disservice. GWAS are intellectually bereft, in my opinion, because, among other things, they ignore evolutionary genetics, which suggests that common variants are common because they're not doing much of anything. But geneticists taking other approaches really are finding rare mutations predisposing to some of the conditions you mention, especially schizophrenia. These discoveries are providing real insights into the complex etiology and pathogenesis of such conditions and also reinforce their extreme genetic heterogeneity. This further undermines any approaches - especially GWAS - which treat them as single entities. (See here for more on this: http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/1/237) Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-309109733867850842013-07-08T11:44:18.881-04:002013-07-08T11:44:18.881-04:00I can only add that these kinds of results were ex...I can only add that these kinds of results were explicitly predictable, even before the GWAS era was in full-capturing of resources. Some of us did that in writing, as long ago as 1993. So that explains, if perhaps a bit in terms of vanity, the strength of our feelings about the way resources are being used, or squandered in the name of various excuses and vested interests, when more serious problems remain under-studied.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-72186885065045474242013-07-08T11:37:40.731-04:002013-07-08T11:37:40.731-04:00Thanks for your comments, Kevin. One thing that n...Thanks for your comments, Kevin. One thing that needs to be mentioned, I think, is that there are limited resources for science. Society can't invest in research on everything. This is the age of genetics, but it's clear that GWAS of almost anything aren't a great investment. Intelligence (however you define it) is clearly due to polygenes and environmental factors. <br /><br />Indeed, Ken and I have been writing for years about this with respect to most other traits. Why spend so much money on the genetics of heart disease, or asthma, or schizophrenia etc? Intelligence is no different. Except that it's a loaded subject, as the comments on this post show. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-68163079416801202472013-07-08T11:14:18.617-04:002013-07-08T11:14:18.617-04:00I would just say because we had diverse data alrea...I would just say because we had diverse data already that showed these points very clearly, also that intelligence is not even easy to define (or, rather, is not a unitary trait), and therefore we did not need to spend the funds and divert attention from working on the major aspects of the problem that we know so well about.<br /><br />And we DO know that there are specific genes that, when mutated in particular ways, have major effect on educational abilities or achievement. Funds should go to the science of trying to see what can be done about that.<br /><br />Finally, it provides grist for the mill of those who want to stress the importance of group or even of individual differences in a policy-related sense.<br /><br />But the work has been done and it will be used by countless investigators to do even more extensive genomics, in various ways, I predict. It will be a boon for BigPharma and the therapist industry who can 'treat' those with a few months' lag time predicted by their genomes. Etc.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-72469671089295435712013-07-08T11:02:36.999-04:002013-07-08T11:02:36.999-04:00(a point made simultaneously but with better wordi...(a point made simultaneously but with better wording by Anonymous who posted far far up there)<br />Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-65054258847147635682013-07-08T10:59:21.676-04:002013-07-08T10:59:21.676-04:00Good point.Good point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-41992200350196197172013-07-08T10:47:56.941-04:002013-07-08T10:47:56.941-04:00I strongly agree that the results of the GWAS on e...I strongly agree that the results of the GWAS on education are effectively useless. Not completely, because it's actually a very convincing negative result from a huge sample, with a strong implication: there are no common variants making even a modest contribution to the genetic variation affecting educational achievement. <br /><br />And I share the authors' frustration with the GWAS approach in general, which I think has indeed been massively hyped far beyond the degree to which it has paid off in terms of actually useful discoveries. (Though I know many disagree and those opinions may yet be proved right).<br /><br />But I strongly disagree with the idea that studying the genetics of intelligence is somehow immoral, in itself. There is a wealth of evidence that intelligence is a real trait, reflecting real, innate differences in intellectual ability or potential. There is also a wealth of evidence that many people don't come close to reaching that potential to due highly unequal access to education. (And that changes in nutrition, education and other social factors have led to an increase in IQ over past decades). Those are not contradictory points. They are both important, certainly both scientifically interesting and valid areas of study. <br /><br />I don't think GWAS will get to the genetics of intelligence, because they are looking in the wrong place. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2012/07/genetics-of-stupidity.html). But this is an interesting and important topic to understand, if only because of what it will tell us about how the brain develops and operates.<br /><br />We can legitimately investigate that without necessarily leaping to the idea of selecting embryos based on predicted intelligence, which some researchers seem to be advocating (http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/05/the-new-eugenics-same-as-old-eugenics.html). <br /><br />Kevin Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172255754953214162noreply@blogger.com