The Language of Life

The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine,( Francis S. Collins, 2010 ) updates what is known about the human genome. Collins (representing the public funded effort) was competing aggressively against Craig Venter (representing the privately funded effort) in the race to sequence the human genome. It ended in an agreed-upon tie in 2000. Collins was definitely “Mr. good,” trying to keep the information public and patents at bay. But both men maintain political correctness on the question of race and racial differences in intelligence.
 
Collins discusses what is being unraveled in our genes and the genome’s “gene deserts.” Humans have about 20,000 protein-coding genes, but each gene can be cut up into many different segments in many different ways. In addition, portions of the genome that make up “gene deserts” actually perform the function of turning genes on and off. So any discussion about how we are all so similar because 90% of genetic differences are found within breeding groups and only an additional 10% between say Africans and Whites is meaningless in regards to differences like intelligence. It is far too early to know what genetic differences contribute to differences in intelligence, and there is no indication that the smart genes in one population are the same as the genes in other populations.

For example, lactase expression that allows adults to digest milk is found in both the African Maasai tribe and in Europeans, and came about independently by “convergent evolution”: the gene responsible for lactose tolerance is different in each case, and represents a separate mutation event. Likewise it would be expected that selection pressures for increased intelligence in geographically separated populations thousands of years ago most likely got a boost from entirely different gene mutations. Collins states: “Population geneticists, looking at these data, are convinced that all humans are descended from a common set of about 10,000 founders, who lived in East Africa about 100,000 years ago. Thus we are truly all one family, and it’s no wonder that our ‘DNA dialects’ are remarkably similar.” But this is misleading.
 
The story has just begun to be told. According to Collins, a project was started in the last decade to sequence about 1,000 individuals from various ethnic groups. And in the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Estonia and the entire country of Iceland large populations are being assessed on genetic factors and medical information to find the genes responsible for different diseases (he does’nt mention intelligence or personality). The hope is that sequencing enough people’s genes and comparing differences followed by simple number crunching, can uncover the gene variants responsible for the observed differences (disease or traits like intelligence), and also say something about each variant’s contribution.
 
Collins predicts that in about five years, an individual’s genome will be sequenceable for under $1,000: a wonderful thing to add to your resume if you are one of the lucky ones, and a glaring omission for the unlucky, the genetically deficient. This information will also be used for selecting for intelligence in a children, accelerating the anticipated eugenic arms race. These rapid advances in genomics is what has the enemy spooked. They are desperately trying to keep these ideas quiet: that races do differ in intelligence and in behavioral traits that matter. They are NOT against eugenics, as long as it is practiced without bias. That is, no one race or ethnic group will be left behind and (almost) everyone will be exactly equal in the end. Fat Chance!
 
Collins falsely claims: “As for intelligence, however, there is currently no evidence that genetic contributors to intelligence are differentially distributed across the globe.” Then later he states: “However, within relatively homogeneous groups where those external factors are well balanced, it appears that performance on an IQ test reflects approximately 50 percent heredity and approximately 50 percent nonheritable factors. This implies that specific genes will be involved.” At present, the assertion that there are racial differences in average mental ability stands unheard by the general public. There are just too few researchers willing to put their careers or reputations on the line, not to mention hate speech laws. So the research showing genetic differences in intelligence remains buried in academic journals, waiting for the right advocates to present it once again to the public.
 
Even with these advances right around the corner, Collins tries to make a case for people to try and get as much information as they can about their family’s medical history in order to provide doctors with better information about either genetic or shared environmental differences from the norm. What is so ironic is that almost all of the books I have read about the eugenics movement during the progressive era go to great lengths to mock similar efforts. In the United States, the Eugenics Record Office collected enormous amounts of data on family histories: feeblemindedness, epilepsy, blindness, drunkenness, etc. And yet, looking back, it was not such a bad effort considering what was known at the time. And of course, then as now, both genes and environment were considered factors. But unlike then, we now know that many of these conditions are not caused by unitary traits—one gene, one disease.
 
Collins does have something to say about the biodiversity advocates indirectly. Drugs are now being developed from an arsenal of basic compounds rather than from the exploration of exotic chemicals from plants and animals. Unraveling the genetic code, and the chemical processes taking place that cause disease, makes creating designer drugs far easier. 
 
A final note on the IQ/race controversy. First, pharmacogenomics and forensics will continue to drive mainstream investigation into racial genetic differences. Second, the genes contributing to intelligence will be fully discovered in ten to twenty years. Third, brain imaging studies will begin to add a wealth of new information about human intelligence. And fourth, eugenics will keep accelerating. As reproductive technology advances, with intelligence playing an important role along with disease prevention, athletic ability, attractiveness, etc. in the selection of children, an increasing number of people will be breeding for perfection. In addition, assortative mating will continue, increasing the gap between the cognitively gifted and the underclass.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Friday, March 26, 2010 at 04:40 PM in Eugenics
Comments (5) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: You and Your Big Green Button

Previous entry: We can all sigh with relief.