Scientists claim to have identified a gene that affects IQ in males.

[DV8 2XL]

Scientists in North Carolina say they have identified a gene that affects IQ, a finding that, if confirmed, would be a significant step toward understanding the genetic basis for intelligence.

 

The new research could also have ethical implications because the effect of the gene appears to be quite dramatic: The scientists say that as a group, males — but not females — who had the variant gene had IQ scores about 20 points lower than males who didn't.

 

More here: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/105238

[RyanJ]

Goodfind sounds interesting!

 

I feel that it is still more environmental than anything else, if you teach a child well it can increase their IQ, eating the correct ammount of Omega 3 seems to increase the IQ for a short period of time.

 

Also, IQ seems to increase with age as the person has more knowledge to use for their answeres, bigger IQ due to increased knowledge.

 

I wodner if this gene has something to do with disability because it seems that geniuoses mosly have something wrong with them... an odd co-incidence, could it be linked to this gene I wonder?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[[Tycho?]]

Goodfind sounds interesting!

 

I feel that it is still more environmental than anything else' date=' if you teach a child well it can increase their IQ, eating the correct ammount of Omega 3 seems to increase the IQ for a short period of time.

 

Also, IQ seems to increase with age as the person has more knowledge to use for their answeres, bigger IQ due to increased knowledge.

 

I wodner if this gene has something to do with disability because it seems that geniuoses mosly have something wrong with them... an odd co-incidence, could it be linked to this gene I wonder?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

Is there any evidence that people with genius level IQ have "something wrong with them"? I would think this is just an extension of the absent-minded professor kind of thing. I would think most geniuses are probably pretty normal.

[RyanJ]

'']Is there any evidence that people with genius level IQ have "something wrong with them"? I would think this is just an extension of the absent-minded professor kind of thing. I would think most geniuses are probably pretty normal.

 

True, but then people like Stephen Hawkin are really geniuses and have disabilities but strange before his illenss he was not so smart or so it seems.... it just seems there is an interesting correlation occuring

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Shouldn't this be in the News forum?

 

Oh well. Sounds like a lot of controversy to me.

[treva]

If its 'male only' that means its got to be on the Y chromosome, right? Not alot genes are typically found on the Y chromosome, those that are are mostly involved in the development of male genitalia in the fetus.

 

I think this hole 'genetic basis of intelligence' is the biggest scham ever. Obviously theres alot of enviromental factors that contribute to the development of ones intelligence, and its bad science to try and narrow it down to simply a genetic element.

[ecoli]

Yeah, I bet you anything they find people from Harvard with this gene, then found people from redneck country without the gene and compared the relative intellegence.

 

I'm exaggerating, of course, but maybe there are other factors they are neglecting.

[rakuenso]

your jewish?

[ecoli]

your jewish?

 

umm... yeah, but what does that have to do with this thread?

[Sisyphus]

I don't think they're claiming to have found the genetic basis for intelligence, just that they've found something that actually makes a difference. Not on its own, since it doesn't affect anything in females, but apparently some interaction between this gene and something on the Y chromosome can have adverse effects on intelligence. Interesting, but not all that significant, I don't think. It's already obvious that genetics plays a major role in intelligence (however you want to quantify it), since smart parents tend to have smart kids. Notice I say tend.

 

Oh, and ecoli: I have friends at Harvard. They're not nearly as smart as you might think...

[Xyph]

people like Stephen Hawkin are really geniuses and have disabilities but strange before his illenss he was not so smart or so it seems....

It seems more likely that now he just has a lot more time to think.

[Helix]

I think it is ridiculous to assume that intelligence is 1) governed by an arbitrary test devised about a century and a half ago and 2) that intelligence is controlled, in a biochemical sense, by genes.

 

These researchers fail to realize that there are more factors than just genes that control our body. This debate, Nature vs. Nurture, is still waging on and blindly accepting Nature is bad science.

 

This whole idea of IQ being controlled by genes was first brought up in the late 1970's when three scientists, Sinet, Lejeune and Jerome found that there was a considerable correlation, reported on one site as .58, between IQ and erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase activity (GSHPx). However, in 1996 the polymorphisms of gene with peroxidase traits were studied and no correlation was found. I believe that the first results in 1979 and the ones recently, are over-exaggerated or just wrong. The researchers had good intentions, I'm sure, but in my view the facts aren't there. One study isn't enough, and shouldn't be enough, to convince the whole of the scientific community that intelligence and genes are interlocked with a nameable gene (as opposed to them being linked in theory.)

 

Successfully showing a link, however, would have wide-spread consequences as it would be the first time intangible mental qualities, such as the conscience and rational thought, were linked directly to a specific gene. Connections were forged before but in a general sense, not as specific as an actual gene.

 

So, there's my opinion on the matter. In any case, it's a fascinating topic. If more duplicable results arise, matching these, then I might rethink my stance. You never know.

[Mokele]

Just because we haven't found any link between specific genes and intelligence doesn't mean none exists.

 

In fact, I can easily prove that intelligence has at least some genetic factor to it, in only two steps:

1) the brain is a mass of cells formed and molded during embryonic development under biological control which can be chemically disrupted (think fetal alcohol syndrome).

2) Different species have vastly different intelligences and mental capabilities.

 

Human intelligence overall is clearly primarily genetic. What's a more cogent phrasing of the question is "How much of the *variation* within human intelligence is genetic versus environmental?".

 

On one hand, we know that environment does affect intelligence in a variety of ways. On the other, we have powerful a priori reasons to expect genetic variation in intelligence (if there was none, how could humans have evolved larger brain size and greater intelligence than other apes?). In all likelyhood, it's both. Genes can influence what environmental stimuli does to the brain, while environmental stimuli can affect what genes are expressed in cells (including in the brain). To dichotomize it as "nature *or* nurture" is overly simplistic; a more accuate view is "nature *and* nurture", with both contributing and interacting.

 

Mokele

[Helix]

Just because we haven't found any link between specific genes and intelligence doesn't mean none exists.

 

In fact' date=' I can easily prove that intelligence has at least some genetic factor to it, in only two steps:

1) the brain is a mass of cells formed and molded during embryonic development under biological control which can be chemically disrupted (think fetal alcohol syndrome).

2) Different species have vastly different intelligences and mental capabilities.[/quote']

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought there was no link. Of course there is, I meant none had been found.

 

To dichotomize it as "nature *or* nurture" is overly simplistic; a more accuate view is "nature *and* nurture"' date=' with both contributing and interacting.

[/quote']

 

Right, but as you said, nature alone doesn't rule all. The proponents of this think that genes play a huge role, while I think the brain gives us the raw material that our environment shapes. Genes do shape the brain, by virture that the brain is made of cells, but it does not totally determine intelligence. It's similar to the idea that your brain (and therefore your genes) influence temperment but your experiences and environment influence how angry/happy you'll be on a daily basis. That's probably a controversial view, but it's what I belive. Nurture through Nature: The resources given by Nature are refined and shaped more finely by Nurture.

[Mokele]

Definitely agreed, but I'm unsure if anyone (or at least anyone who's opinion is listened to in the scientific community dealing with this) actually holds a pure nature or pure nurture position anymore, which might make objecting to such positions a bit of a moot point.

[zyncod]

Don't you think it might be stochastic, to an extent? Or at least stochastic to the extent that we won't be able to influence it? Everybody (read: every psychologist in the world) that thinks that it's all nurture seems to feel that there is something that we can do about it - like playing Bach to unborn babies. But I tend to think that the variation in intelligence among normal humans is not that great, and may simply reflect the minor, chance-driven details of neuronal growth patterns during development.

[Helix]

Definitely agreed, but I'm unsure if anyone (or at least anyone who's opinion is listened to in the scientific community dealing with this) actually holds a pure nature or pure nurture position anymore, which might make objecting to such positions a bit of a moot point.

 

 

That's true, mostly because neither can be disproved so they both stay. Also, it just makes sense: genes play a part but are shaped by your life.

 

I think the real debate now, over this same NvN issue is what is the connection between the two, as it has been basically proved they both have a role. I personally think it is "Nurture through nature"; that your genes provide the rough framework from which your environment shapes. I think a good analogy for my belief is making a clay model. There is a wire framework (genes) and then there is the molded, shaped clay on top (environment).

 

But back to the IQ question, I find it highly unlikely that intelligence is one of the aspects controlled mostly by genetic makeup. You can't tell me all the children in Calcutta and Pakistan have "bad" versions of this gene and that's the reason why the education there is absiminal. But I'm sure some will want to counter me saying there probably are geniuses there who are just being neglected, but that's missing my point (although true).

 

But on the other hand this gene might have a role in your nerves (the number of them) and how well they fire. But I doubt this outshines environment in terms of impact.