Is some scientific knowledge not worth having?

[MagicFan]

From the Wall Street Journal:

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.

What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.”

{snip}

More recently, Dr. Lahn says he was moved when a student asked him whether some knowledge might not be worth having. It is a notion to which he has been warming.



Okay, I find this very scary. Isn't this the same thing the Church told Galileo, the father of modern astronomy, when he suggested that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around?

Put yourself back in that time: this was a very scary thing back then. It implied that the Bible, the “moral guide from God for all mankind” might be wrong in some areas! If this moral guide were undermined, the Church thought, surely mankind would descend into barbarity and chaos.

Isn't this the same thing “the establishment” thinks today? That humans are inherently evil and racist and that even pursuing research like this will lead to all kinds of racist atrocities? And what does it say about science that there are certain areas that we should remain ignorant in?

Like I said, scary.

 

[Almo]

Such research would of course be siezed upon by racists. But I'd say it's better for good scientists do the research correctly than to leave it to racists to twist to their own devices with their own research.

 

[andyandy]

i'd say that you shouldn't (and probably can't) try to limit scientific research....

but certainly in the case of genetics we're going to get into really murky areas pretty soon....there was an article in the bbc today about the ability to screen embryos for a variety of genetic diseases

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5079802.stm

the term "designer babies" has been floated around for some time, but we're already at the stage where manipulation of embryos is possible....

goodness knows where it's all going to lead....a world free of genetic diseases with vastly increased lifespans, or a Gattaca ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca) style two tier society with a genetic underclass.....guess we have to cross our fingers and hope for the best

 

[Chaos]

What´s worse: have this guy do his research, and maybe see racists abuse it - or shut him up, have some racist find out what he found out, see them publish the research and claim that the evil XY conspiracy was trying to keep this under wraps?

 

[Dancing David]

From the Wall Street Journal:

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.

What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.”

{snip}

More recently, Dr. Lahn says he was moved when a student asked him whether some knowledge might not be worth having. It is a notion to which he has been warming.



Okay, I find this very scary. Isn't this the same thing the Church told Galileo, the father of modern astronomy, when he suggested that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around?

Put yourself back in that time: this was a very scary thing back then. It implied that the Bible, the “moral guide from God for all mankind” might be wrong in some areas! If this moral guide were undermined, the Church thought, surely mankind would descend into barbarity and chaos.

Isn't this the same thing “the establishment” thinks today? That humans are inherently evil and racist and that even pursuing research like this will lead to all kinds of racist atrocities? And what does it say about science that there are certain areas that we should remain ignorant in?

Like I said, scary.

If what he did was sciwentific, what evidence is there to demonstrate the effect that he claims to be study-ing?

How does he define intelligence?
How is that definition related to human sucess outside the culture he is part of what?
What is the rate of this alleged 'genetic trait'?
What is the correlation between this trait and the chosen target definition of intelligence?
Has the data been peer reviewed?
Have confounding factors been discussed and controlled of?

These are the things that need to be discussed for it to be science, it may be that he has something, or it may be that he doesn't?

What does the research say?

 

[Dancing David]

I read a little of the Howard Hughes Foundation abstract, they are talking about candidate genes for the evolution of the human brain size.

So where is the correlation between his research and the stuff in the article you posted to?

Oh, gosh, the Wall Street Journal, what is there source for the material.

Specificaly how did the Lahn define intelligence? Or is that something that the WSJ just kind of used?

What eveidence is there that the trait he studied is linked to intelliegence?

What evidence is there that this trait is more dominant outside of sub-saharn africa?

Given the fact the humans most likely first radiated to asia from africa and then back to africa from asisa: how recent are the traits that he says are found outside africa?

Are they evolutionarily relevant given the brief genetic history od hom sapiens sapiens? (Which is a species believed to have rediated about 100,000 BCE or BP{before present defined at 1950})?

What kind of article was it in the WSJ? What is the track record of the article writer?

 

[wastepanel]

I think everybody is having a knee-jerk reaction to this article. It has been proven that proper nutrition and comfortable surroundings lead to increased intelligence. If he was studying the entire world, it does not surprise me that Africa rates the lowest on the scale with its rampant diseases, harsh climate, and food shortages. If anything, this study backs up that theory.

 

[drkitten]

I think everybody is having a knee-jerk reaction to this article. It has been proven that proper nutrition and comfortable surroundings lead to increased intelligence. If he was studying the entire world, it does not surprise me that Africa rates the lowest on the scale with its rampant diseases, harsh climate, and food shortages. If anything, this study backs up that theory.

Well, that's specifically not what the opening post claims that the WSJ article said. To quote, "the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people." "Genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence."

Proper nutrition and comfortable surroundings will indeed lead to increased intelligence, and may (although this is pure speculation) lead to increased brain size. It will not, however, lead to changes in the DNA, unless there's something wildly wrong with our understanding of evolution and evolutionary pressures on humans.

Also : it's not clear to me that Africa leads the world in "rampant diseases, harsh climate, and food shortages" over the scale of millenia necessary for evolution to occur. I mean, sure, Finland is a nice place to live now, but as little as a hundred years ago, it was a barren, sparsely populated wasteland.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is actually a very interesting topic.

I can see why intelligence would have great evolutionary fitness in some societies. However, humans tend to help everyone else, even our fellow humans with low intelligence. Furthermore, it is our fellow humans with low intelligence that have the most offspring. In that light it seems like modeling how intelligence will evolve in mankind would be a very challenging endeavour.

 

[drkitten]

I can see why intelligence would have great evolutionary fitness in some societies. However, humans tend to help everyone else, even our fellow humans with low intelligence. Furthermore, it is our fellow humans with low intelligence that have the most offspring.

Both of these statements are unproven at best, and are in fact almost certainly incorrect when applied to pre-industrial societies, which is where most evolution has happened.

 

[Rustle]

I read a little of the Howard Hughes Foundation abstract, they are talking about candidate genes for the evolution of the human brain size.

So where is the correlation between his research and the stuff in the article you posted to?

Oh, gosh, the Wall Street Journal, what is there source for the material.

Specificaly how did the Lahn define intelligence? Or is that something that the WSJ just kind of used?

What eveidence is there that the trait he studied is linked to intelliegence?

What evidence is there that this trait is more dominant outside of sub-saharn africa?

Given the fact the humans most likely first radiated to asia from africa and then back to africa from asisa: how recent are the traits that he says are found outside africa?

Are they evolutionarily relevant given the brief genetic history od hom sapiens sapiens? (Which is a species believed to have rediated about 100,000 BCE or BP{before present defined at 1950})?

What kind of article was it in the WSJ? What is the track record of the article writer?

QFE!

It isn't clear to me that the inferences about race are really suggested by the findings of his study. I really hope he keeps pushing forward. He states that he has identified candidate human-ness genes. Without a lot more information, I couldn't evaluate whether he even has a valid concept, much less what the implications are for race relations!

 

[Meadmaker]

Without a lot more information, I couldn't evaluate whether he even has a valid concept, much less what the implications are for race relations!

In my opinion, there ought to be no implications for race relations. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that further research shows that the thing we don't want to believe about this study is eventually proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifcally, that genes are related to cognitive abilty (intelligence), and that those genes are found more commonly in white people than in black people, and that therefore, as it exists today, there is a difference in the average intelligence of white people and black people.

Let me emphasize that I don't believe that the above is true, but I believe it might be true, and this research provides a hint that it might be true, but has not been confirmed.

The reasonable inference is that skin color still has nothing to do with intelligence, so you should judge people based as individuals on their own abilities, not on the collective abilities of people who share some unrelated characteristics.

 

[drkitten]

In my opinion, there ought to be no implications for race relations. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that further research shows that the thing we don't want to believe about this study is eventually proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifcally, that genes are related to cognitive abilty (intelligence), and that those genes are found more commonly in white people than in black people, and that therefore, as it exists today, there is a difference in the average intelligence of white people and black people.

The reasonable inference is that skin color still has nothing to do with intelligence

I don't see how you can say that. If you simply mean that skin color has no causal effect on intelligence, this is true but misleading, because (by hypothesis) there is a strong and proven correlation between genes for skin color and genes for intelligence.

For many purposes, such a correlation is ample reason to take different actions. Just as a simple example -- and again continuing your assumption -- if I want to open a newspaper in a primarily "black" area, knowing the correlation, I should make a point of "dumbing down" the newspaper content and style because the expected readership won't be able to handle "difficult" writing. My model for journalism will be more the New York Post than the Times for that reason -- and it's justifiable under your assumption.

If I am deciding where to open a branch campus of the local university, I would obviously be better off putting it in a "white" area because I'd get better uptake (again under your hypothesis). Ditto if I were trying to open a bookstore or other

so you should judge people based as individuals on their own abilities, not on the collective abilities of people who share some unrelated characteristics.

... only to the extent that you treat people as individuals. When you're making mass policy decisions, you more or less have to treat people as demographics. I can't tune the writing style of my newspaper to every individual who might buy a copy.

 

[Dancing David]

QFE!

It isn't clear to me that the inferences about race are really suggested by the findings of his study. I really hope he keeps pushing forward. He states that he has identified candidate human-ness genes. Without a lot more information, I couldn't evaluate whether he even has a valid concept, much less what the implications are for race relations!

I am not even sure that brain size is as imporatant as brain structure, but I am not a cell biologist.

The article as posted is rather vauge as too the definition of the 'intelligence', to which the genetic traits are allegedy linked.

I vote for modern agriculture and video games being the main cause of intelligence, oh, that and cute women.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Any science that is used specifically to kill people is probably not wise to have. Abombs come to mind.

 

[rocketdodger]

Both of these statements are unproven at best, and are in fact almost certainly incorrect when applied to pre-industrial societies, which is where most evolution has happened.

Yeah I know, that is why I didn't say I was thinking of pre-industrial societies. I am talking about trying to model and predict what is going to happen with human evolution from now on.

You are one of the smartest people here kitten (even though you bother me sometimes). What do you think about it? Is intelligence going to be naturally selected for in our future or not, and why do you think so?

 

[TriangleMan]

What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.”

I'm all for scientific research, and if anything there should be further study of Lahn's work since the research needs to be replicated by others to make sure that what he found appears to be true. That said, if the results are true, there could still be a number of reasons why this occurs - which requires further research to test various theories. For example the changes could be due to only breeding within a smaller gene pool. Were Africans mixing only within their tribal group for thousands of years? If so one could theorize that maybe the DNA change observed in non-Africans could be due to gene mixing from a wider gene pool (of course it might not be but that's what research is for).

Much like how racists could twist the results for their purposes I just did the opposite, used the data to construct a theory for supporting interracial marriages. Does this mean Lahn's research is now "knowledge worth having"?

 

[Bob Klase]

Any science that is used specifically to kill people is probably not wise to have. Abombs come to mind.

I'm having trouble thinking of any science that doesn't have a valid use other than killing people. Although some uses may only be theoritical- for example, it's at least possible in theory that a nuclear bomb could be used to divert an astroid in a collision course. Should that ever actually occur I suspect it save thousands of times the number of people who've been killed by nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, automobiles, butter knives and probably paper clips have been specifically used to kill people too.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Is some knowledge worthless?

Undoubtedly, but how do we know until we have it?

 

[drkitten]

You are one of the smartest people here kitten (even though you bother me sometimes). What do you think about it? Is intelligence going to be naturally selected for in our future or not, and why do you think so?

Hmmm... I lost money betting on the USA-Italy match, because I can't see ninety minutes into the future (I picked Italy to win), and you want me to predict how human evolution will happen?

Frankly, I don't think that the idea of "intelligence" itself is a useful concept; it has too many facets that counterbalance each other. Just as an example, there is a lot of evidence coming in about a genetic link between Asperger's syndrome (essentially a mild form of autism) and full-blown autism; parents with Asperger's have a much higher chance of having autistic children than "normal" parents (whatever the hell "normal" means). But in much of modern society, Asperger's syndrome can be a positive reproductive benefit (geeks make money, tend to be good parents, and are often seen as desirable mates) and in many cases is tied to high IQ. So are we selecting for Asperger's, or
against autism?

If I had to make a prediction (at gunpoint or something), I would look to assortative mating and expect to see human evolution break into a number of related subgroups (Morlocks and Eloi or something like that). And then after that I'd go lose more money on Italy-Czech or on USA-Ghana.... Anyone want to give me odds on England taking the whole thing?