Universal Genetic Upgrade [Bio-Tech]

[AlexanderHowl]

We share a lot of genes related to the brain with lab rats, and we have a surprising amount of psychological overlap (mammals are mammals, so we share 99% of the genes related to the development of the brain with lab rats). In general though, we are looking at improvements in intelligence coming from overall improvements in health, as the genetic foundations of intelligence seem to come from around 3,000 genes that govern everything from cell growth to memory. Basically, people who are more intelligent generally have better versions of those 3,000 genes, which sometimes also improves their general health, depending on which combination of better genes they have and which genes have been expressed during their lives.

This is why you have high intelligence can manifest with any combination of characteristics, as it is the combination of genetic foundation and genetic expression. Disease, malnutrition, pollution, etc. may turn off the expression of some genes and turn on the expression of other genes, meaning that a person with a genetic foundation that would average IQ 120 can easily range from IQ 80 to IQ 140, and this is before we add in factors like brain trauma and educatiob. Similar factors can have more modest effects on the intelligence of lab rats, so we can determine which genes lead to a healthy individual.

[hal]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

We share a lot of genes related to the brain with lab rats, and we have a surprising amount of psychological overlap (mammals are mammals, so we share 99% of the genes related to the development of the brain with lab rats). In general though, we are looking at improvements in intelligence coming from overall improvements in health, as the genetic foundations of intelligence seem to come from around 3,000 genes that govern everything from cell growth to memory. Basically, people who are more intelligent generally have better versions of those 3,000 genes, which sometimes also improves their general health, depending on which combination of better genes they have and which genes have been expressed during their lives.

This is why you have high intelligence can manifest with any combination of characteristics, as it is the combination of genetic foundation and genetic expression. Disease, malnutrition, pollution, etc. may turn off the expression of some genes and turn on the expression of other genes, meaning that a person with a genetic foundation that would average IQ 120 can easily range from IQ 80 to IQ 140, and this is before we add in factors like brain trauma and educatiob. Similar factors can have more modest effects on the intelligence of lab rats, so we can determine which genes lead to a healthy individual.

Rats with 21 Chromosomes vs humans with 23. Rats with 2.75 Billion base pairs while humans have 2.9 billion base pairs. Each Base pair is one "Rung" in your DNA molecule - formed by one of four DNA buildigng blocks of adenine, cytosine, guanine, or thymine.

Saying that Rats share 99% of the genes is perhaps less useful a metric to use - especially when Bonaboes (primates) are deemed to be the closest Genetic relative to Humans. Their Genetic structure is 99% compatable with Humans. So, which is it? Rats or Primates are the closest genetic relative?

In all, it would be interesting to see if Rats can be genetically altered to have Human eyes simply by taking out their "DNA coding" and replacing it iwth Human coding for human eyes. I largely suspect that the answer will be no.

Somewhere in the almost 2 billion base pair differences between humanity and rats - plus the two chromosomes difference, Rats are not 99% interchangeable with humans.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by hal

One thing I find interesting is the idea of giving a human being the sensory acuity of a Dog with respect to smell, and then wonder how one is going to have a normal intelligence for the Human. The brain power behind high sensitivity to smell is a large portion of a dog's brain. Are we to assume that the cranium size has to change to accommodate both rational thinking AND high sense acuity?

Not to mention nose size. Dogs’ olfactory acuity is mostly down to their having hundreds more functioning genes for different kinds of smell receptors. But it is also partly down to, and their sensitivity is largely down to, having a much larger patch of sensitive tissue, a big nose to keep it in, and a bunch of nasal anatomy to pass inhaled air over it and route exhaled air around it. Humans have a pair of olfactory patches totalling about the size of a postage stamp; professional-quality sniffer dogs (bloodhounds, beagles, Labradors, and German shepherds most usually) have olfactory patches up to the size of a pocket handkerchief.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

We share a lot of genes related to the brain with lab rats

And we share something like 50% of our genes with yeasts, too. It's not the presence of the genes so much as their expression that matters. Human brains are, unsurprisingly, more complex than rat brains. Your testing is going to have to be done with higher primates, and it will take decades to verify efficacy and safety for each incremental research stage, by following progress and outcomes over a reasonable lifespan.

All this assumes, of course, that you're following the limits of real scientific methodology rather than indulging in flights of space opera. That's absolutely fine too, of course; just don’t pretend that the latter is the former.

In general though, we are looking at improvements in intelligence coming from overall improvements in health

The cost-counting, real-world bureaucrat might ask, then, why you don't push the expenditures away from a government-subsidized, corporate-featherbedding, highly speculative genetic upgrade, and toward governmental mandates on industry to improve the general population’s health and safety and thus intelligence: better environmental regulation, tighter safety standards on tools and workplaces, more generous social policies towards families and education, socialized medical care, limits on unsafe foods (soft-drink refills, here’s looking at you) and so on. That's more likely but, apparently, less fun to you than eugenics.

[AlexanderHowl]

99% of the genes (rats versus humans) is different than 99% of the working DNA (chimps versus humans). Around 50% of human (as well as chimp and rat) DNA is spacing, which, alomg with the genes and the placement of the genes, is part of the instructions to make RNA, which in turn makes proteins. Thus a lot of the difference in genetic expression, basically the building of proteins, exists in the spacing between genes and the placement of the genes within the genome as well as the individual genes.

To make an analogy, each genetic expression is a bit like a song. Each gene is equivalent to an individual note/words, each spacing is the equivalent to the timing, and each placement of the genes being equivalent to the placement of the notes/words. If done correct, you get music. Minor changes will change the nature of the song (usually in a bad way) while major changes will produce trash.

Just like notes and words are used in multiple songs though, animal genes are used in multiple genetic expressions, as proteins blueprints from RNA strands involving using dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of the same genes. The genes for basic cytoskeleton formation may be used in the expression of intelligence, the ability to smell cyanide, and the development of fast twitch muscles (these are hypothetical examples, as genes in animals are almost never used for one thing). Plants have many more genes, but plant genes tend to be much more specific in their applications.

[Pragmatic]

Originally Posted by hal

Saying that Rats share 99% of the genes is perhaps less useful a metric to use - especially when Bonaboes (primates) are deemed to be the closest Genetic relative to Humans. Their Genetic structure is 99% compatable with Humans. So, which is it? Rats or Primates are the closest genetic relative?

I'm going to interject. He said genes related to brain development, when referring to rats (which I dispute; I think he's mixing in junk genes--those genes that are inactive and inherited from evolutionary ancestors and/or viral implants).

You're mentioning the 99% match between chimps/bonobos and humans. That includes junk genes.

I think most lifeforms on Earth share 90%+ of genes with humans (i.e., the genes they have will be found in humans), because a LOT of those are junk genes.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by hal

Then there is the issue of the Ashkenazi. For their population, their intelligence is stated to be one standard deviation higher than normal European population. But also, they suffer a higher incidence of genetic disorders associated with that increase. Linked genetic traits would imply that you change one, you may risk worse effects elsewhere (in GURPS, this would be minor or major defects).

I'll note that when a geneticist talks about linkage, they mean that you're talking about separate genetic features (not necessarily in separate genes) that tend to stick together in the original parental configurations when forming gametes rather than randomly re-assorting. I could go into Punnett squares if anybody wants. Likely a function of simple physical proximity.

If you're bioengineering a genetic upgrade, that's not really a problem. You can go in and pick the versions you want for both features regardless of how meiosis fails to do so.

Of course, it is entirely possible for the same genetic feature to have both beneficial and deleterious effects, such that you have to take it or leave it as a package deal. (Assuming you don't have the ability to invent a whole new allele to give you novel third option, which is a much harder scientific problem.) I'd definitely question the claim that of an allele that produces both heightened intelligence and a obtrusive genetic defect though - it's not impossible, but there's a really blatant tendency to latch onto any possible hypothesis that supports the idea that there are important tradeoffs in play.

Originally Posted by Proteus

The cost-counting, real-world bureaucrat might ask, then, why you don't push the expenditures away from a government-subsidized, corporate-featherbedding, highly speculative genetic upgrade, and toward governmental mandates on industry to improve the general population’s health and safety and thus intelligence: better environmental regulation, tighter safety standards on tools and workplaces, more generous social policies towards families and education, socialized medical care, limits on unsafe foods (soft-drink refills, here’s looking at you) and so on. That's more likely but, apparently, less fun to you than eugenics.

A real-world bureaucrat might have the view that in many respects buying a product (or developing and then buying a product even) is easier than making such regulatory moves and then enforcing them. Both politically and organizationally.

[AlexanderHowl]

And there is nothing to prevent a government from doing both, as the wealth level at TL9+ would allow such a diversity of solutions. Improving nature and nurture, through genetic engineering and proper regulation, would probably really be the best solution.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A real-world bureaucrat might have the view that in many respects buying a product (or developing and then buying a product even) is easier than making such regulatory moves and then enforcing them. Both politically and organizationally.

Human germline genetic engineering excites all the furor of genetically modified foodstuffs, eugenics, societal inequalities, interest groups around the differently-abled or non-neurotypical, medical mistrust and other conspiracy theories, and religious concerns about the nature of the soul and the role of chance and suffering.

It’s a hot steaming mess, such that I suspect it's actually still easier to tell people they can't refill their legally-limited-size soda cups.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Likely a function of simple physical proximity.

Sorta, yeah. Geneticists measure this as the centimorgan. The physical distance is the biggest component, but the sequence of the intervening “junk” DNA is also significant, with different sequences being more or less robust against the necessary breakage than others.

This doesn’t matter when you’re adding in/replacing genes in a gamete/zygote, but could be important when your “improved” humans start breeding.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Of course, it is entirely possible for the same genetic feature to have both beneficial and deleterious effects, such that you have to take it or leave it as a package deal.

Probably the most famous here is sickle-cell syndrome, gaining increased resistance to malaria in exchange for reduced oxygen transport. Most such trade-offs are simple metabolic costs - someone with lactose tolerance spends more resources producing lactase, but gains the ability to use cow’s milk as a resource. Some are markedly more subtle, such as reduced melanin production allowing one to generate sufficient vitamin D further from the equator, but also leaving you less resistant to the deleterious effects of sunlight. I suspect enhanced intelligence is more likely to be in the second category - better brains are hungrier - but I could also see the third - it influences the way the brain functions, perhaps resulting in an increased probability of ending up somewhere on the autism spectrum (and/or shifting to be further along the spectrum). That last bit would probably be the result of a failed roll somewhere in the prototyping process, however.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A real-world bureaucrat might have the view that in many respects buying a product (or developing and then buying a product even) is easier than making such regulatory moves and then enforcing them. Both politically and organizationally.

He or she may not be entirely incorrect in such a view, there are a lot of folks who have serious hang ups about being told what they can and cannot do (reference: the last few months). Still, I suspect the opposition to human genetic modification would be stronger.