From the ABC

Snip

Now when you think about the human condition, the human brain is basically as large as it can be. This is a baby inside the womb, you'll see its head's relatively tightly packed. We've reached the maximum cranial size and brain size that humans can have and be delivered through normal vaginal delivery. There's no reason in principle why you couldn't today give children soon after birth nerve growth factors that would radically increase the size of the human brain, and it's cognitive capacity. So this is not radical scie

Snip

Grow a harder working labour force

There's interesting research coming out of other animal experiments that shows just how powerful biology can be. In one recently reported study, researchers took genetic material from the brains of a group of characteristically hard-working monkeys and introduced it to another species of lazy monkeys, and the lazy monkeys became hard-working.

Snip

Abort a foetuses with a sub-optimal genome

We have now the opportunity to intervene in the natural lottery in various ways. Firstly the most reliable way at the moment is through genetic selection. We've employed this as human beings by mating, when we seek out a mate who sends signals of reproductive fitness. We've more recently been able to do this by using prenatal diagnosis tests of foetuses, and even more recently by using genetic diagnosis of embryos, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Now this tests for single gene disorders and it's been used for a range of diseases but also for sex selection. More recently there's been an advance in this technique, known as preimplantation genetic haplar typing, which multiplies the genetic component from the cells of the embryo. So you can test not just for a few conditions, a few chromosomal or genetic abnormalities, but for thousands of genes. So this opens the door to testing embryos for a whole range of conditions, not just whether they have Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis.

See this transcript on the Background Briefing website:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2122476.htm

Any comments?

My general attitude is that once the knowledge how to do something is obtained, someone somewhere will eventually try it, so it's better to have it tried in a carefully controlled, legal sanctioned (but regulated) manner, than in an illegal, unregulated manner.

That is, the danger of banning such activities almost certainly outweighs the danger of allowing them.

If your first reaction to hearing any such proposal is "that's abhorrent, we must never let that happen", then remember that plenty of the things we take for granted today were once viewed in that light (can you imagine the Victorian response to a proposal that women should be allowed to sunbathe topless?).

My biggest concern is that procedures such as injecting growth hormones into brains will only be available to those who can afford it, and it will confer such a competitive advantage on such children, that it will only further entrench existing social/economic inequalities. Of course much the same argument can be made about, e.g., private schooling, but while better schooling definitely helps in life, it's not going to double your IQ, which is the sort of thing that advanced biotechnology might be capable of.

I don’t think increasing the size of the human brain has much to do with intelligence after all the male brain is 10% larger then the female brain. So if brain size reflected intelligence men on average would be 10% smarter then women. This is not the case so the idea that brain size makes people smart is not a very creditable one.

Besides I read somewhere that we only use a small part of our brain with most of it not being used at all or hardly ever.

Its not how big it is its how you use it!

I agree with Easy Times - it's not the size of the brain, it's how you use it that matters.

So no, I would not be for increasing the size...

The only thing that I would be grateful in knowing, is to be told if the baby I was carrying was normal or not. I think all parents would appreciate having this information available to them.

Still, it's probably not going to make much difference as to what we think. Science has a way of progressing despite public opinion.

Brain size is at least partly correleated with "intelligence" (which I don't accept is a single factor that can be measured adequately on a linear scale anyway). Male brains function differently to female ones (i.e. males are "differently intelligent" to females), and it may simply be that functions that male brains specialise in require more brain tissue than the those that female brains are more adept at.

However, the principle still applies - once we develop the technology to vastly boost intelligence capabilities, how do we prevent those who can afford such technology from taking advantage of it at the expense of the everyone else?

The 10% of the brain myth is exactly that - a myth.

OK folks let's get away from the well-worn platitudes.

Wizofaus is correct.

We do not use just 10% of our brain. fMRI scans indicate that we use most of our brains most of the time.

Brain size and intelligence are linked. Humans have, on average, a brain six times the volume of other mammals of comparative size. It's one thing that distinguishes us from, say, chimps, and from our ancestors. If you look at the fossil record, cranial capacity and tool using ability, for example, appear to be linked.

Of course this is difference in brain size between species. There does appear to be a link between brain size and intelligence among humans but it is very weak. However bear in mind that brain sizes among most healthy humans, taking into account different body mass, does not vary much. Women are on average smaller than men. Relative to body size there's not much difference between the 2 sexes.

Nevertheless there are however indications, as Wiz points out, that the brains of men and women functions differently. That may be the reason why engineering remains a mostly male profession while the law is attracting increasing numbers of women.

Suppose we could actually double the size of our brains. Would that in effect be a new species with additional capabilities? I don’t know but I think it's a possibility. We might actually create an artificial species that bears the same relationship to us that we bear to, say, A Robustus who had roughly half our brain mass.

However this background briefing does not only deal with increasing brain size. What about "gene transplants" to make people harder working or enhance their happiness.

Wiz,

It's not only a case of what the rich will do. There is an international dimension to this. Mass free education was introduced in England to meet competition from Germany.

If one advanced country makes brain-enhancing technology available to its citizens the rest will have to follow suit or be reduced to third world status.

Steven, on your last point - exactly! I never suggest it was purely about the "rich" within developed countries. What would happen to third world countries if all developed countries adopted such technology as standard?

One way another, we are going to be entering some very dangerous territory this century, probably within my lifetime (I'm hoping to make it to 2050).

Ah, Steven, as provocative as ever.

You really want us to start using our "little grey cells" ...? Human IQ has fascinated me also. I am not a neuroscientist, so I contacted those on an "Evolution versus Creationism" forum. This forum is extremely active and sometimes volatile - people have been known to be suspended even banned. But, no subject is taboo as long as it stays within the paramaters of this forum.

I wanted to know how the human brain evolved from our closest primate - incidentally, I am NOT a creationist ... I was told that what is known about the human brain is relatively quite little. The forum has many specialised scientists on board, and I have no doubt that your questions would have them exploring and debating the issue. The forum, which addresses many, many topics - even monogamy in marriage - is:
http://www.evcforum.net

However, I digress ... I noticed an small piece in the press which stated that crows have been found to have an IQ similar to primates - thus brain size doesn't seem to equal IQ. As I knew that there was quite a lot of evidence of crow IQ, I contacted a biologist, Dave Ziolkowski Jr. (Biologist, Information Specialist), who responded:

"Avian intelligence, and intelligence as a whole for that matter, is an especially interesting topic for scientists. Like most things, the perception of intelligence in the general public is often very different from that of the scientific community. That said, an important key here is in recognizing how "intelligence" is defined since, like the word "theory", folks can be talking about very different things while using the same terms. Further, there exists a time lag between the scientific and popular communities whereby scientific findings take time to root in the general public but, often, once they have done so, they tend to have staying power in the face of new scientific findings.

cont ...

For instance, as was customary at the time, early behaviorists worked within the pretense that primate reasoning was the pinnacle of intelligence and therefore that primates were the appropriate reference standard from which to compare the cognitive behavior and related neuroanatomical structuring in other organisms. While this anthropocentric assumption may still persist in the public conscience, it's now largely absent in the portion of the scientific community that studies intelligence, replaced instead by multidimensional views more inclusive of our understanding of how the natural world works.

Birds are a great example since groups like corvids (the jays and crows) and parrots employ problem solving skills similar to those seen in primates, however (according to work by neurologist Stanley Cobb in the 1960's), this 'intelligence' originates in the hyperstriatum portion of the brain (as opposed to the cortex - as in primates). "

Incidentally, Steven, if genetic material was added to my brain and I became a devoted, hardworking housewife continually scrubbing things, I would NOT consider that a plus ... !

I suspect I have diverged from your original topic, for which I apologise. I don't think aborting foetuses with a sub-optimal genome would make a difference to the occurrence of such conditions. Those born displaying such problems do not as a rule reproduce anyway. The genome is passed on by the parent who does not display sub-optimal problems. The only way this could be eradicated is for such people not to have children at all.

Whilst Down's Syndrome is related to age in the mother, I believe that scientists are now saying that schizophrenia - in some cases - is related to the age of the father at the conception.

Increasing the average humans intelligence will only have short term effect on the overall progress of the human race. Since singularity is approaching any usefulness found in the advancing of human intelligence will be quickly surpassed by the intelligence of computers.

Therefore we should aim to not necessarily increase our intelligence but we should instead aim to increase our ability to be satisfied with life and find more pleasure in tbe overall experience that we call living.

I think in the long run people would much rather be super happy then super smart!

Good points Danielle, though I'm sure it would be a plus to enjoy, or do quicker, work that won't otherwise disappear. Or you could use your new powers to earn enough to pay someone else to do it.

I don't think brain size is the greatest factor with regard to intelligence. It's all about the connections within, and the ongoing maintainence/upgrading thereof. If we take IQ as a definative measure(emphasis on if) we already have a huge range within our current brain size.

An elephants brain is about 5 times larger than ours, so size isn't necessarily the be all and end all.

Taking a slightly different slant on the breeding/hereditary aspect, if education and intelligence lead to lower birth rates, does this mean our overall population IQ is being diluted by the ongoing family expansion of the undereducated or those of lower intelligence? Some european studies show population IQ peaked 10 years ago. "The Flynn effect in Reverse

EasyTimes and rojo - interesting points.

I am not computer literate ... but don’t computers have to be programmed by people ... and can’t this, in itself, lead to anomolies in computer intelligence.

Undoubtedly, people in general don’t use their intelligence to their maximum ability. We have all witnessed people whose curiosity outside their immediate environment is virtually non-existent, yet their ability to recall every detail of a football game played thirty some years ago, or knowledge about every car on the road, is spectacular. One look at a display of women’s magazines would lead to the impression that women have brains the size of a pea rattling round in a pumpkin. Then there are other people who suffer from “confirmation bias” - they only accept what conforms with their already rigid belief system - whether in politics, religion, etc ...

So what is it that makes individuals have a passion for enquiry and knowledge which, is to me, a hall-mark of high IQ?

I have seen someone considered below average in IQ do well just be sheer application and passion for their subject. The person may have taken longer to “get there”, but they did and very successfully. I also know an academic whose wife pins a small note with a different day of the week on each of his shirts, so he will know which to wear (and “no”, this is not for colour co-ordination) when packing for him going to conferences.

cont ...

I have heard the argument that a stochastic event, such as a war, raises the population IQ. Possibly. Not only because of new developments/theories in various sciences, which have a flow-on effect to the public, but also because the average person’s “survival” skills are roused. After WWII in Europe, it was recorded that quite young children had grouped into packs and were surviving based on their wits - their skills were quite “sophisticated”, and certainly not normally associated with children of this age. This could support rojo’s findings that the Europen population IQ peaked 10 years ago, as these children (indeed other survivors) would now be adults and have children of their own.

William H. Calvin proposes that evolution of intelligence is related to climate change.

rojo, you are unquestionaly right that a person’s IQ has to be constantly “upgraded” and challenged.

I hope no-one minds that I provide this site - it runs for a very short time (a longer play is available). This little creature seems extraordinary - is self-taught; and was given up because being “adolescent”; the bird was impossible to handle ... The interesting fact here, is that the actions are not related to “survival”, but a completely different aspect of IQ. In a longer version of this site, screeches are made at significant beats in the music. Snowball has “choreographed” two other dance routines to different music, the routines being quite distinct from this one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1j_fxs8mUcQ&feature=related Snowball -back street

Stevenlmeyer,
Another stimulating topic.
Has anyone tried the nerve growth experiment on animals?

Danielle,
Re: “I noticed a small piece in the press which stated that crows have been found to have an IQ similar to primates”

My thinking is this would not mean that crows intelligence equals that of most higher primates .Rather that, they can perform certain tasks ( though, a lesser number of such tasks) normally associated with primates (?)

Re: “computers have to be programmed by people ... and can’t this, in itself, lead to anomolies in computer intelligence”

We are seeing AI systems which can rewrite/upgrade their own software. This will increasingly become the norm.

Easytimes,
Re: i) “We should aim to not necessarily increase our intelligence but we should instead aim to increase our ability to be satisfied with life and find more pleasure in the overall experience that we call living.”
ii) : “Singularity is approaching any usefulness found in the advancing of human intelligence will be quickly surpassed by the intelligence of computers”

I have visions of humans living like the Eloi of The Time Machine ( or perhaps, just like the stereotypical dole recipient !)

I’m not sure that singularity will mean that humans will be sidelined –perhaps we will be wired into AI. What if , we were connected wireless/telepathically to a greater brain.
Ok, we sort of experience that now with computers/The internet etc
But suppose it was direct, this other part of your brain or a universal brain actually fed into your brain, your mere thought commanded a response – and it could sense what you sensed and guide your every decision(?)

In such a scenario some may fear we’d become more like remotely controlled robot or a termite – but perhaps not(?)
Though I’d guess the HSC would become redundant

Danielle,

I Love watching the crows and magpies in my street. Yes they are very bright. This should not surprise us. Imagine all the processing a "bird brain" has to perform in flight. Have you ever watched an albatross swoop down on a fish?

Note that this does not apply to flightless birds. Anyone who has ever dealt with ostriches can have little doubt they are classic "bird brains."

There is also evidence that the way birds process information is different to the mechanism in mammals. You are quite correct.

That s why I was careful to say that humans have bigger brains than MAMMALS of COMPARABLE SIZE. (Rojo please note)

Rojo,

We pay a high price for our large brain size. For one the large size of the human head is what makes human birth so painful and dangerous compared births in other mammals. For another our brains use a lot of energy which materially increases our food requirements.

In spite of these evolutionary disadvantages the fossil record shows that the sizes of our ancestors' heads have been going up. That implies that large brains confer an evolutionary advantage that overrides the disadvantages of large head sizes.

So, rojo, if size does not matter why have evolutionary pressures driven the sizes of our craniums up despite the manifold disadvantages?

If you can answer this question you will have done more than score debating points; you will have made a MAJOR contribution to science.

Your comments about an elephant's brain are not relevant. Elephants have 70 – 100 times the mass of humans. It's brain size RELATIVE to mammal size that seems to be important. The actual relationship seems to be a complicated "log – log" correlation.

Compared to differences in brain size BETWEEN species, variability of brain size WITHIN the human species is quite small.

Horus,

I think it's only a matter of time before we try the experiment on primates. I'll keep you posted.

Danielle.

Thanks for the links but I'm out of wordcount.

Steven,

I am sorry that you are out of wordcount.

“... the fossil record shows that the sizes of our ancestors' heads have been going up.”

But, Steven, we have become larger overall. The findings of the 18/19th century “blue book” stated that the average British male was “technically” too short/small to serve in the forces.

Could it be that the fossil record indicates = intelligence = better hunting skills = better diet ... thus better health and size overall, with comparable brain increase.

Also, what ratio of increase would suggest more IQ? Is it posited that the increase would provide the possiblility of more neural connections? Scientists have found a protein, Dasm1, that increases growth of connections, while stimulating silents ones.

Horus,

I think the physical limitation of birds, such as crows, being relative to primates would be a major factor in assessing IQ. However, crows have an amazing capacity to assess cause and effect - and exploit it.

Dr. Irene Pepperberg has published some very interesting papers on the intelligence of African Grey Parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Pepperberg’s papers "demonstrated numerical comprehension competence comparable to that of chimpanzees and very young children."
http://www.alexfoundation.org/papers/JCPAlexComp.pdf

Comparatively recently, new mapping of avian brains has been undertaken: “Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution” published in “Nature Reviews: Neuroscience” (Vol 6, February 2005)

The Avian Brain Nomenclature Consortium:
http://avianbrain.org

This Consortium originated from a group of neurobiologists with expertise in vertebrate brain evolution, who met annually at the Society for Neuroscience. “Their goal was to change the inaccuracies in extant nomenclatures that had been used for almost 100 years to describe the brains of birds and other vertebrates, and which cause communication problems in the neuroscience community today.”

Erich D. Jarvis, a member of this Consortuium, also of the Department of Neurobiology,
Dale University Medical Center, published in the Annals New York Academy of Sciences “Learned Birdsong and the Neurobiology of Human Language”

Whilst intelligent computers undoubtedly serve an important purpose, I don’t see them replacing the human brain. There are always unexpected variables, particularly involving humans.

cont ...

History demonstrates accounts of battles won by smaller and less well-armed groups against much superior and better armed opponents. Could one really apply probability and statistics, such as of Poisson and Gaussian statistics in such cases. Could a computer predict “human will” and lateral intelligence?

I could not accept the “ultimate” findings of a computer - unless at a common-sense level; Or, if I were a scientist and knew exactly how the information was processed. I know that computers can work faster than the human brain; and that is certainly a big plus.

Interesting ... the ancient Japanese game of Go:

“Deceptively easy to learn, either for a computer or a human, it is a game of such depth and complexity that it can take years for a person to become a strong player. To date, no computer has been able to achieve a skill level beyond that of the casual player.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01EEDC1F38F932A3575BC0A9649C8B63

Doesn’t string theory, of which there are some 10, challenge traditional mathematics; in fact, has created a new mathematics? Does this mean that a computer could be programmed to support the latter, which many scientists reject. Would it become a battle of computer IQ?

Computers can predict the possible outcome of a medical treatment/procedure, but not the actual outcome.

As for humanities, information has to be sourced from, and evaluated at a number of different levels.

This raises the question of whether, computers are capable of truly spontaneous original, creative thought, which is the provence of the human brain, both in the sciences and humanities ...

“But suppose it was direct, this other part of your brain or a universal brain actually fed into your brain, your mere thought commanded a response – and it could sense what you sensed and guide your every decision(?)”

Horus! This is the stuff of nightmares! Those who controlled computers would control the world ... except ... perhaps ... expert Go players.

I agree with rojo, that continually challenging the brain and creating more neural pathways - also diet - is perhaps more important than the size of the brain

Folks, I don't know why we're making such heavy weather of this. I'm talking pretty well established science.

Of course sometimes well-established science is overturned. But not often. And, in this case, I'm not aware of any serious challenge to what I've written.

Relative to body size – please note Danielle – RELATIVE TO BODY SIZE – human brains are on average six times the size of other MAMMALS (not birds but MAMMALS) of COMPARABLE SIZE.

That one of the distinguishing features of the human species is our large brains relative to other MAMMALS of comparable SIZE is not even regarded as controversial among biologists. Nor is the fact that the extra brain capacity gives us capabilities that smaller-brained MAMMALS do not have.

Why are you struggling with this Danielle?

Why do you find it so hard to accept?

Whether we can improve our intelligence by artificially expanding our brains with nerve growth factor as Julian Savulescu claims I don't know. I suspect there may be more to it than that.

Is extra brain size the ONLY factor in our intelligence?

Probably not.

But is it an important factor?

Given the high price we pay for our big craniums it's hard to see how it could not be.

WHY are you struggling with this Danielle

steven, I'll do some thinking on evolutionary pressures on human brain size. Not likely to come up with anything though.

I understand the brain to body weight ratios are vastly different between elephant and man, but what functions do elephants have that need that much brain space- well apart from 50 000 odd muscles in their trunk and having a tail. Basic anatomy is similar- 2 eyes and ears, 4 limbs and a tongue, just all on a different scale.
It's partly why brain weight to body weight ratios are generally disregarded, that and because mice have the same ratio as man. Birds have 3 times more brain mass to body weight than humans, more to do with their overall lightness for efficient flight I'd expect.

It is interesting that some birds can master aeronautics, migrate thousands of km, build magnificent nests, sing and sometimes even talk with such a small brain volume.

I'm not even sure why we're bringing other species into it.

Let's just stick to Homo Sapiens and our immediate ancestors: our cranial capacity has been on a steady track upwards for at least ten million years. I don't believe too many scientists doubt that this has been associated with a substantial increase in mental capacity.

All else being equal, the ability to stimulate a human brain to grow significantly in mass (which may or may not equate to more volume - it may simply become denser) surely has the potential to significantly increase our mental capacity, and ultimately our ability to succeed financially and otherwise. For the human race as a whole, this will hopefully prove to be ultimately a good thing, but there are definitely significant risks of social inequalities becoming even further entrenched in the mean time. And all the brain tissue in the world isn't going to help you much if this leads, as history would seem to indicate it inevitably does, to an uprising of the masses against the elite.

Steven,

"RELATIVE TO BODY SIZE – human brains are on average six times the size of other MAMMALS (not birds but MAMMALS) of COMPARABLE SIZE"

This is incontrovertible fact. I did not debate this.

I apologise for muddying the waters by introducing the issue of avian neuroscience in relation to non homo-sapien primates.

I question whether increased brain size would lead to greater IQ; one school of thought is that environment plays a very large part (perhaps the greater part). Also having a very high IQ does not necessarily lead to success. Evidence comes from those people with high IQ's who have been institutionalised; other evidence is those of high IQ living in society, whom society would regard as failures. There have to be other issues and personal drives in place.

Gardner has identified "types" of IQ. A brilliant scientist might well not make a brilliant businessman.

Increase of brain mass could well lead to greater neural connections. My thinking is, it will be the challenges imposed from within or from outside which will count.

I suspect there is a great deal of IQ capability already available in society which is not being utilized. Perhaps it should be the other way round. Instead of increasing the size of human brains, perhaps our systems of education need to be reappraised in the light of neuroscientific discoveries.

I know a brilliant physicist who is dyslexic. Through having a phenomenal memory he passed primary school (remembering class-readers as other children read them). Only in high school, was his dyslexia picked up and accommodated. At university, he was permitted to orally dictate "writing" exams. I do not know why the dyslexia has not affected his understanding of scientific formulae ... His late father, not dyslexic, was a brilliant astro-physicist and at the cutting edge of computer technology.

I often look at people in jobs against which society discriminates, and wonder what extraordinary gifts these people might have, and whose contributions have been lost to society as a whole.

There's interesting research coming out of other animal experiments that shows just how powerful biology can be. In one recently reported study, researchers took genetic material from the brains of a group of characteristically hard-working monkeys and introduced it to another species of lazy monkeys, and the lazy monkeys became hard-working.

Snip
http://www.save-the-primates.org.au/facts-animal-experimentation.htm

http://www.shanegarton.com/Capra_7_Art_Studio/Htmls/environmental.htmls/Animal_Action/index.html

Any Comments?

"I had bought two male chimps from a primate colony in Holland.
They lived next to each other in separate cages for several months
before I used one as a [heart] donor.
When we put him to sleep in his cage in preparation for the operation,
he chattered and cried incessantly.
We attached no significance to this,
but it must have made a great impression on his companion,
for when we removed the body to the operating room,
the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days.
The incident made a deep impression on me.
I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures."
~ Christian Barnard, Surgeon ~

Any Comments?

Firstly, I apologise to Steven and other OLO writers for going completely off topic here .... This is the only way I can address rojo ...

rojo,

If you would like to initiate a topic on non homo-sapien IQ/neuroscience, I would enjoy discussing this.

Bioscientists are also looking at other species to improve the quality of life of humans; one species does not get cancer, and there is a lot of enquiry here. Cross-species science
can be a legitimate topic.

Interesting also is what precipated the homo-sapien brain from its primate forebear.
One published scientist postulated that it was when our primate forebear began to identify poisonous, from non-poisonous snakes. This doesn't hold up at all. Calvin believed climate-change.

The gene which causes schizoprenia is also associated with outstanding creativity. A scientist on evcforum said that it seemed schizophrenia was the result of "too much of a good thing". Furthermore, this gene is a factor of being homo-sapien. It does not occur in any other primate.
http://www.evcforum.net

rojo, ... Over to you ...

I again apologise to Steven and other members here. Please accept this.

Yes, I have a comment PALE.

Where on those very emotional and I'm sure, very convincing websites run by PETA et al, do they mention animal ethics committees set up by research institutions?
http://www.animalethics.org.au/reader/arrp-aecs

I didn't see any mentioned, and yet pretty much every research institution in Australia has one (and many overseas as well):

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ro/ethics/animal.shtml
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/orps/animal-welfare
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ethics/animal/
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/forms_and_guidelines/animal_ethics_forms

They do this because it's the law:
eg. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ara1985134/

Animal experimentation in Australia is not just for "mere curiosity" as one website put it. It has been through a rigourous ethical consideration process and the benefits have been seriously considered.

However,this thread isn't about animal experimentation, it's about humans affecting their own evolution and how that might affect society or the ethics of even doing so.

I really don't think brain size is the foremost factor in intelligence. I'm sure a cow's brain is much larger than that of a Jack Russell terrier, but which is smarter?

Presumably, much of that is to do with the scale of the animal, but it makes one wonder how much of that is scale, and how much is needed for thought - after all, if progress in computer science has taught us anything, it is that size isn't necessarily a good indicator of power.

TRTL - reread my last post again:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1391#25526. Further, I don't think you can compare the workings of computer CPUs with human brains at all. Human brains are the result of billions of years of evolution. Computer chips were invented barely 60 ago, and have been deliberately designed to be as small as possible. Once the individual components do reach physical size limits, in order to continue increasing the power, chips will inevitably start to get bigger again.

Simply doubling the mass of brain tissue may not result in a super-spike of mental capacity, but I would be highly surprised if it had no significant effect.

Interestingly, patients who have hemispherectomies still remain highly mentally able, with minimal loss of cognitive function. So at least half of our brain is "back-up tissue".

Bugsy and everyone= Firstly we are nothing to do with peta

Where ever possible we like to draw people attention to behind the scenes of this er,”interesting work”.

This we do all day and everyday and in fact we wouldn’t be doing our job properly if we did not bring it to the public intention.

Speaking of the size of brains bugsy I fail to see how you can possible leave out the major part of this so called research and experiments.

Anytime one or any of you would like to take a look at the real suffering and the truth we are happy to oblige.

RSPCA have long been concerned about the barbaric experimental tests [many quite unnecessary on these poor creatures.]

Now I have no intention of interrupting your thread any further. However we can not agree with the comments below and have just as much right as you to view our opinion.

I do hope you will all think about the other side to these interesting experiments while you are working on the size of your baby’s brain.
To me I should think good breeding and being raised around compassionate parents ought to be the best start for any baby or nation.
We bid you all good day and will leave you to your main line of interest.
We can judge a nation by the way it treats its animals.
Gandhi

There's interesting research coming out of other animal experiments that shows just how powerful biology can be. In one recently reported study, researchers took genetic material from the brains of a group of characteristically hard-working monkeys and introduced it to another species of lazy monkeys, and the lazy monkeys became hard-working.

However, this thread isn't about animal experimentation, it's about humans affecting their own evolution and how that might affect society or the ethics of even doing so.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 6 January 2008 7:02:12 PM

Steven,

I am going to be pedantic and glance at the palaeolithic record... so, please don’t, however nicely, “yell” at me, if I am seemingly going off at a tangent ...

Homo erectus, 1.8 million to 300,000 years ago, had, at the end of this period, an average brain size of 1250 cc.

Homo sapiens (archaic) bridged the period to H. sapiens sapiens, who emerged 120,000 years ago. An omnivore, ate mainly meat (and fish). Leakey ... and the Australian Meat Board ... contribute meat-eating to the development of the modern human brain, the average size of which is 1350cc.

The mysterious and elusive Neanderthal, averaged 5’6” tall, was contemporaneous with H. sapiens sapiens, had an average brain of 1450 cc, about 8% larger than modern man.They were the first to develop funeral practices.

As cranial sutures are delayed in humans, the active period being 25-30 years of age; with circummeatal sutures still closing in the ninth decade, increasing brain mass would not seem a problem.

However, more than overall size, I suspect it is the evidence of greater numbers of convolutions occurring in the cranium of prehistoric man, which indicate brain development, than brain size itself.

Don’t we already have the function of increasing brain mass and IQ in the ability of the brain to further convolute, thereby increasing surface area, and neurons. ... ? Or do
scientists believe we have reached the limit?

Firstly PALE, I know you often say you have nothing to do with PETA, however you are posting links that have a number of references and links to PETA, it often seems that they may in fact be run by PETA affiliated persons. (BTW, "et al" means "and others")

Steven was making a point that the science is already here for manipulation of "intelligence" or behavioural modification through genetic/epigenetic control (in principle anyway). As far as I see it, he was asking for comments about people being able to screen their own offspring for "optimal" genomes and what that may mean for us as humans. I did not see him asking about the ethics of animal experimentation. I also see the thread has gone way off this original question (probably because it was badly phrased, allowing everyone to push their own barrows and talk about what they know, not the original question), but I guess that is what happens around here.

If you are so very concerned about animal experimentation, why don't you express an interest to join an ethics committee at your nearest university? You may actually find out what actually goes on there.

I have been following this thread but keeping quiet because neuroscience is not my field. However language is. Now forgive me if this is way off-field...but couldn't speech have in influence on the size of the human brain as compared with other mammals?

Rather than an ability to detect poisonous snakes - which of course we now know is not limited to humans - is there a possibility that our larger brain size has something to do with our unique possession of vocal chords? It is this which differentiates us from the larger primates (though presumably the makers of Planet of The Apes chose to ignore this)and even from our remote ancestors. Erectus and Neanderthal did not possess the power of speech, did they? So, although Neanderthal had a larger brain it did them no good...a failed experiment, perhaps?

The possession of vocal chords having led to the formation of words and speech; the evolution of abstract thought; and ultimately philosophy, the arts, technology and science, is it not feasible to posit that our larger brain size may be connected with functions related to these skills? As I said, this isn't my field so perhaps this is easily shot down in flames?

As to the relation of this to the original topic? I think it is germane as, without some glimmering of an idea of how our brains function it is impossible to make a decision on which side to come down on in any debate about a rationale for increasing the size of our offsprings' brains.

Romany,

I think you have made very valid comments.

Homo habilis, also known as transition man, is currently the earliest known species of genus Homo, that is the first of the human species, and which used a variety of tools. H. habilis, existed from over to 2 million years to some 1.6 million years ago (the date varies according to whom is writing the paper, however, the range is within this “ball park”). A brain cast found evidence of the bulge of Broca’s area essential for speech. There is speculation that this species may have had rudimentary speech. The brain of this species ranged from 680 cc to 800cc.

Regarding Neanderthal, they had cave art, flutes and were the first to bury their dead with flowers - so it would appear that they were capable of “abstract” thought. However, scientists, basing their findings on computer modeling, think that physicality of Neanderthal speech was actually poor, which gave them a disadvantage in communication and resultant organisational skills. This link povides fuller information
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010710_neanderthal.shtml

A neuroscientist confessed that what they knew about the development of the human brain could be written on a postcard. He may have been exagerating, of course ...

Romany, I too, am waiting to be jumped on from a great height ...

Sadly I am forced to interupt you once more.

I must clarify no connection to peta= Although we support all groups and and members of the public fighting to stop cruelty to animals.
http://www.rspcaqld.org.au/news/campaigns.htm
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=rspca+animal+experiments+cruelty+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

People Against Live Exports © in Conjunction with RSPCA QLD. ... The potential for chilled meat exports to substitute for live exports is recognised by key ...
www.livexports.com/davidwoodsreport.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.livexports.com ]

pale has no connection to peta.

Bugsy why not allow the others to go on with their debate.

Thank You all for your patience

Danielle,

thanx for the great link - kept me happy for hours. Still no further towards solving the larger brain dichotomy - but neither did my theory fall completely flat on its face either, I suppose. At least on a superficial level.

Another thought which has has stuck for years in my own (large) brain is that our brain may have had even more capabilities, the use of which our more sophisticated life-styles have now rendered redundant. These do still manifest from time to time in certain "gifted" individuals and may even have links to autism. However, this is not the time or space to go into that.

Suffice to say, however, that I personally would therefore not choose to have my own child's brain size increased as I already hold the view that significant capabilities already present are no longer utilised. Thus to my way of thinking this would not necessarily prove advantageous.

But if we could somehow learn to utilise our brain to the full extent of its latent capabilities? Ah, that would interest me greatly.

Danielle, my interest lies mainly with human IQ at this stage, largely because of my daughter whose emotional "intensity"(for lack of a better word), advanced language ability, and general vagueness prompted her teacher to organise an IQ test recently. To see what we were really dealing with.
Speaking from experience, having a child with a high end IQ is not something I'd be genetically/chemically manipulating a child to achieve. Fitting in with children their own age is difficult, and can often lead to underperformance in order to conform, negating that extra ability. We've only begun the journey, and as you've said high IQ is no guarantee of success along the way.

wizofaus, steven brought up animals in the first place.
I don't doubt the importance of brain size on intelligence either, except that there are large variations of intelligence within the size we currently have, so size is not the limiting factor for 99.5% of the population. On rereading steven's posts he may have a goal in mind of exponentially raising intelligence levels, where I was thinking along the lines of being ahead of the bunch not lapping them.

I'm not completely sure if it's true, but I've read that we are born with all the braincells we'll have, and that we'll loose half of them by age 5. And all those cells within a brain mass 1/3 of an adults.
I say I'm unsure because the hippocampus is supposed to be able to make new neurons.

Look, brain size in and of itself has nothing to do with the level of cognitive abilities human beings have, this has been demonstrated. It's the number of neuronal connections that matter. Rojo, that brain cell deal is a myth, as I said it's about neuronal connections. The brain is extremely dynamic. Babies are born with a great many neuronal connections and they are then worked upon by the environment the baby lives in. Many connections are lost through disuse and many are strengthened through activity. This is the way neurons and synapses work. It's not how many you have, honeybees only have a fraction of what mammals have and yet are able to communicate, navigate, learn and orient themselves to food sources and threats extremely effectively.

It's all in the organisation of the brain and neuronal connections, not the number of cells there are. However, an increase in the number of neuronal cells can increase the potential number of connections, but not necessarily. It very much depends on the environment in which the developing brain lives.

Ok, all that aside, what I believe Steven was driving at was, humans can now take charge of their offspring's potential, which I personally disagree with because we don't really know much at all about how the brain develops, what the major genetic factors are, or how they work. Steven thinks we are at the cusp of understanding this, and yet I believe we are at the start of just understanding what the major non-genetic factors are, let alone what the genetic factors are how they interact and so I think that his "brave new world" screening embryos for intelligence and whatnot is far, far in the future. And if it can happen, let it, it will only be a drop in bucket of humanity and the human gene pool and won't be a major determinant leading to a GATTACA type scenario.

And PALE, I will only point out that you started that stupid side argument about animal experiments. By all means let the nice people have their debate, whatever they think they are debating about, brain size and language and evolution or whatever, but whatever it is about, it's not about grotesque animal experimentation.

I know you are not PETA, you (or whoever used to post as PALE) have said so on many occasions , however you do show support when you link to their pages, even indirectly.

But this thread is NOT about animal cruelty, it's about human evolution, so let the nice people have their debate, and push off.

The other concern of course should be that if artificially boosting brain mass (and consequently the potential number of neuronal connections) has the potential to dramatically increase cognitive function and the ability to reason and think rationally, would it not also have the potential to dramatically increase irrational thoughts/paranoia/superstituous belief? Could we just as well end up creating super-psychos instead of super-geniuses?

But again, this is why the technology, should it become feasible, absolutely needs to remain legal and regulated. Allowing it to be taken over by criminals would be a dangerous mistake.

I agree with those questioning the validity of “increasing” the brain - and who have also made compelling arguments against this. We don’t know enough about the brain, nor even IQ. As Dave Ziolkowski stated, ( quoted earlier): “the perception of intelligence in the general public is often very different from that of the scientific community”.

As already mentioned , schizophrenia, has a genetic component, often running through familes, and is associated with brilliance - also often running in families. Should the genes responsible for schizophrenia be eradicated? We don’t really know enough about mental illnesses, in general, and if, and in what way, they have a strong relationship to creativity, and originality of thought, and IQ - even evolution. (This does not in any way seek to ignore the misery mental illness can cause to those that have it.).

Society as a rule does not like nonconformity. Psychotropic medicines induce conformity - but at what cost.

We accept scientists, but we don’t accept scientists turning up at the laboratory with a baby shawl round their shoulders and a red-string onion bag on their heads. Better to medicate such a person even if it means loss of the “eureka” factor.

The Nobel Prize winner, John Nash, suffered from schizophenia. The following refers to Nash returning (albeit without medication) to “rational” thought:

‘Nash has recovered from delusional thinking, he doesn't think this is necessarily entirely without a potential loss to his mathematical creativity.

“So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However this is not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical disability to good physical health. One aspect of this is that rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of his relation to the cosmos .” ‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1136260

cont ...

Although portrayed in the film “A Beautiful Mind” as experiencing visual hallucinations, Nash experienced auditory hallucinations, only: “which he received in the same way as his mathematical ideas:” (ibid)

Could this support the theory of Bicameralism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_ Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes

... first presented by Julian Jaynes, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”. Scientists like Daniel Dennett and H. Steven Moffic think the theory intriguing, but “probably” wrong; other scientists think it worthy of study.

It is unquestionable that some successful business people are quite ruthless; it can be cut-throat at the top. We know that people such as Gates are extremely generous; it is undeniable that many rich business people give generously, without public recognition. However, those who seek donations for charity will confirm, more often than not, that “battlers” donate disproportionately and with open heart, rather than the rich. Admittedly this is a generalization born of anecdote. However, is there a risk that human “feelings” such as empathy and compassion, could be compromised by an artificial jump in IQ?

I certainly would not permit such a "procedure" on my children.

I do believe, however, that research should continue which will might help those who have mental retardation, brain damage, neuron related spinal injuries, strokes, alzheimers, etc.

Good Stuff Danielle,

I don't think the intelligent should have the intelligence gene available to them . They don't need it . Besides a lot of scientists are doing nasty things .How would we weed them out?

The rich are doing ok - so they are excluded .

The poor need an Education and maybe a chance to see life in a different light. We could give them a helping hand in lots of ways .

Any way, why not give mothers a big incentive to breast feed for a couple of years or more instead of 6 months - that will smarten up the babies we are told.

Maybe the Mum's could learn a new skill between feeds for free .

No gene therapy required there for the babies .

It's not the size it's the use; and clearly a lot of rich ,intelligent, powerfull people have their brain power gear box in neutral ,giving them more won't help society progress.

I think you are all missing a point. We do not live in isolation. We live in a very competitive world.

Now I do not know whether Julian Savulescu's suggestion of feeding nerve growth factor to babies would work. I suspect it may be more complicated than that.

However I am confident that within a few years one of the two following technologies will become available:

Some kind of whole genome scanning that allows us to determine whether a foetus is likely to grow into a healthy bright adult or whether it is likely to turn out dim and sickly. In this case parents could chose to enhance their children simply by discarding foetuses that did not measure up.

OR

Some kind of post-birth treatment that will enhance intelligence.

Once the technology is available it will be used. If you do not use it fo your children they may grow up at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. They may not be able to find decent employment for example.

In the near future parents are going to face some huge moral dilemmas.

I do not pretend to know what the answers are. Only that the issues are coming.

I appreciate that many here are uneasy about the prospect of "designer babies." Many find the mere idea distasteful.

But let's not pretend that designer babies are impossible. The technology is being developed as we debate.

What would you do?

Decline to "tamper with nature" and live with the prospect of your child growing up disadvantaged; or

Go the designer baby route if you can afford it?

One thing I might expect to see is that those who have had enhancing technology for some capability or another are required to be easily identifiable as such by prospective employers, then to enforce rules on the maximum number of "enhanceds" they can employ: affirmative action for "regulars". Of course "enhanceds" might be more likely to become employers themselves, and eventually politicans, and effectively become the ruling elite. Providing it was only their capacity for benevolent intelligence that was increased, this mightn't be so bad, but if their capacity for cruelty and power-lust was similarly increased, it could certainly lead to an uneven uglier world that the one we witness today.

It's hard to see how humanity will not eventually be consumed by its own technology. I'd rather the above-mentioned scenario than wiping ourselves out with nuclear or biological weapons, or having robots or cyborgs turn against us. Either way, I doubt Homo Sapiens as we know it today will survive another millenium.

Wizofaus wrote:

"I doubt Homo Sapiens as we know it today will survive another millenium."

There are only three possibilities that I can foresee.

--Our civilisation collapses and we cease making technological progress; or

--We continue developing technologies that give us the capability of altering ourselves; or

--Both

I doubt it will take a millennium for all this to happen. By 2100 the human condition will be very different to what it is today. For some posters here their children or grandchildren are going to be grappling with the decision: To enhance or not to enhance.

It could reach the point where the "unenhanced: seem like a lower order of evolution to the enhanced.

Or the technologies we develop could have unforeseen side-effects which lead to indescribable misery.

Stevenlmyer,

"foetusus that do not measure up ".

This has in it the big question you don't address .

Who will do the measuring up and what will be the standard?

What's the point - get one out of the Medibank catalogue??

The "chosen children " could well dissapoint their parents as they realise they were [are], only one gene or two away from going down the toilet .

I suggest that when their chosen one picks out an old folks home for them at 150 they may well find themselves in steerage for any number of "valid" reasons.

Then again, when their parents do start to slip, why bother with the trouble ?

kartiya jim,

My guess is it will be an evolving standard.

Right now the standard is to abort foetuses that carry genes known to cause various diseases. That's the limit of our technology.

In fact right now all we can detect in utero is diseases caused by a single gene.

All that is about to change.

The Wellcome Trust in the UK is coordinating a major program to detect in utero congenital problems caused by COMBINATIONS of genes. We shall have the ability to abort foetuses that have a PROPENSITY to develop certain kinds of disease.

Note: Not a disease but a propensity to develop certain diseases.

Over time I think a propensity to lack of intelligence or propensity to lack of sexual attractiveness may come to be considered a congenital problem

All I've said above requires an extension of existing science. We're not there yet be we're moving in that direction. We'll probably get there somewhere between 2020 and 2030. My guess is nearer 2020 than 2030.

The next step seems likely to be artificial sperm made from skin cells.

Here's a prediction.

Before 2020 a mammal will be born that has no father. It will be born to a female who was impregnated with artificial sperm made from the cells of another female.

BEFORE 2030 A HUMAN CHILD WILL BE BORN THAT HAS NO FATHER.

Later we may reach the point of completely artificial genomes constructed from artificial sperm and eggs. I would guess that's about 50 – 70 years away.

We are developing the technology to control our own evolution – for good or ill.

Steven...

After the moon landing, there were all kinds of predictions. It was assumed that by the 90s we'd have moon colonies and holidays off-world.

Didn't happen.

When dolly the sheep was cloned, it was assumed that within a few short years, someone would attempt to clone a human.

Didn't happen.

There are plenty more instances... imagination tends to run riot before the science. Yes, it's moving quickly, but the political considerations often slow things more than the science does, and everything you speak of is totally loaded in terms of controversial movements.
The vast majority of scientists aren't the mavericks you seem to think they are, and it takes a whole team to achieve the breakthroughs you speak of.

You're talking science fiction. With a great deal of certainty, that will leave you red-faced in a few decades.

LOL TRTL,

Given my age if I'm still around and compos mentis in a few decades I'll happily turn "red faced" if I'm wrong.

To address your issues, most serious technology watchers in 1969 did NOT think we'd have moon bases by the nineties.

How did we know this?

What crystal ball did we use?

Simple.

We noted that Nixon was cutting NASA's budget at the time. Most of the cuts were for the human exploration of deep space. It therefore seemed reasonable to infer that, absent funding, super-expensive projects like lunar colonies were unlikely to get off the (earthly) ground.

On the other hand we noted that funding for research on ways of bringing down the cost of computing and networking computers was increasing exponentially. Most of this was private funding.

No, we did not foresee the internet. But we did think that by the nineties we'd have a lot of inexpensive networked computers. And so it was.

"FOLLOW THE MONEY" is not an infallible method of forecasting technology development. Some technologies fizzle. Nuclear power was one.

But "follow the money" is a better method than most. Especially when it's private money.

And right now the funding of the sort of bio-technology I've been writing about is exploding.

So, TRTL, using follow the money I think a lot of what I've written will come to pass and much more besides. There will be discoveries nobody foresaw. There always are.

As for Dolly, the scientific consensus was that it would be a few decades at least before we had cloned humans. The scientists who cloned Dolly wrote a book in which they pointed out the pitfalls of cloning. Most attempts failed. Even when they did not fail the resulting young were often sickly as, so it turned out, was Dolly.

There never was a CONSENSUS among serious scientists was that cloning children would be commonplace in a few years.

We've both made forecasts about the future. We'll both be wrong. We'll have to wait and see who is less wrong.

I think that Savulescu’s theories are flawed.

Brain capacity can only be but the potential; IQ requires environmental and other factors. Scientists admit their knowledge about the brain is quite small. Before engaging in “utopian” ideas, scientists need to study how the brain, genetics, nature and the environment interact.

Scientists have identified certain vitamins, fish oil, etc. which improve brain activity and retention of knowledge. Savulescu argues that this is no different from “biological intervention”. However, if a vitamin results in a bad reaction, it can be removed from the diet. Psychotropic medication is adjusted to the condition.

Single genes do not determine complex human traits. Complex traits emerge over time from extremely complex interactions among genetic and environmental factors ... and are evolving ... and mutate.

Savulescu states: “While at present there are no genetic tests for these complex behaviours, if the results of recent animal studies into hard work and monogamy apply to humans it may be possible in the future to genetically change how we are predisposed to behave ... “

This rings alarm bells ...!

Savulescu continues: “Some argue that genetic manipulations are different because they are irreversible. But environmental interventions can equally be irreversible. Child neglect or abuse can scar a person for life ... ”

True, certainly. However, many people have risen above their earlier circumstances; in fact, been challenged by them. The premise of “biological intervention” - that people can be artificially “predisposed to behave” in certain ways - does not recognise unique individual traits. This theory appears to come from a deterministic view of human behavior - that all people respond to circumstances in predicable ways. People don’t.

Even if we accepted a deterministic view of human behavior, it seems a dangerous objective to predispose people to behave in certain ways.

If “biological intervention” were possible, would we have a society of a working class and the “ super intelligent.” ?

To be effective, workers would need to understand and implement these new technologies/theories; this could be a problem in itself.

cont ...

Would members of the working class ever have a chance of upward movement - even if they showed outstanding IQ? Would this even have a chance to be recognised? High IQ is certainly not the sole provence of the middle classes and above. Some Nobel Prize winners have come from extremely modest origins.

The other factor is that high IQ does not equal capability in every direction. Who would be the arbitor of the relative values of certain sciences, arts, etc. and even, the ethical applications within these.

'New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance' article by Julian Savulescu.

Genetic differences have nothing to with moral equality of persons, but history demonstrates that putative genetic differences have been used to justify inequalities in distribution of social power. “Biological intervention” could well lead to such abuses.

Nothing should be ruled out. However, the brain and its workings, needs to be fully understood. At present, the idea of a cooly calculated “bological intervention” smacks of social engineering; especially if only available to the rich ... who, incidentally, are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer. The disadvantages might well outweigh the advantages.

Personally, I am convinced that we have enormous IQ capabilities within our society; the average IQ is rising quickly. However, our lack of knowledge of neuroscience, prevents this from being exploited; add to this the entrenched aversion to, and suspicion of intellectuals, in certain sections of the community, which hampers potentially brilliant people from emerging from these roots. A whole range of social and educational issues need to be addressed ...

I certainly wouldn’t permit “biological intervention” , if it were possible, being performed on my children. I'd feel I was condemning them to a particular way of life.

I hope OLO readers will accept my apology for continuing this debate. However, as I am not a neuroscientist, I sought an explanation from Prof. John G. Taylor, Emeritus Professor and Director of the Centre for Neural Networks at King's College, University of London, as to the “how of” increasing the brain - (knowing, of course, that all scientists don't always agree on everything). I didn’t muddy the waters by mentioning “social engineering etc.

I sent him the Background Briefing website:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2008/2122476.htm

Prof Taylor, kindly replied:

“I think there are 2 very different questions being raised, one to do with genetic engineering (GE), the other with direct addition of brain material after birth (assumedly by, for example injecting the baby's stem cells into its brain).

1) The modifications by GE are a long way off, especially due to intelligence and other features arising from activities of numerous genes. That is not necessarily so for motor responses (such as altering genes to produce super muscles - already being done in animals). Ultimately that will be possible for intelligence and other traits in humans. I see that as no more than speeding up 'breeding' programs that arise from present social interactions (marrying inside your own class for example). However it would have to be monitored carefully to prevent the production of psychopaths, for example, who might have a reduced level of empathy due to expansion of brain regions devoted to 'cold' intellect at the expense of more emotional areas.

2) As for post-birth insertion of stem cells, I would think that also needs careful monitoring. It is already being done in case of Parkinson's disease, and will no doubt be extended to other disease in due course (schizophrenia?, Alzheimer's? - both cause by specific brain deficits). Just putting stem cells in an infant brain may not necessarily help,however, in improving intelligence. There is no clear relation between brain size and intelligence (Anatole France, for example, had a very small brain).

cont...

It is the connectivity and possibly increased size of certain parietal areas that could be important for intelligence. The former of these is very likely genetically coded but no-one knows how (but in the future?). The latter has Einstein's brain to give a hint (he had larger/denser parietal sites, valuable in holding information over time to achieve better reasoning). So the evidence on both of these possibilities is rather poor.

3) You raise the question about better use of the brain in the future. I would very strongly agree, but it is not the 'dark' areas that should be used (9/10ths of the brain) since they involve higher level assocations of crucial importance in advance thinking.”

(I became a little confused with this comment; I possibly misinterpret it.) Prof. Taylor continues:

“ I think (see my recent 'Mind User's Manual', Wiley & Sin, 2006) that a lot can be done to improve the brain. There is a ground-swell with Su-Doku/Sony brain disks etc, but it is not in current education in schools or homes at infant level. So an enormous amount can be done still for the brain without need for such drastic interventions as GE or stem cell insertion.”

On a personal level, if as Taylor states, it were just a case of “injecting the baby's stem cells into its brain” I would not necessarily have a problem with this. But the idea of injecting another’s stem cells into the brain, the example of a hard-working monkey’s into a lazy money’s brain ....?

Also, how are lazy monkeys vis a vis hard-working monkeys decided? The lazy monkeys may in fact be contemplating Newtonian theories of coconuts falling out of trees. The hard-working monkeys may be indulging in hedonistic delights.

Steven, I bow to the fact that you brighter than me, and undoubtedly better informed in this area ... but please, please don’t "yell" at me that I am an incompetent nincompoop (however, nicely)... I needed an explanation as to the "how" of this theory; If I haven't grasped it now, even with Taylor's explanation, then I must concede ...

Danielle,

I certainly don't think you are an incompetent nincompoop. But neither you nor I are neuroscientists.

Neuroscience is in any case in its infancy. It's where general medicine was just after the discovery of X-rays. We've learned a lot but there's much more to learn.

Instead of trying to understand the detail let's look at the big picture. Most neuroscientists and most geneticists think the following will happen sooner rather than later:

--We'll be able to identify genomes – NOT individual genes but GENOMES – that will predispose a person to higher intelligence or greater sexual attractiveness or some other desirable trait. That leads to the possibility of "enhancement through abortion."

--Many also think there will be treatments available that can enhance intelligence. The treatments may not be anything as simple as injecting nerve growth factor. But some treatments will be developed.

Now lets' NOT try to guess the detail which is, in any case impossible. Let's focus on the possible creation of the technology.

Of course, none of this may come to pass. But using "follow the money" principle I would say it's distinctly likely that enhancement technologies in one form or another are imminent = meaning before about 2020.

This will leave parents with agonising dilemmas. No matter how distasteful they may find the thought of enhancement, they will have to ask themselves whether it is fair to bring an unenhanced child into the world.

There is also the problem of who will be able to afford enhancement.

I wanted to discuss the SOCIAL and MORAL aspects of these technologies; not to have a discussion on neuroscience.

Of course, if you sincerely believe no enhancement technologies are possible then it's a non-issue for you. But an awful lot of people are spending a lot of money trying to create such technologies.

In reality we'll make new discoveries that no one anticipated. We always do.

Hope this helps. Let's discuss the moral and social issues. NOT the details of the technologies.

I knew that's what you were getting at Steven. However, some of the moral parts of this scenario are actually tied up with the mechanics of the science. You say that some people may choose to abort a "sub-optimal" foetus, however that would most likely be one that has a pathological condition. "Intelligence" (and other social traits) as a generality is not likely to be subject to abortion. As Prof. Taylor has confirmed, intelligence is the product of many genes and as has been seen in crop breeding, concentrate too much on one trait or marker and you can lose quality in other areas. Intelligence is not the only desirable trait for human beings to have. Others may include a good immune system or a reasonable athletic ability for example. Parents hoping for children to a have a trait that is polygenic in nature probably won't opt for the "have sex, get pregnant, abort foetus" route as it is 1) time consuming 2) emotionally investing and 3) unlikely to produce a very different result as not screening for that trait. I mean seriously, how many times is your typical woman going to get pregnant naturally and abort it if it's not a genius? How many chances would someone want before they settle for what they are going to get? And you are never going to get anything better than what genes are in either parent anyway (randomly shuffled every time- remember that).

So, that "abortion" route is very unlikely (except for major pathology) in my opinion. The most likely "enhancement" technology is probably either genetic engineering and/or screening in a pre-implantation IVF treatment or post birth treatment (like the stem-cell injection idea). These would have a far greater "hit-rate" than natural conception. These technologies are not even off the drawing board and given the likelihood of a very slow uptake for this kind of treatment, I would say that it will be a long way off yet. Try for the mid-to-end of the century, as a possibility, and even then it won't involve abortion I can almost guarantee that.

I would say though, if the pressure to give birth to well-above-average-ability children became immensely strong, *and* the technology to detect this only operated late in pregnancy (say, in the final 20 weeks), there might, for the first time, be a genuine case for laws protecting the "rights of the unborn". I certainly question whether it would be morally acceptable to abort a foetus that would otherwise be viable simply because testing revealed that it was unlikely to develop exceptional talents, particularly so since removing such a late-term foetus from the mother's uterus isn't usually in itself enough to terminate it.

However, again, if the pressure was strong enough, people might well do it anyway. Making it illegal may well only drive the practice on to the blackmarket and into backyard operations, which would surely be worse.

Perhaps a possible solution is to require parents to attend an informational session about the development stage of their foetus, and the exact details of the operation, complete with high-quality video likely to appeal to their protective instincts. That would surely keep to a minimum the number of parents that would still choose to go ahead with such a procedure. After all, how many parents would commit infanticide these days if they found out that their newborns had congenital defects?

Although wiz, what I was getting at is that even if the pressure was strong, abortion of foetuses because of non-pathology reasons, hoping for a better child next time is an extremely emotionally taxing and inefficient way of "enhancing" children. It is for these reasons, I believe that abortion is a non-issue for this kind of thing. However, it remains an issue for (and only for) genetic and developmental diseases.

Steven ,
If a woman wanted to produce children for childless couples she could well be prepared to spend some money ,if she could recoup it,on giving birth to an enhanced child.

No doubt the couple with the money that want the best will pay a lot more for their [almost] flawless baby .

The windfall may help her own "normal " children achieve success in their lives .

I think the idea is immoral, but then morality seems to be fast dissapearing into the bog under the weight of our consumerist society .

Steven, I did feel that the "how-to" of any enhancement program would contribute to the moral dimension of this debate, thus, I contacted Taylor.

Wizofaus and Bugsy,

You both present compelling arguments against abortion of non-optimal children.

Also, the window of opportunity for having a "normal" baby is rapidly narrowing as women are leaving it later to conceive. Fertility slowly declines from 26 yrs. Doctors warn that as soon women reach 30 yrs they should be intending to conceive. The risk of giving birth to a baby with abnormalites increases with age of the mother and amniocentesis is routinely performed when the mother reaches 35 years and above. This itself is not without risk to the mother and newborn, contributing deformities and alloimmunisation in the baby, even miscarriage. Prof. Bill Ledger, Sheffield University stated: "I spend too much of my life in clinics with very intelligent sensible woman who have left it until 40-something ... even with IVF they can't conceive." The chances of many women getting pregnant and carrying to term in their forties is small. Add this to the findings that possibly the age of the father at conception is now linked to problems, such as late- onset schizophrenia in the child.

Many couples may never have an "optimal" child anyway - how does one measure this in particular couples - and the risk of ending up with no child at all is a distinct possibility.

Even with enhanced abilities at birth, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the child will do well at school - there has to be a motive/stimulus. IQ capacity is certainly not maximised at school level. Einstein’s genius emerged later. If he had followed a different career path ...? Some people with very high IQ are often quite content not to “use” it, but just “go with the flow”.

cont ...

If the brain can be enhanced, it seems to me that, if possible, it would be better done later rather than earlier. When the teen - even older person - wants to follow a field, and makes their own decision to have IQ enhancement. This would also provide time to assess any undesirable traits a person might display, that would be abhorent if enhanced.

It is already possible to store a baby’s stem cells in a stem-cell bank.

It would be interesting to know the outcome of those children who are accepted into university at an early age because of proven “brilliance”. Maturity, distinct from IQ, is an important factor. Many mature age students often do far better than those who enter straight from school with top matriculation results

Danielle, I didn't feel I was trying to present an argument "against abortion of non-optimal children". Just trying to address the sort of moral concerns that might come up, and, more particularly, the best routes to addressing them. Even if I was 100% convinced that aborting a late-term foetus was morally equivalent to infanticide, I would strongly question whether criminalising the act was the correct response.

Actually Danielle, I think you misrepresent my position on this subject. I make no argument "against abortion of non-optimal children" at all. In fact, I believe that a woman should be able to abort a foetus for any reason they choose, provided it's done early enough. I just don't think it's going to be a factor in the "designer babies" issue, especially in light of the reasons you have expanded upon, that is the trend towards a narrowing window of opportunity which comes from delayed reproduction and pregnancy. How many chances would one get? So, the trend will be toward pre-implantation screening and/or modification or post-natal treatments.

wizofaus,

I understand your argument. Also, the common precedure of imaging the unborn in utero, which the parents see, would undoubtedly present a reality, rather than perhaps a "pie in the sky" expectation. As you say there are a variety of concerns. Also, how many doctors, who see quite damaged newborns, would be prepared to abort, in the late stage of pregnancy, an otherwise healthy and perfect child. If the parents were adamant as to "optimal IQ" (which seems fairly "elastic" anyway, predicated only on what the parents could contribute) perhaps the child could be given up for adoption. Then what if the parents never produce their "ideal" .. indeed, at a certain point, find out that having a child was no longer possible ...?

Currently, I know of a couple whose unborn has been found to have Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY). The mother refuses to abort, the father wants it. The usual prognosis is that Klinefelter's leads to diminished IQ. However, I have a friend with this condition, who is currently doing his doctorate.

Also, I know of a case where a late term "abortion" - actually an "induced labour" - was undertaken, because the baby had "virtually" no brain at all. Those involved, including the mother, were in ageement as to the necessity of this procedure

Steven, Danielle and Bugsey,

It never ceases to amaze me how elastic can be the consciences of God fearing 21st Century men and women in Australia today.

To think that so called sophisticated and intelligent people can blank off their consciences and commit murder on their own for no good reason both appalls and puzzles me.

I am NOT condemning anyone here but the inherent baseness of "modern" man and woman would appear not to have changed for thousands of years.

Is there some sort of survival mechanism blank out gene that allows this to happen ?

As the arguments have progressed here,they may actually be revealing our propensity to use commercial science as our support for modern infanticide , verses traditional infanticide where lack of food was often the motivating factor.

As we have seen with wars and torture over the years - we ain't pretty.

kartiya jim, it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can still be "God fearing" in the 21st century.

Our collective moral conscience is quite obviously elastic. 2000 years ago people thought nothing of pouring into stadiums to watch innocent victims being torn apart by lions. As little as 70 years ago there were still public hangings in the U.S. Today we object to relatively "humane" forms of capital punishment for convicted criminals.

All the evidence points towards us become gradually more respectful of any "right to life". This includes unborn foetuses - in earlier times, infanticide was a necessary survival mechanism and thought little of. Today we can hardly imagine the circumstances in which a mother would want to abort a late-term foetus. But we equally recognise that there are externalities that mean such an act is not morally equivalent to murder, despite its superficial similarities.
And further, we know too well that when mothers are desperate enough, they will opt for abortions whether they are legal or not, and the illegal variety is not just terminal for the foetus, but quite often for the mother too.