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?