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.