| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago |
| Willing to bet money that it will, there's a ton of investment right now in what I'd call blatant eugenics. There are companies right now making bank on embryo selection based on genetics, the next step is modifying genes instead of rolling a crap shoot and hoping to get what they want. Funnily enough, such companies are funded by and led by some HN subcultures' favorite people, I would know because I was recruited by one of them who went out of their way to not mention that their marketing material to parents says they intend to let parents pick embryos based on perceived intelligence based on genetics. Tldr: there are monied parties that want this and they literally cite Gattaca as their inspiration |
|
| ▲ | toast0 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It'a already possible to test for trisomy in a fetus. There's a newish method (NIPT) that does analysis on maternal blood which has very low risk (it's named non-invasive, but drawing blood is routine but not risk free). Having a treatment, if it's feasible, might be more (or less) paletable than ending the pregnancy when diagnostics indicate likely trisomy. |
| |
|
| ▲ | renewiltord 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IQ polygenic score companies do exist. Just look at the circle around Jonathan Anomaly and you likely will find them all. I know of a couple that are going to go full open this year. You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data, but the truth is it's very risky to do embryo editing. It's hard to tell which way things will land. For all we know, gametogenesis may arrive first. And if that happens, then selection will suffice. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Does anybody believe IQ/EA PGS companies are a serious thing? | | |
| ▲ | heavyset_go a day ago | parent [-] | | They exist[1] and take themselves seriously even if the rest of the world doesn't. I met with Hsu before I realized who he was or what he was doing. A choice quote[2]: > Testing embryos, however, is hugely controversial, because of both the scientific limitations of such polygenic scores and the prospect of designer babies. Undeterred, a company called Genomic Prediction last year began to offer to test cells plucked from an IVF embryo for millions of DNA markers to produce risk scores for some common diseases and for "intellectual disability" or low IQ. Co-founder Stephen Hsu, a physicist at Michigan State University in East Lansing who has branched into genomics, says that for now, the company is not returning genetic scores predicting high IQ because "society is not ready for it." As for motivation: > In July 2012, Michigan State University named him vice president for research and graduate studies. At the time, Inside Higher Ed and Lansing State Journal described the appointment as controversial, due to Hsu's comments endorsing research into using genetic modification to increase human intelligence, and his blog posts describing human race categorization as biologically valid. And Hsu's cofounder[3]: > Laurent Tellier, the founder of startup Genomic Predictions, used the 1997 movie “Gattaca” as inspiration for a DNA screening method that scores embryos with risk estimates for diabetes, heart disease, and other illnesses – and gives a report card on their predicted height and intelligence. There's also Thiel investments in some people with questionable histories[4] when it comes to IQ PGS. If you look at who is pushing for this, a lot of them are LessWrong and IDW adjacent, and they're selling to their audiences who believe strongly in things like IQ, genetic determinism and race. They take it very seriously. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/oct/18/what-is-geno... [2] https://www.science.org/content/article/screening-embryos-iq... [3] https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/genetic-test-aims-to-predict-a... [4] https://undark.org/2023/10/27/consumer-genetic-testing-scien... | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is all the vibe I get too, but also just: the science isn't there. You can actually end up worse off trying to do PGS screening for intelligence; we may not know enough to do it without also selecting for negative traits, like autism (intelligence and autism aren't as I understand it inextricably linked, but can be confounded in polygenic scores; the notion that you can get any reliably signal at all from PGS for intelligence is itself super shaky). There are embryo selection companies that did intelligence screening that stopped doing it, because it turned out their methodologies were busted. |
|
| |
| ▲ | im3w1l 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You have to be of the right genetic origin because of the source data Can you explain what this means? After thinking it over, the most plausible reading to me is that they think the results will not generalize to other origins than the ones they have data for? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | chrisweekly 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "went out of their way to not mention" This construct is a bit of a head-scratcher that takes away from the rest of your comment; "failed to mention" would've done the trick. As for Gattaca as a source of inspiration for future parents... yikes. |
| |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent [-] | | When you're selling customers a big ticket item like that with one side of your mouth, and are failing to mention it to prospective hires, you have to go out of your way to dance around it. They emphasized certain genetic selections that sound good, but failed to mention that the leadership, investors, marketing and customers are actually really concerned with this one specific trait that sounds bad, that's selective omission. |
|
|
| ▲ | nice_byte 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| preventing down syndrome is "eugenics"? |
| |
| ▲ | shadowgovt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Technically no, but only in the technical sense that makes the idea a little useless. Technically, 99% of Down's cases aren't hereditary (it's a spontaneous mitotic change), so you don't "improve the gene pool" by excluding it; as far as we know, basically anybody can have a kid with Down's syndrome if the mitotic dice come up snake eyes. (But in the sense most people understand the term? Yes.) | |
| ▲ | throwaway342334 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, modifying genetics to select for "desirable" traits and remove "undesirable" ones is essentially modern liberal eugenics. Just because something is labeled "eugenics" doesn’t automatically make it bad or good—outcomes depend on how ideas are applied. Historically, eugenics didn’t have genetic tools, so efforts focused on social policies, like promoting abortion or family planning, to influence who could reproduce. | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Seems close enough to look like it if you squint a little. As it's more of a genetic error than an inerited trait, maybe not quite the same. | |
| ▲ | heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Genetic conditions are how they make it palatable, meanwhile they're telling race realist parents that selecting for/modifying X, Y, and Z genes will let them raise ubermensch. | |
| ▲ | vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes. |
|
|
| ▲ | Marciplan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| prediction markets are your friend |
|
| ▲ | 123yawaworht456 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| out of curiosity, what's your stance on abortion? :^) |
| |
