First Human Embryos Edited in U.S. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14829663
Potemkin wrote:It is a sterile and irreversible 'perfection' which, by definition, is incapable of further change or development. This search for a static 'perfection' is actually a disguised search for death. Just like Igor, I believe in the desirablility of progress, but it should be a dialectical progress, which has no true end and which is not imposed from without but which arises from its own inner nature, its own internal conflicts and contradictions.


"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal"
- Herr Potemkin.


One Degree wrote:I would not say tolerance and openness are desirable traits. They have their place, but so does intolerance and being inflexible.

Compassion is the force driving a starving mother bear to attack humans to feed her cubs, and a moose to stomp campers for getting too close to her calves.
Intolerance can be a drive for change and progress. Greater tolerance could lead to stagnation, or even apathy.
#14830535
One Degree wrote:I would not say tolerance and openness are desirable traits. They have their place, but so does intolerance and being inflexible. These are things that each human and/or their current society need to decide. The desirability of a trait is determined by your environment. Being tolerant when confronted by those who wish to harm you, would not be very desirable.

I agree. These two traits were meant to be examples of what is currently viewed as desirable. This wasn't always the case and will almost certainly change again in the future.

Potemkin wrote:That clarifies things a bit more; thank you. I suppose the basic problem I have with it is that it separates the genetic changes in humanity from the environmental factors. After all, even the political system of a human society is part of the environment of the individuals in that society; the enforced changes made to the population by a government are merely induced adaptations to a changing social environment. They are therefore not fully under the control of that government, and the dialectical interaction between the development of humanity and its environment remains intact. In this respect, the final collapse of the Soviet system was actually the revenge of dialectics on the Soviet government, which is rather ironic, all things considered. The current ability to directly manipulate the human genome to produce a 'perfect' humanity is troubling to me precisely because it severs that connection between the development of humanity and its environment, and is therefore non-dialectical. It runs the risk of producing a dangerous mis-match between the 'perfected' humanity and its environment - after all, our conceptualisations of reality are no more than vastly simplified and impoverished simplifications and abstractions from that reality, and can serious mislead us concerning the nature of that reality. You only need to read PoFo to realise that. Basically, I am concerned that reality is wiser than we are and may take its revenge on us, just as it took its revenge on the Soviet system.

Thanks for elaborating, Potemkin.

I would argue that by taking into account and intervening in our genetic makeup, we are becoming more holistic rather than separating the genetic changes from the environmental factors. It is right now that we are separating the two by concentrating on only one side. Of course, the reality is that they cannot really be separated and that they will always interact in both individuals and society as a whole.

I used to get to sometimes read psychological assessments of people who were in some way involved with social services. These were often women who had their children taken away and were assessed to see whether the kids could be allowed to live with their mother again. The assessments usually included family histories. Their stories could be quite harrowing, with all kinds of dysfunctions handed down through the generations: substance abuse, violence, neglect, broken families, early pregnancies, any stupid and self-destructive behaviour imaginable, thriving on interpersonal conflict, you name it, and usually several of these were and had been present in their families. In my view, we need to allow for the possibility that not all of this is caused by environmental factors, but at least some of the dysfunctions are influenced by genes passed on from parents to their children.

By refusing to even look at this possibility or, god forbid, intervene at a genetic level, we are potentially condemning these people to - at the very least - having a much harder time breaking out of this vicious circle. And in a sad ironic twist, this decision is made by what are quite likely "genetically privileged" people and justified on ethical grounds. If there is anything to the heritability of cognition and behavioural traits, and if it is anywhere close to what twin studies have been suggesting for decades now, our current attitudes and policies couldn't be any more unjust. And the more meritocratic our societies become, which is after all one of the major objectives of environmental interventions, the more it will lead to social stratification, with the lower strata being strongly associated with poverty, the very group of people which decisions like the one in the OP supposedly protect.

Of course, there is an awkward and inefficient way around this self-imposed restriction to medical applications: just diagnose people with an illness or disorder. And lo and behold, that's exactly what is happening. Most of these people have at least one, usually psychiatric, diagnosis, but often there are several. I don't want to go into the question when a behaviour becomes an illness or pathological, or whether the abnormal is normal, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, it's sufficient to note that there are and maybe always will be grey areas and by artificially restricting ourselves with respect to what we can investigate and when we can intervene, we are creating a need for an ever expanding catalog of disorders, so that we can circumvent the hurdles we have needlessly put up. I would say that this, and our dysfunctional relationship with genetics in general, goes beyond the possibility of being "misled about the nature of reality". We don't really want to get any closer to reality on this and the bioethics committee in the OP goes even further in that it preemptively forbids research into certain types of interventions, just in case reality turns out to be contrary to what we wish for.

Finally, the most horrifying aspect of genetics used to be the idea that our genes were somehow immutable and changes irreversible. Genes were "destiny" and deterministic. None of this is true, of course, and it's been clear for some time now that even if the constellation of our genes has a substantial impact on us that cannot be mediated by the usual environmental interventions, we will in the future have the technologies to change them. Logically, our fear of genes and their effects should therefore subside, but this is not the case. We are actually doubling down. We are so deeply committed to our current world view on this that it will probably require a generational change for us to make any progress. Again, this is to point out that we are getting closer to the nature of reality.

B0ycey wrote:
Actually I agree with you here. Because of the technology, as a nation you are better off to invest in the research if other leading nations are doing so. However depending on how the technology is used it could be ethically immoral and potentially dangerous to a just society. Natually there are health benefits too that can't be overlooked. But like any advancing technology these days, it seems you have to take the cons with the pros. So it is up to nations to put in place laws to prevent manipulation and corruption in this technology. Otherwise we are indeed in danger of a 'Brave New World'. And being WE are all imperfect somehow we are all in danger of being second class citizens in a world of perfect intelligence and strength.

If we accept that genes play a role in intelligence and strength, then we should realise that our world is fundamentally unjust and that actually the only way to create a more just world is through technologies like the one mentioned in the OP. You, Potemkin and I have almost certainly been lucky in the genetic lottery, yet we do not have to acknowledge this. It's perfectly acceptable today to assert that any achievement is solely due to one's hard work. However, the sad fact is that, while working hard may be a necessary condition to achieving one's dreams, it is usually not sufficient. I'm no Newton or Gauss, and I will never be, no matter how hard I work.

As mentioned above, meritocratic societies are likely to exacerbate the element of luck over time. As environment and opportunities become more equal, ever more will depend on the genetic makeup that a person happens to inherit from their parents. Add to this assortative mating and you get societies that are increasingly stratified, with the genetically lucky becoming and staying rich, while the genetically unlucky remain poor. This is ultimately an imperfect and slow, drawn out version of the process and effects that we are so afraid of when it comes to genetic engineering.
#14830564
I enjoyed your post, but it gives the impression our genes may lock us into categories, and it is a disservice to contribute success to hard work. Hard work allows you to make up for genetic disadvantages and also places you a little higher in the societal structure which increases your chances of mating with someone who has more of a genetic advantage. So, we can correct our generational genetic disadvantages by hard work. So, it is not an either/or situation with genetic intervention. People are not doomed without it.

Edit: Physical Genetic intervention could be tied to the modern trend of wanting improvements for oneself rather than our progeny, which was the historical goal of individuals.
#14830584
We don't really understand most of the interactions in our genomes and the traits we are most interested in and worried about are well outside our ability to fiddle with. Practical genetic engineering will develop just a little bit at a time starting with simple genetic disorder and taking decades if not centuries to get to the point we could effect cognition which will give us ample time to really work it into our societies.

IMHO we are more likely to have cybernetic enhancements to the brain before we have genetic ones. We are already beginning to understand enough for some basic technological interface with our biology and we are at a total loss about getting from our genome to a developed mind.
#14830662
Creating a few embryos and discarding the "defect ones" is already legal in most countries.

I was surprised to hear that gender selection is legal in the US by the way. Not a problem as long as there's no gender bias of course...

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:If we accept that genes play a role in intelligence and strength


There is the danger of engineering for measurable positive traits (like IQ) at the expense of other, non-measurable positive traits.
#14830666
We don't know the genes involved, much less the myriad non coding regions that are probably just as if not much more important, in intelligence.

We do not have the ability to select for them and are unlikely to even begin to for decades.
#14830677
I would hope there is some method to retain the original gene structures of humanity before we took this route. It could be essential to curing some future disease we created.
While intelligence seems a primary focus of discussion I think technology and A.I. will be a larger threat in competition. A.I. will not be held back by ethical concerns. Further our intellectual enhancements will likely be more related to brain to machine interfacing and gene enhancements will then be more important in improving that interface than in improving stand alone intelligence.
#14830679
mikema63 wrote:We don't know the genes involved, much less the myriad non coding regions that are probably just as if not much more important, in intelligence.

We do not have the ability to select for them and are unlikely to even begin to for decades.


We know of 52 genes that explain 5% of the variance in IQ.
#14830700
5% of IQ for everyone not severely mentally retarded or a super genius is less than a standard deviation which is the standard for a relevant difference in IQ. Someone with an IQ of 100 is not noticably dumber than someone with an IQ of 105.

Edit: frankly I think there are serious limitations to using IQ in genetics research. It's a psychological tool made for predicting academic performance that people want to use while jumping past any structural consideration straight to the genetic level.
#14830736
One Degree wrote:I enjoyed your post, but it gives the impression our genes may lock us into categories, and it is a disservice to contribute success to hard work. Hard work allows you to make up for genetic disadvantages and also places you a little higher in the societal structure which increases your chances of mating with someone who has more of a genetic advantage. So, we can correct our generational genetic disadvantages by hard work. So, it is not an either/or situation with genetic intervention. People are not doomed without it.

Edit: Physical Genetic intervention could be tied to the modern trend of wanting improvements for oneself rather than our progeny, which was the historical goal of individuals.

Thanks, One Degree. I tried to not give that impression, but in case I wasn't clear enough I agree with you that we are not wholly defined by our genes. Hard work will be necessary for most people to get anywhere and I'm sure it can to some degree balance out disadvantages. It's also on the face of it empowering to tell people that they can achieve anything they want if they only work hard. However, this also has a downside, since failures can easily be attributed to a person just not working hard enough and hence deserving a lesser social status or wealth (the meritocratic aspect of our current world view) and/or society holding a person back through systematic oppression or some such (the social justice aspect).

I'm arguing that there is quite likely a third element that currently gets ignored completely and that it can, at least in some people, mean that they are doomed to repeat their parents' dysfunction or lack of success. If true, we are doing these people a disservice by either blaming them for not working hard enough or by letting them blame society and some ill-defined oppression.

It's not only about cognition and related traits either. Since I think you and I have been talking about obesity before, twin studies also indicate that weight management is heritable. While it's always good to remember that these studies deal with averages, and that there can be a lot of variation within a group, we should acknowledge that people may not have control over their behaviour to the extent that we would like to assume. Obesity is by the way one of those "behaviours" that have been moved from being purely lifestyle choices into the illness category. Luckily for obese people, we can therefore now talk relatively freely about genes as a contributing factor.

mikema63 wrote:We don't really understand most of the interactions in our genomes and the traits we are most interested in and worried about are well outside our ability to fiddle with. Practical genetic engineering will develop just a little bit at a time starting with simple genetic disorder and taking decades if not centuries to get to the point we could effect cognition which will give us ample time to really work it into our societies.

Sure, it will take some time, just like it took decades for renewable energy and genetic sequencing to become viable and affordable technologies, but it's impossible to say how fast this will happen. The speed with which the price of genetic sequencing has come down has surprised many people. Further, if there is a sense of urgency and a focus on the possibilities a technology offers rather than fear and apprehension, it is more likely to become available sooner. And preemptively restricting applications of a technology, based on a misguided and ill thought out sense of social justice, certainly doesn't help.

mikema63 wrote:Edit: frankly I think there are serious limitations to using IQ in genetics research. It's a psychological tool made for predicting academic performance that people want to use while jumping past any structural consideration straight to the genetic level.

This is true for anything that we can only observe today. I don't think you can get to "structural considerations" - if by that you mean how genes and the environment interact to produce an outcome - without knowing at least some or ideally all the genes involved. The real work can only begin once (or if) a sufficient number of genes have been identified.

Do you think we shouldn't be "jumping straight to the genetic level" in, for example, schizophrenia research?

Rugoz wrote:There is the danger of engineering for measurable positive traits (like IQ) at the expense of other, non-measurable positive traits.

True, but this holds to some extent for any intervention or treatment, all of which may have unintended negative or adverse consequences or side effects. On the upside, with technologies like gene editing we can do controlled experiments and directly observe outcomes.
#14830738
if by that you mean how genes and the environment interact to produce an outcome


Actually I mean the quite literal structural level of the brain, it's cells, and how they interact to produce various functions. We need to understand how things like intelligence works on a structural level, how genes effect the structural level, how inputs (experience) changes structure, and how regulatory factors effect gene expression and how they interact with environmental factors.

Do you think we shouldn't be "jumping straight to the genetic level" in, for example, schizophrenia research?


Absolutely, the cause of these sorts of diseases is going to be structural not some simple genetic disorder that we simply haven't stumbled across yet.
#14830742
mikema63 wrote:Actually I mean the quite literal structural level of the brain, it's cells, and how they interact to produce various functions. We need to understand how things like intelligence works on a structural level, how genes effect the structural level, how inputs (experience) changes structure, and how regulatory factors effect gene expression and how they interact with environmental factors.

But genes are also responsible for how our brains are structured. Everything starts with the genes we inherit from our parents. Unless you deny genetic involvement, you cannot investigate anything without taking into account a possible genetic contribution.

mikema63 wrote:Absolutely, the cause of these sorts of diseases is going to be structural not some simple genetic disorder that we simply haven't stumbled across yet.

That seems a rather premature conclusion. Many technologies to investigate our bodies, on a genetic or any other level, have only recently become available. Even if we restrict this to genetics only, there is quite likely still more that we do not know than we know. The assumption that we would have "stumbled across" it by now is one of these insidious fallacies that led us to jump to the conclusion that "refrigerator mothers" are responsible for their children's autism.

And again, how would you even separate the genes from the structure?
#14830744
I agree with Intelligence being a lot more complex than simply genetics, but it is possible genetic alterations could give us a lot of clues we would be unable to get otherwise. It is simply a matter of our level of understanding still requires guinea pigs. It is not easy to think about, but it may be the right thing in the long run. I mean is it possible to understand without some idea of what genetics contributes?

Edit: I should have known @Kaiserschmarrn would beat me to it. :lol:
#14830746
But genes are also responsible for how our brains are structured. Everything starts with the genes we inherit from our parents. Unless you deny genetic involvement, you cannot investigate anything without taking into account a possible genetic contribution.


Most of the structure of our brain at the interneuron level are based on synaptic and retro synaptic inputs. The hardware is genetic but everything we consider important is programed not by genes but by other regulatory mechanisms. We are not hard wired.

That seems a rather premature conclusion.


All evidence points to complex mental illnesses to be structural problems not simple genetic disorders.

Many technologies to investigate our bodies, on a genetic or any other level, have only recently become available. Even if we restrict this to genetics only, there is quite likely still more that we do not know than we know. The assumption that we would have "stumbled across" it by now is one of these insidious fallacies that led us to jump to the conclusion that "refrigerator mothers" are responsible for their children's autism.


This is just a straw man of my claim.

And again, how would you even separate the genes from the structure?


You are trying to separate mental illness from the brains structure. Then trying to understand mental illness from one of dozens of factors that regulate brain structure as if that is even possible or makes sense. You could understand every single gene and you would not then understand the brain.

I agree with Intelligence being a lot more complex than simply genetics, but it is possible genetic alterations could give us a lot of clues we would be unable to get otherwise. It is simply a matter of our level of understanding still requires guinea pigs. It is not easy to think about, but it may be the right thing in the long run. I mean is it possible to understand without some idea of what genetics contributes?


Let me use this analogy. Trying to understand the brain by looking primarily at genes and not brain structure is like trying to understand American politics by looking at census data rather than the political documents and history it developed out of. Demographics are super important to how the US government works but you will never be able to understand the country by looking at that data.
#14830754
mikema63 wrote:Most of the structure of our brain at the interneuron level are based on synaptic and retro synaptic inputs. The hardware is genetic but everything we consider important is programed not by genes but by other regulatory mechanisms. We are not hard wired.

Seriously, Mike, genes are also involved in regulatory mechanisms. Further, they aren't static and shouldn't be considered to be only part of the "hardware".

The structure of the brain and any other organ in the body is the result of genes, environmental factors and possibly random events, and their interaction. You can argue that we should think about it differently, but I don't see how this would improve our understanding.

mikema63 wrote:All evidence points to complex mental illnesses to be structural problems not simple genetic disorders.

They aren't "simple" genetic disorders and I never claimed they were. Your claim that they are structural problems is meaningless if you ignore the genetic aspects that bring about and contribute to changes in that structure.

mikema63 wrote:You are trying to separate mental illness from the brains structure. Then trying to understand mental illness from one of dozens of factors that regulate brain structure as if that is even possible or makes sense. You could understand every single gene and you would not then understand the brain.

You misunderstand me. My claim is that without an understanding of genes our knowledge will always be incomplete and moreover we potentially confine ourselves to downstream effects. We know that genes alone can be the source of a great many profoundly disabling conditions and behaviours. In more complex diseases genes are considered to act as a predisposing factor or a risk, without which environmental factors will not cause the disease.

In short, without an understanding of the genes involved, we will neither understand the disease nor the brain structure itself.
#14830888
mikema63 wrote:5% of IQ for everyone not severely mentally retarded or a super genius is less than a standard deviation which is the standard for a relevant difference in IQ. Someone with an IQ of 100 is not noticably dumber than someone with an IQ of 105.


Eh...5% is the R squared of their model. Definitely small though.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:On the upside, with technologies like gene editing we can do controlled experiments and directly observe outcomes.


You're kidding, right? You have to wait 20-80 years for the outcome.
#14830925
Seriously, Mike, genes are also involved in regulatory mechanisms. Further, they aren't static and shouldn't be considered to be only part of the "hardware".

The structure of the brain and any other organ in the body is the result of genes, environmental factors and possibly random events, and their interaction. You can argue that we should think about it differently, but I don't see how this would improve our understanding.


Understanding brain structure wouldn't improve our understanding of the brain. :eh:

You keep pointing at genes and saying important as if that undermines my point that it takes a hell of a lot more than genes to create the complexity of the human brain or human mental disorders.

They aren't "simple" genetic disorders and I never claimed they were. Your claim that they are structural problems is meaningless if you ignore the genetic aspects that bring about and contribute to changes in that structure.


Looking at genes will tell you nothing about the ultimate structure of the brain. When I say simple genetic disorder I mean a disorder that is entirely genetic. schizophrenia cannot be understood simply through genetic analysis.

You misunderstand me. My claim is that without an understanding of genes our knowledge will always be incomplete and moreover we potentially confine ourselves to downstream effects.


Without understanding quarks we would never understand organic chemistry. Without understanding the higgs boson we would never be able to figure out the laws of motion. Without understanding the evolution of sexual reporoducetion we will never understand how babies are made.

Science is perfectly capable of understanding one level of complexity without understanding a deeper part of that complexity yet. Indeed most scientific knowledge tends to develop from higher order complexity down to understanding more minute complexity. When we study a gene we learn about a single protein that that gene produces. We cannot from that understand the myriad complex interactions it has with the cells and inputs from outside the brain (which are of vast importance to brain structure). We have to understand the higher level structural order of the brain to really understand what genes are doing within that structure not the other way around.

In short, without an understanding of the genes involved, we will neither understand the disease nor the brain structure itself.


You have it backwards, we will never really understand what the genes are doing without working out the structure.

Eh...5% is the R squared of their model. Definitely small though.


Math exists just to embarrass me.
#14831348
Rugoz wrote:You're kidding, right? You have to wait 20-80 years for the outcome.

I don't see why you would assume that. Effects could be observable pretty quickly, depending on the type of intervention and at which stage of development it is applied, although long term monitoring and follow up would definitely make sense too.

mikema63 wrote:Science is perfectly capable of understanding one level of complexity without understanding a deeper part of that complexity yet. Indeed most scientific knowledge tends to develop from higher order complexity down to understanding more minute complexity.

This is usually the case because we are lacking the requisite technology and tools. It is not a choice. As soon as we have them, we actually do go deeper to try to get a more complete understanding. Voluntarily limiting ourselves to a high level view must be the weirdest and most counterproductive suggestion I have come across yet. Lets not jump to the sources of illnesses because ... well, it's not really clear why. Perhaps it's because you'd like to assume an illness is "structural", whatever that actually means, never mind that structure and function throughout our lives are determined by genetics and environmental factors and any "structural" problems are therefore a consequence of those factors. Your suggestion is akin to ignoring the bacteria that cause syphilis in favour of investigating the structure of every organ that is involved in the disease. I'm sure we could devise treatments that limit the devastating effects of syphilis, but this makes sense only if we don't have the tools to identify the underlying problem. It should be obvious that identifying and fighting the source is preferable. And what we are talking about in this thread has even more potential. For a large number of diseases, we may in the future have the possibility to substantially reduce or outright eliminate the risk of people becoming ill in the first place.

Additionally, high level views can be misleading and this is particularly important with illnesses which are diagnosed solely based on symptoms. With schizophrenia we may not be dealing with a single illness but several, or alternatively it may be part of a larger illness complex with the same underlying cause. Our categorisations and diagnoses are approximations at best. For instance, at least some cases of schizophrenia are apparently caused by autoimmunity. So while it may seem obvious to you to focus on the brain, it may neither be the most important organ nor hold the key to a solution for all patients. And autoimmunity itself is a higher level view. We don't know why some people develop autoimmune diseases and why they tend to be more common in females, but there is certainly evidence that genes play a role. The idea that we are somehow jumping the gun by focussing on genetics and its interactions with the environment, now that we have available the technology at a reasonable cost, is ludicrous.

mikema63 wrote:When we study a gene we learn about a single protein that that gene produces. We cannot from that understand the myriad complex interactions it has with the cells and inputs from outside the brain (which are of vast importance to brain structure). We have to understand the higher level structural order of the brain to really understand what genes are doing within that structure not the other way around.

For decades we have studied our bodies using every available tool and now our toolbox has been expanded to include, among other things, genetic sequencing and editing. Nobody is suggesting that these new tools should be the only ones we use or that no insight can be gained using other methods, but I maintain that you cannot get a comprehensive understanding without looking at genes. They are the primary information-carrying units in our bodies and are involved in absolutely everything. They determine what a human brain looks like and in interaction with the environment are responsible for how it works in an individual. You seem to have no problem with investigating one half of that equation, the environmental inputs which as you say are of vast importance, but you introduce an artificial separation and order when it comes to the other half, the genes, which must apparently remain off limits for now. It makes no sense to deliberately exclude such a vital part, unless you are uncomfortable with genetics and its implications.
#14831356
Potemkin wrote:Precisely. Can you imagine what the result might have been if, say, the Neanderthals or even Homo erectus had been able to impose their vision of what a "better person" should be on the human genome? The fact that current humans, who are clearly a deeply flawed and imperfect species, should have the power to decide these things is... troubling.
Or for that matter if other species of hominid had been able to screen out Neanderthal genes . The point I want to make is that the traits associated with certain genes is not so straightforward . Particular genetic sequences contain within it the potential for both assets and defects . Take for example the before mentioned Neanderthal genes . They have been linked to not only a stronger immune system < http://www.dailytech.com/Neanderthal+Sex+Gave+Europeans+and+Asians+Stronger+Immune+Systems/article22555.htm , http://www.historyworthknowing.com/?p=128 > , but also such things as depression , among other disorders < http://www.medicaldaily.com/neanderthal-dna-depression-anatomically-modern-humans-373318 , http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25944817 , and perhaps more controversially some even attribute Neanderthal traits with such neurodiversity as autism and hyperactivity < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garret-loporto/surprising-way-your-neand_b_568455.html , http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm . But the genes associated with the prevalence of autism is also associated with giftedness < http://www.medicaldaily.com/autism-genes-linked-higher-intelligence-treading-fine-line-between-intellectual-325798 , http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/10/what-child-prodigies-and-autistic-people-have-in-common/ > . So in the field of eugenics there are trade offs , and complexity .
Igor Antunov wrote:What is a better horse?

Better person in the context of a cohesive, productive technological society is one that is genetically geared for a certain profession while being easy to control.
Congratulations , you have just created the the scenario that lead to the setting of the Divergent trilogy , by Veronica Roth , as alluded to in the final novel in the series https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiant_(novel)#Plot . So I hope that you will be satisfied with having to complete a personality aptitude test , which will assign you the optimal faction to join http://divergent.wikia.com/wiki/Factions . By the way , after taking both of these two quizzes < https://www.quotev.com/quiz/1498363/What-Faction-Do-You-Belong-To , http://divergentthemovie.com/aptitudetest , I have found that my ideal faction is Candor . However , since our population has not been subject to genetic engineering , some people might get a result that's "divergent ".
#14831359
Deutschmania wrote:So in the field of eugenics there are trade offs , and complexity.

That's certainly a possibility and it is the primary reason why we need to be careful and proceed in a controlled fashion, especially when investigating interventions.

However, we don't know enough yet to make confident assertions one way or the other. Gene association studies just establish associations. For instance, they don't tell us whether the genes involved interact and if so how these interactions confer a predisposition or risk on the one hand and something positive on the other hand. It is therefore not necessarily the case that reducing or eliminating the risk factor will automatically also reduce or eliminate the positive aspects.

One unintended side effect of the focus on virtue […]

Is Trump Unpatriotic?

Trump is opposed to stupid wars, but all for sm[…]

Trump Takes on NFL

It's probably one of the most stupid ideas for pla[…]

CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR Cry hav[…]