Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
An actual human brain displayed inside a glass box, as part of an interactive exhibition. (Photo credit: MAURICIO LIMA/AFP/Getty Images)
First, let me tell you how smart I am. So smart. My fifth-grade teacher said I was gifted in mathematics and, looking back, I have to admit that she was right. I’ve properly grasped the character of metaphysics as trope nominalism, and I can tell you that time exists, but that it can’t be integrated into a fundamental equation. I’m also street-smart. Most of the things that other people say are only partially true. And I can tell.
<p>A <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3869" target="_blank">paper</a> published in <em>Nature Genetics</em> in 2017 reported that, after analysing tens of thousands of genomes, scientists had tied 52 genes to human intelligence, though no single variant contributed more than a tiny fraction of a single percentage point to intelligence. As the senior author of the study Danielle Posthuma, a statistical geneticist at the Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam and VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, told <em>The New York Times</em>, ‘there’s a long way to go’ before scientists can actually predict intelligence using genetics. Even so, it is easy to imagine social impacts that are unsettling: students stapling their genome sequencing results to their college applications; potential employers mining genetic data for candidates; in-vitro fertilisation clinics promising IQ boosts using powerful new tools such as the genome-editing system CRISPR-Cas9.</p> <p>Some people are already signing on for this new world. Philosophers such as John Harris of the University of Manchester and Julian Savulescu of the University of Oxford have argued that we will have a duty to manipulate the genetic code of our future children, a concept Savulescu <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8519.00251/abstract" target="_blank">termed</a> ‘procreative beneficence’. The field has <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20394109" target="_blank">extended</a> the term ‘parental neglect’ to ‘genetic neglect’, suggesting that if we don’t use genetic engineering or cognitive enhancement to improve our children when we can, it’s a form of abuse. Others, like David Correia, who teaches American Studies at the University of New Mexico, envisions dystopian outcomes, where the wealthy use genetic engineering to translate power from the social sphere into the enduring code of the genome itself.</p> <p>Such concerns are longstanding; the public has been on guard about altering the genetics of intelligence at least since scientists invented recombinant DNA. As long ago as the 1970s, David Baltimore, who won a Nobel Prize, questioned whether his pioneering work might show that ‘the differences between people are genetic differences, not environmental differences’.</p> <p>I say, dream on. As it turns out, genes contribute to intelligence, but only broadly, and with subtle effect. Genes interact in complex relationships to create neural systems that might be impossible to reverse-engineer. In fact, computational scientists who want to understand how genes interact to create optimal networks have come up against the kind of hard limits suggested by the so-called travelling salesperson problem. In the words of the theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman in <em>The Origins of Order</em> (1993): ‘The task is to begin at one of <em>N</em> cities, travel in turn to each city, and return to the initial city by the shortest total route. This problem, so remarkably simple to state, is extremely difficult.’ Evolution locks in, early on, some models of what works, and hammers out refining solutions over millennia, but the best computer junkies can do to draw up an optimal biological network, given some input, is to use heuristics, which are shorthand solutions. The complexity rises to a new level, especially since proteins and cells interact at higher dimensions. Importantly, genetics research is not about to diagnose, treat or eradicate mental disorders, or be used to explain the complex interactions that give rise to intelligence. We won’t engineer superhumans any time soon.</p> <p>In fact, all of this complexity can work against the ability of a species to evolve. In <em>The Origins of Order</em>, Kauffman introduced the concept of ‘complexity catastrophe’, a situation in complex organisms where evolution has already been optimised, with genes interlinked in so many ways that the role of natural selection becomes diminished in stepping up fitness for a given individual. In short, a species has tinkered its way to a shape that it cannot easily evolve, or improve upon.</p> <p>If complexity is a trap, so too is the idea that some genes are elite. In the 1960s, Richard Lewontin and John Hubby made use of a new technology called gel electrophoresis to separate unique variants of proteins. They showed that different versions of gene products, or alleles, were distributed with much higher variation than anyone had expected. In 1966, Lewontin and Hubby came up with a principle called ‘<a href="http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/slatkin/popgenjclub/pdf/lewontin-hubby1966.pdf" target="_blank">balancing selection</a>’ to explain that suboptimal varieties of genes can remain in a population since they contribute to diversity. The human genome works in parallel. We have at least two copies of any gene on all autosomal chromosomes, and having varying copies of a gene can help, especially in immune-system diversity, or any cellular function in which evolution wants to try out some riskier thing while also maintaining a version of a gene that is tried-and-true. Other times, genetic variants that might introduce some risk or novelty can piggyback or hitchhike along with a beneficial genetic variant. If there is an implication for human intelligence, it is that genes have a parasitic quality of scheming off one another; none is superior so much as its utility is developed by exploiting its fellow genes.</p> <p>Importantly, we have known for a long time that 30,000 genes cannot determine the organisation of the brain’s 100 trillion synaptic connections, pointing to the irrefutable reality that intelligence is, to an extent, forged through adversity and the stress of developing a brain. We know that evolution bargains in trade-offs of risk for advantage, which is why, I believe, we will always carry genetic variations that risk autism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression and schizophrenia; and it is why I believe that the neoliberal view that science will eventually solve most mental-health problems is almost certainly incorrect. In evolution, there are no superior genes, only those that bargain some risk, and a few that are optimal for particular environments and tasks.</p> <div class="video-callout-placeholder" data-slug="dean-buonomano-how-your-brain-became-an-illusion-factory-time-color-causality" style="border: 1px solid #ccc;">
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="iKgJ4ae4" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="569ff2c351a961db494957b8bfcb9516">
<div id="botr_iKgJ4ae4_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/iKgJ4ae4-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/iKgJ4ae4-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview">
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/iKgJ4ae4-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
</div> <p>I wish I could believe that writing is in my genes, but the novel is only hundreds of years old, not long enough for evolution to be selecting novelists, <em>per se</em>. The truth is that writing takes hard work, and writers can exhibit psychological traits that are otherwise a disadvantage – such as neuroticism, or relentless self-examination. We all understand and share these traits to an extent. Evolution has taught us the brutal fact that nature is most competitive when the comparative fitness between competitors is the slimmest. In light of that, the wealth inequality that has emerged in recent decades is not a validation of yawning biological gaps – it is driven by our need to justify an illusion of superiority and control.</p> <p>Trust me. I should know.<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MTU0Ni9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTQ0NzcyN30.xuKC-ReNVf9KC8vSHwJHgsA_YE8zovPufzYFP0A9uHk/img.gif?width=980" id="ea230" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="117fcebce7d7f8afa74b12d61cbf65ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p>Jim Kozubek</p> <p>--</p> <p>This article was originally published at <a href="https://aeon.co" target="_blank">Aeon</a> and has been republished under Creative Commons.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Scientists Use CRISPR Gene Editing to Create the World's First Mutant Social Insect
Researchers succeed in deleting key genes from ants, significantly modifying their behavior.
13 August, 2017
credit: Rockefeller University.
A staple of bad science fiction, mutant ants have been more of a figment of imagination rather than scientific reality. We’ve genetically altered mice and fruit flies, but growing mutant ants has eluded scientists due to the complex life cycle of the little critters. Now two teams announced that they managed to edit out certain genes from lab ants, altering their behavior.
<p>The team from Rockefeller University <a href="http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30772-9" target="_blank">published a paper</a> outlining how they removed <strong><em>orco</em></strong> - a gene that plays a key part in an ant’s odor receptors. Deleting the gene by using the<span> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/13/a-new-crispr-breakthrough-could-lead-to-simpler-cheaper-disease-diagnosis/?utm_term=.f23ac5a038b9" target="_blank"><span>CRISPR-Cas9</span></a> </span> technique resulted in the ants losing about 90% of their “olfaction”. This made them unable to socialize. The ants also changed in other ways, showing affected behavior. They laid very few eggs, wandered aimlessly, and showed poor parenting.</p> <p>The other team, including scientists from NYU, Vanderbilt University, University of Pennsylvania, and Arizona State University, also used CRISPR to delete the orco protein in ants to affect their communication through pheromones, causing an <span>"aberrant social behavior and defective neural development."</span></p> <p><a href="http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30770-5" target="_blank">You can read their paper here.</a></p> <p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MDIxOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNDc4MzU3NX0.uR66VrrBVy12sHNpopqjQGFCCoHNlSWgB6VmYacL0PI/img.jpg?width=980" id="f8e12" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f4b98ab44192965efcf7b35f6659739e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p><em>Researchers modified the ability of the ants to detect pheromones though porous hairs on their antennae. Credit: Rockefeller University.</em></p> <p>This kind of interference with the social behavior of ants is considered a success because of the difficulty in altering the nature of insects with such a sophisticated social structure. NYU Professor Claude Desplan, who was involved in one of the studies <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/08/10/scientists-create-the-first-mutant-ants/?utm_term=.b6597603a129">called</a> the modified ant they created “the first mutant in any social insect.”</p> <blockquote>
<p>“While ant behavior does not directly extend to humans, we believe that this work promises to advance our understanding of social communication, with the potential to shape the design of future research into disorders like schizophrenia, depression or autism that interfere with it,” <span><a href="https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/august/mutant-ants-provide-insights-into-social-interaction.html" target="_blank">said Desplan.</a></span></p>
</blockquote> <p><span>Why edit ant genes at all? Daniel Kronauer, author of the Rockefeller University study, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/08/10/scientists-create-the-first-mutant-ants/?utm_term=.b6597603a129" target="_blank">says</a> there are “interesting biologic questions” you can only study in ants.</span> </p> <blockquote>
<p>“It was well known that ant language is produced through pheromones, but now we understand a lot more about how pheromones are perceived,” <a href="https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/20264-first-mutant-ants-shed-light-evolution-social-behavior/" target="_blank"><span>says </span><span>Kronauer.</span></a><span> </span>“The way ants interact is fundamentally different from how solitary organisms interact, and with these findings we know a bit more about the genetic evolution that enabled ants to create structured societies.”</p>
</blockquote> <p>Check out this animation of how Kronauer and his colleagues tracked color-coded ants, while using an algorithm to analyze the resulting behavior.</p> <p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODM0MDIxOS9vcmlnaW4uZ2lmIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMzI0OTc2NX0.TSkYmDOaxsAacQCA0bmKesYE0iIsf9tG3Ak_Sm69Suo/img.gif?width=980" id="bb749" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e2a0964f5e67856ad75948a92fa66d2d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why CRISPR Gene Editing Gives Its Creator Nightmares
Has CRISPR co-creator Jennifer Doudna invented the Pandora's Box of genetic engineering, or can CRISPR be used for the forces of good?
16 June, 2017
Jennifer Doudna was a pioneer of CRISPR, which is a gene-editing technology that is being increasingly studied and used across the world. Jennifer relates the genesis of CRISPR to us and explains the pros and cons of giving birth to such a potentially world changing process. On the positive side, she tells us how scientists are already combining her technology with stem cell research to potentially rid the world of sickle cell anemia. On the negative side, she describes a vivid nightmare she had early on in the process wherein she meets Hitler with a pig nose—a David Lynch-ian vision that represents the negative possibilities of what could happen if CRISPR falls into the wrong hands. While the Pig Hitler scenario is a lot less likely to actually happen, Jennifer understands the duality of her role in CRISPR's creation.
Jennifer Doudna's most recent book is <a href="http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780544716940"><i>A Crack in Creation
Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution</i></a>.
Keep reading
Show less
5 Topics That Are "Forbidden" to Science
A "forbidden research" conference at MIT tackles areas of science constrained by ethical, cultural and institutional restrictions.
26 February, 2017
<p class="p1">The recent changes in Washington do not seem to bode well for fact-driven, scientific points of view on many issues. But there are already a number of sensitive areas of science where important research is stalling due to outside pressures or serious questions asked by the scientists themselves.</p> <p class="p1">A <a href="http://www.media.mit.edu/events/forbidden/overview" target="_blank">yearly conference</a> organized by the MIT Media Lab tackles “<strong>forbidden research</strong>”, the science that is constrained by ethical, cultural and institutional restrictions. The purpose of the conference is to give scientists a forum to consider these ideas and questions and to discuss the viability and necessity of studying topics like the rights of AI and machines, genetic engineering, climate change and others.</p> <p class="p3"><span class="s1">Edward Snowden, who appeared remotely at the 2016 conference, summarized its “theme” as “</span><span class="s2"><strong>law is no substitute for conscience</strong>.“ Pointing to his work against pervasive digital surveillance, he reiterated that “the legality of a thing is quite distinct from the morality of it.”</span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">The major “forbidden” topics discussed at the conference were, unsurprisingly, wrought with political implications -</span> </p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3"><strong>1. Messing with Nature</strong></span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">How much should we mess with nature? We now have an opportunity to potentially greatly advance our abilities and eradicate diseases with genetic engineering. But how much interference with the way nature designed us is ok? Who should decide how much is ok? </span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">It is possible to use “gene” drives” to <a href="https://bigthink.rebelmouse.com/paul-ratner/new-gene-editing-breakthroughs-allow-us-to-eliminate-whole-species-should-we-do-it" target="_blank">gene-edit an entire species</a>, like, for instance, to get rid of mosquitoes. Not many would miss the pesky insects, but spreading the modified genetic traits throughout their population could have unintended consequences, not to mention the effect on the food chain. </span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">Still, these concerns do not necessarily outweigh the possibility that gene-editing them could be extremely beneficial to us. The questions of how gene-editing can be safely incorporated into our lives will continue to persist as technology keeps improving.</span> </p> <blockquote>
<p class="p6"><span class="s3"> “Some things are forbidden and arguably shouldn’t be, but other things perhaps we need some more barriers,” <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601997/seven-questions-about-technology-you-arent-even-allowed-to-ask/" target="_blank"><span class="s4">says</span></a> Kevin Esvelt, a synthetic biologist with the Media Lab.</span></p>
</blockquote> <p class="p5"><span class="s3"><strong>2. Engineering the Climate</strong></span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">One way to help address climate change is via solar engineering. This involves releasing <strong>sulfur dioxide</strong> into the atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight away from Earth. Doing this could tamp down rising temperatures, possibly bringing them back to pre-industrial levels. </span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">This approach is certainly open to significant challenges. Atmospheric testing is necessary to see whether doing this could damage the ozone layer while adding more pollutants to the atmosphere. Yet, it’s something that to could work and address global warming. Without a serious discussion, which starts by agreeing that global warming is a real issue, we are just doing nothing while the problem potentially grows worse and worse.</span></p> <blockquote>
<p class="p8"><span class="s3">“We have collectively decided we prefer ignorance. We need a serious, open, no-nonsense international research program, and we don’t have one. That is political cowardice,” <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601997/seven-questions-about-technology-you-arent-even-allowed-to-ask/" target="_blank"><span class="s5">said Harvard professor David Keith</span></a>.</span></p>
</blockquote> <p class="p5"><span class="s3"><strong>3. Robot Ethics</strong></span></p> <p class="p5"><span class="s3">As robotic technology continues to advance by leaps and bounds, the questions of where the lines between the robots and humans will be drawn abound. For example, there is potential to protect children from sexual deviance by creating sex robots for pedophiles. This kind of research is nearly impossible, however, due to the ethical and legal restrictions in the field.</span></p> <blockquote>
<p class="p8"><span class="s3">“I want to know [if] we can use robots therapeutically to help,” <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601997/seven-questions-about-technology-you-arent-even-allowed-to-ask/" target="_blank"><span class="s5">said</span></a> robot ethicist Kate Darling from MIT’a Media Lab. “We have no idea if we can, and we can’t research it because of the huge social stigma.”</span></p>
</blockquote> <p class="p10"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODQwOTU1OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyODg2MDk4MH0.cBFxTqJip9O6mXhC-_iTHJwxQilD9tbgIEi4-oCqyc0/img.png?width=980" id="08ee9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e36a7ed6a548ab20a9cb8dc2a1ed6a75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"></p> <p class="p10"><em>MIT Media Lab's "Forbidden Research" conference 2016. Credit: MIT Media Lab, Youtube.</em></p> <p class="p10"><strong>4. Secure Communication Technology </strong></p> <p class="p10">It’s a real challenge to create communication tech that is not being spied on by somebody, from corporations to the government. This was stressed by Edward Snowden and hacker and engineer <a href="https://www.bunniestudios.com/" target="_blank">Andrew Huang</a>, who appeared at the conference.</p> <p class="p11"><span class="s3">Snowden elaborated on the distinction between the moral and legal in these examples:</span> </p> <blockquote>
<p class="p11"><span class="s3">“Our investigation regards countering what we’re calling lawful abuses of digital surveillance. Lawful abuse, right, what is that, doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Seems like it might be a contradiction in terms. (…) But if you think about it for just a moment it might seem to be a little bit more clear. After all, <strong>the legality of a thing is quite distinct from the morality of it</strong>. Segregation, slavery, genocides, these have all been perpetuated under frameworks that said they were lawful, as long as you abided by the regulations that were sort of managing those activities,” <span class="s6"><a href="https://vimeo.com/175937278" target="_blank">said Snowden.</a></span></span></p>
</blockquote> <p class="p10"><strong>5. Universal Access to Science</strong></p> <p class="p9">Should all publicly-funded research be available to everyone on Earth? <a href="http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-pirate-bay-for-science" target="_blank">This was the inspiration</a> for <a href="http://sci-hub.cc/" target="_blank">SciHub</a>, a Russian science that featured 55 million scientific papers for free. Many of them were pirated and pulled from behind paywalls.</p> <p class="p9">Kazakh student <strong>Alexandra Elbakyan</strong>, who created the site, said at the conference that she can’t travel to the U.S. or Europe because she might be arrested. On the other hand, because the site has been resilient and not taken down, she thinks “<span class="s7">the only thing now is to make it legal”.</span></p> <blockquote></blockquote><p dir="ltr" lang="en">The nature of science is to discover secrets, not keep them—Alexandra Elbakyan, <a href="https://twitter.com/ringo_ring">@ringo_ring</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/forbiddenML?src=hash">#forbiddenML</a></p> <p>— MIT Media Lab (@medialab) <a href="https://twitter.com/medialab/status/756203542839382016">July 21, 2016</a></p> <p><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"> </p><p class="p13">The question of whether there is a moral imperative to spread scientific knowledge is tempered by political and business realities. But if science finds the verifiable truth, is there not an inherent obligation for it to be available for all? </p> <p class="p15">You can see the full 2016 “Forbidden Research” conference <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxiT5Q6WZaU" target="_blank">here</a>.</p> <p class="p16">Edward Snowden’s appearance is here:</p> <p><iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/175937278" width="100%" height="480" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="33bd581eeb5cfa7b7a8dbc448c643f38"></iframe> </p> <p><em>Cover photo: A U.S. Air Force serviceman hangs a warning sign on the perimeter fence March 19, 2003 at R.A.F. Fairford, England. (Photo by Julian Herbert/Getty Images)</em></p></script></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Hey Bill Nye! Could Scientists Today Create Frankenstein’s Monster?
Has technology advanced enough that we could stitch together body parts and reanimate the dead? Bill Nye one-ups that old-school Frankenstein vision with newer (and cooler) scientific possibilities.
18 January, 2017
This week on Tuesday’s With Bill, Lauren from Tennessee wants to know whether it would be possible to assemble different body parts and reanimate them in the style of Frankenstein’s monster. Stitching together parts and inserting consciousness is likely not possible, says Nye – the closest future theory to it is the singularity, when AI gets as intricate and sophisticated as the human brain, and we’re able to upload our consciousness into it and live for as long as we keep the batteries charged. Nye has his doubts about that, however. What he is optimistic – and realistic – about is developing technology that in the next 50 years or so will allow us to regenerate our own body parts from stem cells. In our lifetime perhaps we could grow a new pancreas or a liver segment for our own transplant. Connected moving tissue like hands and fingers are much further into the future. CRISPR is another incredible technology that’s only in its infancy. It’s a genetic engineering cut-and-paste methods that allows genes to be manipulated to basic desires. Once that technology is developed, we may be able to create genetic supermen and women in the womb, and it likely has applications beyond what we can currently imagine. The potential for what humans can create is immense, and will be a lot sleeker looking than a flesh and thread patchwork a la Frankenstein. Bill Nye's most recent book is Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World.
<p>Bill Nye's most recent book is <a href="http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781250007148"><i>Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World</i></a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.indiebound.org/book/9781250007148"><img height="150" src="%5Cr%5Cnhttps://s3.amazonaws.com/edge-misc-assets/Book+Covers/Bill+Nye+Unstoppable" width="225"></a></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
