Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
When genomics lets us design our children, how can we keep it fair for all?
Granted, genetic manipulation has been a dream for decades. Here’s what is different now.
Would you pay to give your child a genetic advantage, to make them smarter than their peers, taller, or more beautiful? This is a question that will become relevant within a few decades — if not sooner.
Gene sequencing will cost only a couple of dollars per human. A new generation of genetic editing tools, most notably CRISPR, have made it ridiculously easy to edit the human genome. Rapid advances in computing power will make it easier to understand the minute interplays between the dozens — if not hundreds — of genes that impact complex but valuable characteristics such as intelligence and patience. And, frankly, as artificial intelligence lets machines take on more and more complicated human tasks, we humans may need a genetic boost.
Unfortunately, the rich will likely be able to buy access to better genetics sooner than the rest of us — unless society intervenes. Do we really want a world where money can buy genetic superiority?
Granted, genetic manipulation has been a dream for decades. Here’s what is different now.
To start with, the cost of sequencing and mapping genes has plummeted. The initial Human Genome Project cost over $1 billion. It is presently below $1,000 for a human genome to be sequenced and should fall below $100 over the next few years. That cost will continue to drop rapidly. Within five years, having your genes sequenced will cost less than a fancy cup of coffee.
Also importantly, the available computing power to analyze these sequences has never been greater. The rise of cloud computing, pioneered by Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud, and increases in processing power have made it possible to build on-demand analytics systems that researchers can use to unravel the minute interactions of genes. In other words, they have access to supercomputing power but at a fraction of the cost of building a supercomputer — and without all the wires, cables, real estate, and technicians required.
The real breakthrough and missing piece, however, is CRISPR. The acronym is short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. CRISPR is actually an ancient self-defense mechanism of bacteria that modern scientists repurposed for laser-targeted gene editing. It is not a huge overstatement to say that CRISPR has made genetic manipulation a backyard hobby. In fact, DIY geneticists are using CRISPR to modify the genes of pure-bred dogs to try to improve their health. And a DIY CRISPR kit called the Odin is on sale online. In the very near future, CRISPR editing will be akin to cutting and pasting characters in a Microsoft Word document.
Combined, these three changes have ushered in an entirely new era of genomics, one where we move from traditional empiricism — informed guesswork, really — to engineered systems where design is intentional and the workings of genes are understood and known.
The initial stage of this will be ability to handicap the likelihood of which embryo will have which traits. Called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), this technique is practiced today to help couples identify embryos that might have high risks of major genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs disease. In the next few years, parents with access to cash will also be to use this technique to more accurately analyze the pluses and minuses of multiple embryos and select the one that has the best combination of probabilities for in vitro fertilization (IVF). PGD remains expensive and inaccurate, but it will become a more attractive option as it improves. Insurance companies at present don’t cover PGD or genetic improvement, only for disease prevention. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
In addition, ongoing improvements in computing power should help scientists better understand the complex interplay of genes. Determining the relationship of genetic makeup to traits like intelligence is a math problem that will probably never have an exact answer, but can be improved to provide more accurate probabilities. The impending arrival of powerful Quantum Computers could turbocharge this process by giving scientists new ways to analyze and simulate complex biological systems. That might make actual gene editing of humans or embryos viable and perhaps more economical than PGD.
CRISPR remains an experimental technique with many questions about the long-term safety of its editing process. Scientists and doctors fear that CRISPR may inadvertently impact non-target genes with unintended consequences. That said, scientists are growing more and more comfortable using CRISPR. Initially, a consensus of scientists advocated banning CRISPR editing on human embryos, even if they were not viable and would never become babies. Today, a growing number of research teams are testing how to use CRISPR more effectively on human embryos.
The initial goal is to modify single genes that cause serious illnesses. In these cases, fixing the mutant form of the gene will cure or reduce the impact of the illness. However, single-gene modification is just the start; many diseases result from the interplay of multiple genes.
For today, PGD carries no obvious risk because no modification of genetic matter occurs. Rather, the parents will be able to pick an embryo with a higher probability, based on the best research, of exhibiting desirable traits. This is less precise than CRISPR but could significantly increase chances of babies having desired traits. But PGD costs a lot of money. So will early stage gene editing of human embryos with CRISPR, albeit not for the tech as for the expertise and the service.
This all prompts challenging ethical questions. To date, many national governments have banned gene editing of live human embryos. Governments have also outlawed editing genes of the human germline — the genes we pass on to our children -— to carry advantageous traits such as height or intelligence.
IVF combined with PGD, or well-tuned CRISPR interventions, could become a highly-sought pre-birth treatment for wealthy folks seeking a leg up for their unborn offspring. This might further exacerbate the already documented trend of increased assortative mating — where people of like backgrounds and positions tend to marry each other. Assortative mating further concentrates wealth or other benefits further in a society, augmenting inequality. Genetics are not destiny but they do help; every extra point of IQ is associated with X dollars more in salary.
Individual rights advocates argue that the government should not possess the right to legislate how parents handle their children’s DNA. In their view, as long as these enhancements are safe and parents understand the risks, then the government should not regulate CRISPR editing on embryos any more than it should regulate whether the rich pay for pricey personal trainers to improve their physiques or expensive science and math tutors to improve chances that their children are accepted into Ivy League schools.
There is one key distinction in those analogies. Unlike personal trainers or tutors, genetic enhancements to embryos will confer benefits transferred from generation to generation. Over time, allowing subsequent generations to choose to gift their offspring with valuable traits via either CRISPR or PGD might generate even more inequality — driven by biology. Given the high current level of global inequality, selective biology generating more inequality will have strong political implications on fairness and the very foundational concept of modern democracy — that all humans are created equal.
While genetic manipulation to save lives makes perfect sense, the process shouldn’t be used to merely improve the chances of success of those already born with inherited socio-economic advantages. Designer babies must only be available if all in society can share the benefits. Equality of opportunity must extend to the realm of genetics and biology.
Vivek Wadhwa is a distinguished fellow at Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering. He is a globally syndicated columnist for the Washington Post and the co-author of The Driver in the Driverless Car. You can follow him on Twitter @wadhwa.
Alex Salkever is the co-author of The Driver In The Driverless Car: How Our Technology Choices Can Change the Future. You can follow him on Twitter @.
Geologists discover a rhythm to major geologic events.
- It appears that Earth has a geologic "pulse," with clusters of major events occurring every 27.5 million years.
- Working with the most accurate dating methods available, the authors of the study constructed a new history of the last 260 million years.
- Exactly why these cycles occur remains unknown, but there are some interesting theories.
Our hearts beat at a resting rate of 60 to 100 beats per minute. Lots of other things pulse, too. The colors we see and the pitches we hear, for example, are due to the different wave frequencies ("pulses") of light and sound waves.
Now, a study in the journal Geoscience Frontiers finds that Earth itself has a pulse, with one "beat" every 27.5 million years. That's the rate at which major geological events have been occurring as far back as geologists can tell.
A planetary calendar has 10 dates in red
Credit: Jagoush / Adobe Stock
According to lead author and geologist Michael Rampino of New York University's Department of Biology, "Many geologists believe that geological events are random over time. But our study provides statistical evidence for a common cycle, suggesting that these geologic events are correlated and not random."
The new study is not the first time that there's been a suggestion of a planetary geologic cycle, but it's only with recent refinements in radioisotopic dating techniques that there's evidence supporting the theory. The authors of the study collected the latest, best dating for 89 known geologic events over the last 260 million years:
- 29 sea level fluctuations
- 12 marine extinctions
- 9 land-based extinctions
- 10 periods of low ocean oxygenation
- 13 gigantic flood basalt volcanic eruptions
- 8 changes in the rate of seafloor spread
- 8 times there were global pulsations in interplate magmatism
The dates provided the scientists a new timetable of Earth's geologic history.
Tick, tick, boom
Credit: New York University
Putting all the events together, the scientists performed a series of statistical analyses that revealed that events tend to cluster around 10 different dates, with peak activity occurring every 27.5 million years. Between the ten busy periods, the number of events dropped sharply, approaching zero.
Perhaps the most fascinating question that remains unanswered for now is exactly why this is happening. The authors of the study suggest two possibilities:
"The correlations and cyclicity seen in the geologic episodes may be entirely a function of global internal Earth dynamics affecting global tectonics and climate, but similar cycles in the Earth's orbit in the Solar System and in the Galaxy might be pacing these events. Whatever the origins of these cyclical episodes, their occurrences support the case for a largely periodic, coordinated, and intermittently catastrophic geologic record, which is quite different from the views held by most geologists."
Assuming the researchers' calculations are at least roughly correct — the authors note that different statistical formulas may result in further refinement of their conclusions — there's no need to worry that we're about to be thumped by another planetary heartbeat. The last occurred some seven million years ago, meaning the next won't happen for about another 20 million years.
Brain cells snap strands of DNA in many more places and cell types than researchers previously thought.
The urgency to remember a dangerous experience requires the brain to make a series of potentially dangerous moves: Neurons and other brain cells snap open their DNA in numerous locations — more than previously realized, according to a new study — to provide quick access to genetic instructions for the mechanisms of memory storage.
The extent of these DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) in multiple key brain regions is surprising and concerning, says study senior author Li-Huei Tsai, Picower Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and director of The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, because while the breaks are routinely repaired, that process may become more flawed and fragile with age. Tsai's lab has shown that lingering DSBs are associated with neurodegeneration and cognitive decline and that repair mechanisms can falter.
"We wanted to understand exactly how widespread and extensive this natural activity is in the brain upon memory formation because that can give us insight into how genomic instability could undermine brain health down the road," says Tsai, who is also a professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and a leader of MIT's Aging Brain Initiative. "Clearly, memory formation is an urgent priority for healthy brain function, but these new results showing that several types of brain cells break their DNA in so many places to quickly express genes is still striking."
In 2015, Tsai's lab provided the first demonstration that neuronal activity caused DSBs and that they induced rapid gene expression. But those findings, mostly made in lab preparations of neurons, did not capture the full extent of the activity in the context of memory formation in a behaving animal, and did not investigate what happened in cells other than neurons.
In the new study published July 1 in PLOS ONE, lead author and former graduate student Ryan Stott and co-author and former research technician Oleg Kritsky sought to investigate the full landscape of DSB activity in learning and memory. To do so, they gave mice little electrical zaps to the feet when they entered a box, to condition a fear memory of that context. They then used several methods to assess DSBs and gene expression in the brains of the mice over the next half-hour, particularly among a variety of cell types in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, two regions essential for the formation and storage of conditioned fear memories. They also made measurements in the brains of mice that did not experience the foot shock to establish a baseline of activity for comparison.
The creation of a fear memory doubled the number of DSBs among neurons in the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex, affecting more than 300 genes in each region. Among 206 affected genes common to both regions, the researchers then looked at what those genes do. Many were associated with the function of the connections neurons make with each other, called synapses. This makes sense because learning arises when neurons change their connections (a phenomenon called "synaptic plasticity") and memories are formed when groups of neurons connect together into ensembles called engrams.
"Many genes essential for neuronal function and memory formation, and significantly more of them than expected based on previous observations in cultured neurons … are potentially hotspots of DSB formation," the authors wrote in the study.
In another analysis, the researchers confirmed through measurements of RNA that the increase in DSBs indeed correlated closely with increased transcription and expression of affected genes, including ones affecting synapse function, as quickly as 10-30 minutes after the foot shock exposure.
"Overall, we find transcriptional changes are more strongly associated with [DSBs] in the brain than anticipated," they wrote. "Previously we observed 20 gene-associated [DSB] loci following stimulation of cultured neurons, while in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex we see more than 100-150 gene associated [DSB] loci that are transcriptionally induced."
Snapping with stress
In the analysis of gene expression, the neuroscientists looked at not only neurons but also non-neuronal brain cells, or glia, and found that they also showed changes in expression of hundreds of genes after fear conditioning. Glia called astrocytes are known to be involved in fear learning, for instance, and they showed significant DSB and gene expression changes after fear conditioning.
Among the most important functions of genes associated with fear conditioning-related DSBs in glia was the response to hormones. The researchers therefore looked to see which hormones might be particularly involved and discovered that it was glutocortocoids, which are secreted in response to stress. Sure enough, the study data showed that in glia, many of the DSBs that occurred following fear conditioning occurred at genomic sites related to glutocortocoid receptors. Further tests revealed that directly stimulating those hormone receptors could trigger the same DSBs that fear conditioning did and that blocking the receptors could prevent transcription of key genes after fear conditioning.
Tsai says the finding that glia are so deeply involved in establishing memories from fear conditioning is an important surprise of the new study.
"The ability of glia to mount a robust transcriptional response to glutocorticoids suggest that glia may have a much larger role to play in the response to stress and its impact on the brain during learning than previously appreciated," she and her co-authors wrote.
Damage and danger?
More research will have to be done to prove that the DSBs required for forming and storing fear memories are a threat to later brain health, but the new study only adds to evidence that it may be the case, the authors say.
"Overall we have identified sites of DSBs at genes important for neuronal and glial functions, suggesting that impaired DNA repair of these recurrent DNA breaks which are generated as part of brain activity could result in genomic instability that contribute to aging and disease in the brain," they wrote.
The National Institutes of Health, The Glenn Foundation for Medical Research, and the JPB Foundation provided funding for the research.
Research shows that those who spend more time speaking tend to emerge as the leaders of groups, regardless of their intelligence.
- A new study proposes the "babble hypothesis" of becoming a group leader.
- Researchers show that intelligence is not the most important factor in leadership.
- Those who talk the most tend to emerge as group leaders.
If you want to become a leader, start yammering. It doesn't even necessarily matter what you say. New research shows that groups without a leader can find one if somebody starts talking a lot.
This phenomenon, described by the "babble hypothesis" of leadership, depends neither on group member intelligence nor personality. Leaders emerge based on the quantity of speaking, not quality.
Researcher Neil G. MacLaren, lead author of the study published in The Leadership Quarterly, believes his team's work may improve how groups are organized and how individuals within them are trained and evaluated.
"It turns out that early attempts to assess leadership quality were found to be highly confounded with a simple quantity: the amount of time that group members spoke during a discussion," shared MacLaren, who is a research fellow at Binghamton University.
While we tend to think of leaders as people who share important ideas, leadership may boil down to whoever "babbles" the most. Understanding the connection between how much people speak and how they become perceived as leaders is key to growing our knowledge of group dynamics.
The power of babble
The research involved 256 college students, divided into 33 groups of four to ten people each. They were asked to collaborate on either a military computer simulation game (BCT Commander) or a business-oriented game (CleanStart). The players had ten minutes to plan how they would carry out a task and 60 minutes to accomplish it as a group. One person in the group was randomly designated as the "operator," whose job was to control the user interface of the game.
To determine who became the leader of each group, the researchers asked the participants both before and after the game to nominate one to five people for this distinction. The scientists found that those who talked more were also more likely to be nominated. This remained true after controlling for a number of variables, such as previous knowledge of the game, various personality traits, or intelligence.
How leaders influence people to believe | Michael Dowling | Big Think www.youtube.com
In an interview with PsyPost, MacLaren shared that "the evidence does seem consistent that people who speak more are more likely to be viewed as leaders."
Another find was that gender bias seemed to have a strong effect on who was considered a leader. "In our data, men receive on average an extra vote just for being a man," explained MacLaren. "The effect is more extreme for the individual with the most votes."
The great theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg passed away on July 23. This is our tribute.