Doesnt any standard IVF procedure in the US involve "embryo selection"?
Whats the difference between embryo selection and Harvard undergraduate class selection?
Whats the difference between embryo selection and Harvard undergraduate class selection?
I'm just not convinced that we know enough yet about all the genetic interactions involved in developing a human being to actually be capable of breeding a super race, instead of say, a race with a single genetic point of failure.
High intelligence tends to come with higher incidences of other mental disorders [EDIT: this actually appears to be incorrect, per a reply](and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it).
Sure, eliminating known debilitating genetic disorders seems like a reasonable thing to do - but what if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water? What if that debilitating disorder is a base pair switch away from a genetic superpower, that we'd never discover because we eliminated that gene from future generations?
Personally I think we should take our sweet time with this stuff until we can ethically figure out as many of the ins and outs and consequences as we can. The consequences of making a significant mistake could be species ending.
No, lower, with the single exception of perhaps autism spectrum traits: see the signs in the papers reported in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation#Intelligen...
> (and we certainly haven't isolated all the genes involved in intelligence, let alone reliably quantify it).
You don't need to, many have been, and the quantification is reliable enough.
Do you think we're currently equipped to breed a super race?
State of the art embryo selection is something like +0.5 IQ points, which might be profitable but can only be charitably described as 'subtle'. Regular embryo selection is currently too weak because you have only a few eggs to choose from, most of which will not lead to a live birth, so even with the great GWAS results coming over the next few years, the gains will be small. Similarly, CRISPR is not that great because while we have identified lots of SNPs which allow prediction of intelligence, few of them are causal, so you would need hundreds of successful edits to get a truly noticeable boost like 10 IQ points.
What is necessary for large gains like +10 is one of: ability to create scores or hundreds of eggs to do embryo selection allowing picking best embryo out of hundreds rather than out of 5 or less (perhaps using egg->stem-cell->egg induced pluripotency & specialization techniques, currently doable in mice/rats but not humans); iterated embryo synthesis using the same induced pluripotency to coax a set of stem cells through many generations of sperm/egg->embryo->selection->egg/sperm for a cumulative gain; CRISPR scaling to hundreds of edits plus better identification of causal variants; and whole genome synthesis to create a single hyper-optimized genome from scratch without bothering with selection/editing. The timelines I would hazard guesses at something like 5-10/10/5?/15 years respectively.
So embryo selection right now is a curiosity, but with the right breakthrough, it could become important, and even if it doesn't, at some point CRISPR and genome synthesis will allow for big gains.