Genetic Testing For Geekiness? 861
Paul Johnson writes "MSNBC is carrying an article wondering about how to handle a possible future genetic test for autism. Raising a severely autistic child is a heartbreaking grind, and many people (and legal systems) consider termination to be a reasonable choice where the fetus carries other genetic disorders such as Downs Syndrome. But this might also prevent the birth of future geniuses too. The article flippantly uses Bill Gates as an example (Gates is widely thought to have Asperger's syndrome), although Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison are also thought to have been similarly "different". And there is some reason to believe that "geekiness" in general is actually the place where autism shades into 'normal'."
ah, Asperger's syndrome (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm different! Really!
You are a special snowflake, just like the rest of us.
The same is true for most inventors and scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic testing will probably cause more harm than good - we need to have it screened for medical uses only, such things as fatal diseases, not What's Hot This Week
This is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
So, science is so good now that we can predict with 100% accuracy if someone will be able to contribute OR OR OR live a happy life?
I know so many people with IQ's over 110, well educated, well employed, good citizens who are miserable. I also know one girl who is in a wheel chair, she has some genetic disorder, and she lights up a room with her smiles and laughs.
Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parents I've meet with Downs and autistc children have commented on how rewarding it is. "Hearbreaking grind" is very judgemental and not necessarily true (although for some it might be).
Anyway, what legal systems consider termination to be a reasonable choice? Do they actually spell out different reasons for abortion?
Social awkwardness != genius (Score:5, Insightful)
And this goes hand in hand with every kid who can stack blocks by the age of 3 being 'gifted'. Of course, there's a whole industry dedicated to 'helping' (read: profiting off of) parents who believe their child is gifted.
Re:What about gay children? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't know about Einstein (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't show any typical traits such as repetetive behaviour or social oddities. He was a loner, but that doesn't necessarily make him autistic.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
geekiness is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
an average iq kid who has a high social intelligence will go on to make $40 million, and the high iq, low social intelligence asperger type we're talking about here will wind up working for him for $30K/ year.
if the point of this slashdot story is to bring attention to the preciousness of autism/ asperger's and its role in high iq people, then i respond with a big "so what".
genius doesn't matter if it can't be communicated.
a mediocre idea well-communicated is worth 10,000x more than a genius level idea that stays locked up in someone's skull.
so enough of the cult of asperger's. it's overrated. social intelligence is the real deal.
Future whoevers (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument "in doing this, you might stop the next genius from existing", whether applied to medication or abortion, is not simply the last word. It is something to take into consideration.
The parents who have to raise the child are the ones making these decisions. It's true, "he just might be the next Einstein", but it's much more likely that his parents will go through their lives not being able to speak to him, having him attack you for no reason, and not being able to see him ever live on his own.
Asperger's, a mild variety of autism, is a mixed bag. It breaks my heart to see my cousin's family torn apart by their son's inability to control himself, and he's relatively high-functioning. A test for autism would be a tremendous boon for parents facing the prospect of raising a child who will be forever locked away from them, and they from him. High-minded ideals about future genuises are not what they want to hear.
Summary: Serious autism is terrible. Only a small fraction of autistic children are able to lead productive lives. Borderline cases like [famous person here] are extremely high-functioning, if in the spectrum at all, and probably wouldn't fall under any test in the near future.
Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.
Next, genetic testing before an insurance company will sell you health insurance.
Science is not perfect, it never was. I remember 20 years ago the HUGE butter scare. Scientific test after test came out saying butter caused heart attacks, and to switch to margerin. A few years ago, studies came out saying that margerin is unhealthy, and butter is better? If people listen to science or their studies, they will be eatting eggs one year, avoiding them like the plauge the next year, and then drinking them raw the next.
And like the above example, it was the margerin industry that funded those early scientific studies. They wanted to increase their sales, so they labled butter unhealthy.
Now extend this one step further. Someone HATES jews, there are tons of people out there who are racist. They decide that certian genes, only found in the jewish population, lead to certain disorders. They then use this as an excuse for terminating these pregnecies.
Next... "We think your baby has an abnormally high chance for sickle cell anemia, we reccomend termenating your pregnancy".
Meanwhile... "Yes Mr. Forbes, we agree, if we lighten the shade of your babys hair, it will bring out his eyes, and we'll make sure to add the genes which increase muscle mass, and the genes that increase IQ".
Now, which one will be the more ethical and better human being? That is something science is incapable of prediciting.
Gates a genius? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I probably would have been aborted (Score:5, Insightful)
Am a decently successful human being, I run my own business, have held numerous significant jobs, have an advanced college degree.
But, I was born with a small level of Cerebral Palsy.
Just enough to make me limp and trip occasionally.
And other than constantly overhearing 4 year olds asking their parents why does that man walk that way in public I am just as "normal" as the next guy. Ok, normal might be too nice:-) But I'm trying.
When I entered pre-school I was automatically placed in the "special education" (that's what it was called then) class. Not one question was asked of my parents as to my cognitive abilities, etc. My Dad was livid to say the least.
But, what if I had been diagnosed in the womb with my CP would I even exist? Would a doctor have "convinced" my parents to abort?
The kind of testing described should be outlawed as far as I'm concerned.
We have already seen what happened in China, I believe it was, or was it India, when people started getting ultrasounds to determine if they were having a girl or a boy, then aborting the girl fetuses.
It's just a place society shouldn't go, at all.
Re:bill gates, genius? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, just amoral, opportunistic, and predatory.
He's not a freakin' genius, folks. I believe the last piece of decent technical work he personally did was Microsoft Basic (Not VB, not QBasic. Microsoft basic for 8080/Z80, back in the "press play on the casette deck" days). Yes, he's quite smart. Probably quite a lot smarter than I am. He has also managed to concentrate on making Microsoft the juggernaut it is, very often by undertaking and encouraging his employees to undertake actions of questionable legality, morality, or fairness, all in the name of increasing marked penetration and edging out competition.
So, I guess it's somewhat true. You don't get to be a convicted predatory monopolist by being average.
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:5, Insightful)
There may be some truth in an argument that "culling all people with 'Gene A' before they're born" (with the natural assumtpion that there will be other people born in their place) may have downsides if 'Gene A' has some positive side affects that aren't widely considered. But "would you have allowed (insert person here) to be born?" is a fallacy.
Re:What about gay children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Who else will punish and ostracize the geeks? If I wasn't ostracized in high-school, I'd never have learned to program, or have done my homework. I'd have been getting stoned, and having sex. Things which rightfully belong to my college years.
2) Who will distract the TV watching, Dorito-stuffing, SUV-driving masses? I mean, we all could be rioting on Pennsylvania Ave right now, fighting for our rights, but, wait, TheBigGame/Sitcom81-g/MovieWithExplosions#2118 is on...
3) Who will die by droves in meaningless wars for us, while we complain on slashdot?
Meh. As far as I see it, when we have designer babies, we'll get lots of super-smart jocks. Very few parents are going to say, "Yeah, I want a throwing-arm, 20/20 vision, and, oh, make him dumb as a brick".
What I'm afraid of, is, no more lefties. ( that's me looking around scared )
Re:What about gay children? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people say it's a choice.. Well, I never made the choice to be hetereosexual, that's just the way it was. And for those few gay kids that I went to school with, it wasn't their choice either, that's just the way they were. A gene causes this? No clue, I don't think it matter except to the religious & bigotted.
Re:geekiness is overrated (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about gay children? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the doctors for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's enough to make me spitting mad.
Executive summary: don't kill your children. They are more important than you.
Re:This is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
You use the 0.001% of French people who are involved in wine-making as a metric for the entire country? Do you think that all the French people do is make wine all day? And you believe that they are doing it not for the money, but just because they like it.
You really need to get out and travel more. There are many people who live outside of your (I suspect) white suburb that don't act like your parents.
If you don't like the corporate world, then stop typing on your computer (made by multiple corporations), in your moms basement (probably built by a corporation), on the Internet (largely built out by corporations) and drop out and go make wine. Don't forget to raise the capital, market and be prepared to work 80 hour weeks. You might want to incorporate too while you are at it.
Stupid kids.
Re:What about gay children? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:3, Insightful)
a) the aforenamed are responsible for their actions
b) equally mad men could have arisen in their circumstances; their elimination would not guarantee much
In summary, omniscience would seem to be a requirement prior to making adjustments.
Re:This is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it does take money to avoid all the things that make for unhappiness
like starvation, infection, homelessness and so on.
Re:so sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on, give us some proof... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have all of those behaviours and I can assure you that I am no genius nor idiot.
Re:The same is true for most inventors and scienti (Score:3, Insightful)
And how are you going to do that? The technology is not that complicated. Are you going to prohibit people from owning a PCR machine (which is really just a precisely controlled hotplate)? Or make thermostable polymerase an illicit substance? Pretty soon, anybody will be able to test for any gene sequence they choose.
Re:Where? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are times when Rachel gets out-of-control and needs to be physically restrained from hurting herself or others, and there are times that she gets into the (locked) cupboard and eats the cake we were going to have for dessert and yes, we feel like we need to be 100% vigilant 100% of the time and it wears on us, her siblings and on Rachel.
But at the same time, you've never seen such happiness for things that you and I take for granted; writing her name, saying the alphabet, playing "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes" and being able to answer "How old are you?" are all things that most 3 or 4 year olds can do but at 11, they're accomplishments for Rachel.
In all likelihood she'll never be able to read and write functionally, but she can identify her favorite DVDs, put it in the player, make sure the stereo and TV are set properly and start the movie. She can also log into the computer, launch a browser and find the bookmark that takes her Playhouse Disney.
For a peek into our home-life, take a look at http://www.patientcenters.com/autism/news/tips_li
Do the highs out weigh the lows? It's hard to tell sometimes, but when I tuck her in at night and she wants to make sure that Pooh-Bear and Piglet get tucked in too, it sure seems like it.
Re:Genetics and Free Will are Mutually Exclusive (Score:4, Insightful)
I call BS.
Re:What about gay children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming there is a gay gene, then of course not, but you're ignoring huge social factors that have made passing that trait forward quite likely. And again, assuming this gene exists, if it were not for tyrannical religious groups, this gene may have faded away thousands of years ago. If the church really wants this gay 'disease' to go away, they should encourage early marriage for gay teens.
3) By its nature, this genetic trait would find itself dwindling in existance.
Cannot the same thing be said for Multiple sclerosis, aspergers, cystic fibrosis, hemophelia, sickle cell, tay-sachs, etc etc etc ? Hell even people with blue eyes are defying a strict interpretation of natural selection. Those disease have been around forever with no end in sight.
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose my wife and I have a medical test result which gives X% of a chance to have a child with autism -- no, that's too hard, since autism is a spectrum disease. Let's make it something genetically definite, like hermaphrodism -- are we then justified in deciding that "this life is not worth living", and killing off the baby?
To do so places us in the position of arguing from the probability of a problem to a definite, terminal solution: kill the baby. But other possibilities exist, even if the problem is as severe as projected.
The "would you have allowed (X person) to be born?" argument simply exposes the fallacy of arguing from a probability of lower quality of life to a definite conclusion: "terminate" the life.
Re:Nuclear Family is better than non-traditional. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not true at all. Children actually do better when raised in extended families: families that include the active participation of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc... living in close proximity. These additional family members take a lot of the burden off of the parents, especially in the early years and provide a wealth of expirience to help said parents deal with problems that come up.
The "mother, father, 2.5 kids and the dog" traditional family is anything but traditional and is the product of post-WWII America. A short-lived Traditional America where white men were in charge, the women stayed at home, children were the property of their parents, those pesky minorities knew their place, those homos stayed in the closet or were beaten to death and everyone was a propper God-fearing Christian. An America that never was.
Gay/Straight matters to those who are concerned about kids's welfare.
How? What does it matter if someone is gay or straight? If they are allowed to live normal lives and are happy then their orientation is of no matter. I do know that the "for the children's sake" is an argument frequently used to stifle ideas offensive to conservatives who consider everything outside their narrow point of view to be evil.
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, to extend the above economist's logic, why should we stop at merely encouraging abortions among those whose cultural and socioeconomic characteristics make their children more likely to be criminals? Sterilizing everybody in the inner cities would certainly reduce crime for the same reason that encouraging inner city residents to have abortions does. Should it be done?
Re:What about gay children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:geekiness is overrated (Score:1, Insightful)
High social intelligence will get you $40M selling a cure/solution for
High intelligence will discover the cure/solution at minimum wage.
I guess which is more important depends on how shallow the judge. At the moment, I'd say our civilation is pretty damn shallow.
Re:Nuclear Family is better than non-traditional. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you think it's possible that the higher instance of these (all depression-associated) diseases could be a result of persecution and non-acceptance, rather than purely associated with being gay?
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're presuming that life is always worth living, regardless of circumstance.
Of course, you're not the one living with constant pain, outcast from most of society, and knowing that you'll die at a very young age.
So before you go spouting off again how life is always worth living, consider some worse cases, and at least consider that maybe, just maybe, some people would be better off not having been born.
Re:ah, Asperger's syndrome (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, there are some people who don't feel special and so they "try it on", but it doesn't seem like the epidemic people like you always claim it is.
What seems far more common for people who don't feel special is autism bashing. Finding someone to look down on helps insecure people, and _every_ time autism is mentioned on the internet, the same people come out of the woodwork and go on and on about these people that want to be "special snowflakes", when really all they want is for people to not give them a hard time about eye contact.
Re:so sad (Score:3, Insightful)
honestly- why should i believe that they do? why should i believe that anyone has a soul? because the bible says so?
from what i understand, good science now indicates that most life, including human behavior, can be measured and described as the result of a highly complex but clearly logical organic computational phenomenon occurring in not only the human mind, which is clearly its most sophisticated manifestation to date, but in all animal minds. It is this phenomenon which we are only now beginning to comprehend the possibility of understanding.
There is much evidence which suggests there is little of this computational activity for much of the first half of the pregnancy, and that termination at this point would result in very little suffering. The costs to society of having what are clearly malformed and evolutionarily nonviable and non-reproductive candidates -and I'm not talking ethnic cleansing here, silly. there are some things that are clearly debatable about what constitutes a "nonviable" candidate, and this certainly excludes cosmetic issues, gender, and other obviouly racist or sexist strawman you may put up, but do not honestly tell me that those with Down's Syndrome are seriously evolutionarily viable? That our gene pool would seriously benefit from the presence of this anomaly? If it can be detected and eliminated early on, it would greatly benefit society as a whole with no suffering or coersion.
Some may even agree that this could be extended to pregnancies which are unwanted. There is significant evidence [freakonomics.com] which suggests a direct link between unwanted pregnancies and many social ills. If they can be stopped at a point where it is clear that a significant manifestation of this computational phenomenon we call "consciousness" forms, I don't see anything wrong with it, and what your church says shouldn't affect the laws, as nothing to suggests it's true beyond "faith".
Sorry
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an oversimplification. If it were true, those people would be rationally attempting suicide, instead of struggling to keep living as long as they can.
The question is not whether it is in the individual best interests of a genetically crippled person to be born, but whether allowing the birth is better for enjoyable human life for everyone.
When it is considered that most parents considering abortion over a major congenital defect will try again for a luckier mix of genes the next year, the net effect on total human lives is actually positive. The pre-partum death of the first child means not only that a second will be born, but also that the second will probably live longer, happier, and cheaper.
Re:best ever headline on msnbc ! (Score:2, Insightful)
You missed George W. Bush..