Large differences at a few genes?

By equalizing the environment, socialist regimes made genetic influences more noticeable (Wikicommons).

 

 

Current thinking is that cognitive ability differs from one person to the next through small differences at very many genes.  This view is stated in a recent review of the genetics of intelligence:

 

It became clear that the problem was power: the largest effect sizes of associations between individual single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and intelligence were extremely small, accounting for less than 0.05% of the variance of intelligence. The average effect size of the tens of thousands of SNPs needed to explain the 50% heritability of intelligence is of course much lower. If the average effect size is 0.005%, 10,000 such SNP associations would be needed to explain the 50% heritability of intelligence. (Plomin and von Stumm 2018)

 

This view is not shared by IQ researcher Volkmar Weiss, who argues that a few genes have variants that differ more substantially in their effects. Fortuitous combinations of such variants may explain the births of exceptionally intelligent individuals to above-average parents:

 

The possibility of rapid social ascent and descent suggests that the differences in thinking power, the IQ, are based on a simple genetic polymorphism, which prevents the solidification of society. A broad middle class, which marries upwards or downwards or among itself, connects the social extremes. The data supports it: The children of this middle class have a 25% chance of becoming part of the intellectual elite, 25% chance of belonging to the mentally healthy working class and a 50% chance of maintaining the social status of their parents. (Weiss 2020, p. 14)

 

Consequently, "in each generation the greatest number of highly gifted people do not come from marriages between highly gifted people, but from marriages of the middle class" (Weiss 2020, p. 13).

 

Weiss acknowledges that very many genes have some influence on cognitive ability, but in most cases the influence is secondary or tertiary. He argues that selection for intelligence, particularly in recent times, has operated mostly on a subset of genes with substantial effects. He cites a study by Davis et al. (2015) on the DUF1220 gene, which varies in the number of copies of a protein-coding sequence called CON2. Populations of European descent have 26 to 33 copies, and each additional copy is associated with a 3.3 point increase in IQ. Are there other genes with substantial effects on cognition? Perhaps.

 

 

IQ research in the DDR

 

Weiss grew up in East Germany and did his initial research on IQ there. He witnessed how the genetics of IQ, initially a taboo subject, became more and more acceptable in the socialist regimes of Eastern Europe. The authorities had made a systematic effort to erase class differences and equalize the social environment, only to find that differences in intellectual ability remained.  Indeed, by equalizing the environment, they had made the influence of genes more noticeable:

 

Contrary to the expectations of the Marxists, equal opportunities under favourable environmental conditions always lead to an increased genotype-phenotype correlation and thus to an increase in 'heredity'. ... This means that the better equal opportunities are guaranteed in an efficient educational system, the greater the variability of people based on genetic differences." (Mohr 1975, p. 48 [transl. by Weiss])

 

In the 1960s, and even more so in the 1970s, East Germany gave up its policy of preferentially admitting the children of workers or peasants to university … and thus preferentially hiring them for intellectually demanding jobs (Weiss 2020, pp. 44-45). The educational system now became oriented toward performance, with special classes for the highly gifted. Pragmatism was the keynote: the authorities wished to identify talented individuals and help them succeed. Academic research followed the same trend. In 1972, Weiss defended a doctoral dissertation in East Berlin on the inheritance of mathematical and technical abilities (Weiss 2020, p. 47).

 

On the eve of its dissolution, the Eastern bloc was learning lessons that the Western bloc had not yet learned … or had learned too long ago.

 

 

References

 

Davis, J. M., Searles, V. B., Anderson, N., Keeney, J., Raznahan, A., Horwood, J., Fergusson, D. M., Kennedy, M. A., Gledd, J. and J. M. Sikela. (2015). DUF1220 copy number is linearly associated with increased cognitive function as measured by total IQ and mathematical aptitude scores. Human Genetics 134: 67-75.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-014-1489-2

 

Mohr, H. (1975). Der prinzipielle Konflikt zwischen Biologie und Marxismus. In G. Szczesny (ed.). Marxismus, ernstgenommen: ein Universalsystem auf dem Prüfstand des Wissens. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt pp. 30-50

 

Plomin, R., S. von Stumm. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics 19: 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2017.104

 

Weiss, V. (2020). The Population Cycle that Drives Human History. Leipzig, Germany

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341100317

 

  

It's not because research is cheaper there

Robert Plomin on the genetics of various mental traits (source)

A Chinese research team is looking for genes that explain why IQ is higher in some people and lower in others:

Studies show that at least half of the variation in intelligence quotient, or IQ, is inherited. But while scientists have identified some genes that can significantly lower IQ—in people afflicted with mental retardation, for example—truly important genes that affect normal IQ variation have yet to be pinned down.

The Hong Kong researchers hope to crack the problem by comparing the genomes of super-high-IQ individuals with the genomes of people drawn from the general population. By studying the variation in the two groups, they hope to isolate some of the hereditary factors behind IQ. (Naik, 2013)

The head of the team, Zhao Bowen, believes this question has not been resolved because it is too controversial. “People have chosen to ignore the genetics of intelligence for a long time," said Mr. Zhao, who hopes to publish his team's initial findings this summer. "People believe it's a controversial topic, especially in the West. That's not the case in China" (Naik, 2013).

Perhaps. But there is another reason: the apparently large number of genes involved and the relatively small effects of each one. This was the conclusion of Robert Plomin, a behavioral geneticist at the Institute of Psychiatry in London:

Failing to find genes for intelligence has, in itself, been very instructive for Plomin. Twin studies continue to persuade him that the genes exist. “There is ultimately DNA variation responsible for it,” he says. But each of the variations detected so far only makes a tiny contribution to differences in intelligence. “I think nobody thought that the biggest effects would account for less than 1 percent,” Plomin points out. 

That means that there must be hundreds—perhaps thousands—of genes that together produce the full range of gene-based variation in intelligence. (Zimmer, 2008)

This should be no surprise. Natural selection doesn’t act on genes, at least not directly. It acts on phenotypes—the flesh-and-blood outcomes of genes. Selection for intelligence will thus affect any gene that has some kind of intelligence-boosting effect.  This point has been made by Linda Gottfredson, a psychology professor at the University of Delaware:

[...] within-group ('individual") differences in intelligence will involve 1000s of genes of small effect, so we can expect that for between-group differences too. Many of the genes will not be specific to intelligence per se but influence broad physiological processes that affect brain structure and function. This would include cardiovascular fitness and much more. (Go exercise, guys!)

I read that perhaps half our genes are expressed in the brain. If half of our segregating genes are too (the 0.1% on which humans are estimated to differ), that's still 1.5 million base pairs or "SNPs" (of 3 billion total).

This indicates the challenge, even if we ignore other important genomic differences (e.g., number of times a given segment of the chromosome is repeated, like a stutter).

[...] This is not to say, of course, that we can't pin down heritabilities for various mean group differences (we could right now if researchers were willing) or that we won't be able to identify numbers or classes of genes on which groups differ most. But it's looking unlikely that we'll be able to pinpoint a list of specific genes that explain much of the normal variation in g, either within or between groups. (Gottfredson, 2013)

Interestingly, Robert Plomin is mentioned as one of the people involved in the Chinese project. Has this research been offshored to a country where the intellectual climate is less restrictive? In addition, since Plomin is aware of the limitations of this kind of study, he might know something that the rest of us don’t. Perhaps among the many genes with small effects there are a few with big effects …

References

Gottfredon, L. (2013). H-bd discussion list, February 22, 2013

Naik, G. (2013). A genetic code for genius, The Wall Street Journal, February 15

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578303992108696034.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Zimmer, C. (2008). The search for intelligence. Scientific American, October, pp. 68-75.