/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12787247
SNPs are being identified. Current tech would give you a 3 point boost in IQ, worthless for the individual, useful perhaps for an entire population. Could be much much more in the future.

>>10702636
>Modifying genes
>Not embryo selection
Crispr is a red herring for eugenics. It'll have clinical applications and niche reproductive uses for those who are homozygous for deleterious conditions, but modifying babies for increased anything is waste of time - you'll have to alter hundreds of SNPs to get any substantial changes.
Better to focus of creating many hundreds or thousands of eggs from stem cells, fertilising them and then screening them using polygenic risk scores. State of the art IQ increases with 10 embryos and current PRS gives you 2.5 extra IQ points. In the near future, with more embryos, this will be 10 IQ points. Well worth $15,000.
Further, eugenics can easily be carried out by sperm donation - 30-60 thousand babies are born by sperm donation in the US. Ideally every last one of them should be the child of a father with an IQ >130.

>>10456495
>So we agree that it's about cost effectiveness first and accuracy second.
For assessing future performance of potential employees yes, of course. If you have X amount of dollars you could either test 10,000 potential employees with 60% accuracy, or 10 with 100% accuracy. You're more likely to get a better employee with the first method.

But IQ is actually about having a reliable method for assessing intelligence, for which their is no single real world performance task you can measure. This allows you to control for intelligence when assessing things like discrimination claims (are X minority more successful because of nepotism or because they're more competent), or elucidating what makes one brain function better than another, and ultimately which genes so you can do pic related.