/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9888406

This genetic scoring can be used with current embryo diagnosis technologies (PGD) to select for better performing offspring.

Keep in mind this is public domain now. Any PGDw/IVF can do this selection on embryos for parents. The genie is out of the bottle completely especially with money.

for people tracking progress in predictive power

Rietveld et al. (Science, 2013): 3 SNPs were significant (N=101K)
Okbay et al. (Nature, 2016): 74 SNPs were significant (N=294K)
Lee et al. (Nature Genetics, 2018): 1271 SNPs were significant (N=1132K)

(copy pasted)

This is HUGE. Bump.

>>9888409
I wonder what country is going to be the first to start subsidizing this sort of thing - would give any country that is willing & able to do so a big advantage when the children become of age. I would place my bets on Singapore - they have dappled with eugenics more than pretty much any other nation post-WWII, and have the money & governmental organization to offer it to all their citizens. And this form of eugenics should be more popular than past efforts, since every family could benefit from it.

I wouldn't count on this just yet. SNPs are not easy to work with because they can mean pretty much anything, and if they're the linkage disequilibrium kind then they are not the cause but the instigator of something else causing effects.

Take these studies with a grain of salt. The data is correct most likely, but the interpretation is damn tricky for these things.

>>9888650
China is already doing it on the down low. It's not exactly difficult to hide that you select for education during IVF. #1 country in world for IVF is china.

BGI used to get a lot of attention for their efforts so they moved the program into military / secret.

>>9888678
Mechanism doesn't matter. If you can test an embryo and get a score that's all you need. Higher chance of intelligence is good enough to have major effects on a society.

>college completion means I'm smurt
>implying different universities don't have different levels of difficulty
>implying it's not easier than ever to go to (some) university
>implying all technical careers need a paper that shows
>implying having been fed well and lived in a good social environment aren't factors
etc.
etc.

I know you're trying to stir up racism, so:

>3.3. Does this study show that an individual’s level of educational attainment is determined, or fixed, at conception?
>No.
>Social and other environmental factors account for most variation in educational attainment. But even if it were true that genetic factors accounted forallof the differences among individuals in educational attainment, it wouldstillnot follow that an individual’s number of years of formal schooling is “determined” at conception. There are at least three reasons for this:

>3.5. Can your polygenic score be used for research studies in non-European-ancestry populations?
>Only in a limited way. As a practical matter, it is possible to calculate a polygenic score for any individual for whom genome-wide data is available, but the polygenic score will be much less “predictive” (see FAQ 1.4) in non-European-ancestry populations.

>>9888897
judge jury executor all in one faggot

>>9888897
>racism
you dont belong on sci, kys

>>9888897
Fuck off with your religious proclamations. This is a science board.

> selecting for IQ
> not selecting for chad

enjoy having a sperg child who grows up poorly socialized, mistreated, miserable and does absolutely nothing with his big brain IQ because of greatly diminishing returns.

>highest quintile of genetic promise did so 50 percent of the time.
>11-13% prediction of variability in educational attainment
>EA3 predictor has correlation of 0.35 with education attainment.
not even an ecologist would be proud of those numbers

>>9888466
number of SNPs is irrelevant, what matters is what percent of variation they explain

>>9890024
>significant

>>9888886
>I do not understand statistical correlation or probability
105iq salt of the earth detected

>>9888897
>complains about racism
>can't greentext
really activates the almonds doesn't it

>>9890023
That's fucking awesome

Although
>>9890741

>>9890133
Yes, I read the post. With a big enough GWAS, having dozens of SNPs explain two percent of variation can still be statistically significant. That doesn't mean it's biologically meaningful.

>>9890147
>correlation is causation
45 absolute retard IQ detected