“Polygenic scores are not pure measures of ‘inborn ability,’ and genome-wide association studies of human intelligence and educational attainment are not inevitably ushering in a new eugenics age.”https://leapsmag.com/genetic-test-scores-predicting-intelligence-are-not-the-new-eugenics/ …
-
-
Replying to @kph3k
In many twin studies, broad heritability of IQ is .7-.8. If polygenic scores can capture almost all of that heritability, their prediction of IQ won't be perfect, but will very good indeed. Obfuscation abounds, but if those predictions work, I don't see how one gets around them
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tomterrif @kph3k
The polygenic scores don't even come close to explaining as much variance. They still only predict less than 10% of education. All the current hype is a marketing campaign by genetic testing companies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Evil_Kirkecraap @kph3k
Of course they don't come anywhere near capturing that much variance -- today. We have no compelling reason to believe, today, that they won't in the future do so -- though perhaps rare variants may pose a real problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomterrif @kph3k
Rare variants are easily captured with deep whole genome sequencing. It is expensive right now, but price is falling very quickly. https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcostsdata/ …pic.twitter.com/7SDIU4Q6sZ
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @kph3k
Rare variants can certainly be captured in principle by whole genomes. But can they be identified as affecting a trait if they are exceedingly rare and the effect is relatively small? That sounds like a hard statistical problem, even with huge datasets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomterrif @kph3k
Depends on their effect sizes and frequencies. Perhaps you can find a sweet spot where we can't reasonably find them, e.g. with small effect sizes (e.g. 0.01 IQ) and frequencies below 1 in 1e-6. Progress is made fast, so I don't expect us to end up in that situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @kph3k
What's going to be interesting is to see how low we can go, in terms of frequency and effect. Obviously big datasets are the best remedy. But it may be some heritability still goes missing even with great statistical methods -- perhaps different amounts for different traits.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Possibly. So far, personality GWASing is not having much success, so might be due to different genetic architecture or measurement issues of the traits themselves (I think the latter).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.