So, it's June... WHERE THE **** IS THIS LOOMING GENETIC CRISIS!?

[orcenio]

[

The looming crisis in human genetics
Nov 13th 2009

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races…

](http://www.economist.com/theworldin/displayStory.cfm?story_id=E1_TQSQNSPS&d=2010)So, where is it? The secret/private consensus? The public exposure? The genetically determined racial inequality? All this and more was predicted by our resident racialists.

So Geoffry Miller… When, the hell, is this revelation coming; December?

[orcenio]

Oh yes, one can read the full article in it’s idiotic splendor here.

[Kimstu]

Well duh, it’s still looming.

FreeRepublic has a version of the linked article that doesn’t require an Economist subscription: [ETA: Oh, I see you found it too.]

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. […]

In 2010, GWAS [“genome-wide association studies”] fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes. […]

GWAS researchers will, in public, continue trumpeting their successes to science journalists and Science magazine. They will reassure Big Pharma and the grant agencies that GWAS will identify the genes that explain most of the variation in heart disease, cancer, obesity, depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s and ageing itself. Those genes will illuminate the biochemical pathways underlying disease, which will yield new genetic tests and blockbuster drugs. Keep holding your breath for a golden age of health, happiness and longevity.

In private, though, the more thoughtful GWAS researchers are troubled. They hold small, discreet conferences on the “missing heritability” problem: if all these human traits are heritable, why are GWAS studies failing so often? The DNA chips should already have identified some important genes behind physical and mental health. They simply have not been delivering the goods. […]

Why the failure? The missing heritability may reflect limitations of DNA-chip design: GWAS methods so far focus on relatively common genetic variants in regions of DNA that code for proteins. […] At worst, each human trait may depend on hundreds of thousands of genetic variants that add up through gene-expression patterns of mind-numbing complexity.

We will know much more when it becomes possible to do cheap “resequencing”—which is really just “sequencing” a wider variety of individuals beyond the handful analysed for the Human Genome Project. […] The missing heritability problem will surely be solved sooner or later.

The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions. We will start reconstructing a detailed family tree that links all living humans, discovering many surprises about mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities.

We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. […]

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

Sounds to me like the only part of that forecast that’s specifically linked to 2010 is the predicted increasing public awareness of geneticists’ alleged disappointment in the fruitfulness of GWAS results.

The speculations about subsequent developments in “politically awkward” genetic findings don’t seem to be connected to any particular timeline. Dude just says these findings will emerge “sooner or later”.

[Buck_Godot]

nevermind

[XT]

I think there was a thread on this subject last year, where the OP just kept saying ‘just wait and see…all will be revealed!’ over and over again.

Still waiting…

-XT

[Happy_Poster]

@Kimstu

Sounds to me like the only part of that forecast that’s specifically linked to 2010 is the predicted increasing public awareness of geneticists’ alleged disappointment in the fruitfulness of GWAS results.

The speculations about subsequent developments in “politically awkward” genetic findings don’t seem to be connected to any particular timeline. Dude just says these findings will emerge “sooner or later”.

This.

It’s not a forecast in the sense the OP seems to think.

It’s just a fun thing The Economist have been doing for almost a quarter of a century now.

I’m not sure if I’m allowed to post from the premium subscription part of The Economist, can a mod clarify and if so I’ll cp intro from the editor.

[orcenio]

@Kimstu

Well duh, it’s still looming.

FreeRepublic has a version of the linked article that doesn’t require an Economist subscription: [ETA: Oh, I see you found it too.]

Sounds to me like the only part of that forecast that’s specifically linked to 2010 is the predicted increasing public awareness of geneticists’ alleged disappointment in the fruitfulness of GWAS results.

The speculations about subsequent developments in “politically awkward” genetic findings don’t seem to be connected to any particular timeline. Dude just says these findings will emerge “sooner or later”.

He makes plenty of wild-ass predictions in that article, but if we are going to nitpick his exact timeline/claims he sums it up in the title (“The looming crisis in human genetics: some awkward news ahead”) and first paragraph as…

1. Geneticists are in a crisis and this will be revealed in 2010.
2. The crisis is that: the “new genetics” will reveal “greatly feared” knowledge about the inequality between classes, ethnicities and races.

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

And, as I linked in the OP, there were plenty of racialists who jumped on this (with friggin glee) to continue their “Blecks iz teh dum; and the future will prove it, you just wait 'n see!” crap. And as xtisme wrote: “I’m still waiting…?”

[RickJay]

@orcenio

He makes plenty of wild-ass predictions in that article, but if we are going to nitpick his exact timeline/claims he sums it up in the title (“The looming crisis in human genetics: some awkward news ahead”) and first paragraph as…

1. Geneticists are in a crisis and this will be revealed in 2010.

Well, you started the thread a bit early. We aren’t even halfway through the year.

I’ve no doubt nothing shocking will be revealed by December 31, but you’ve got to wait until then to make this the fun thread it could be.

[Kimstu]

Well, there is a March 2010 Journal of Human Genetics article out called The pursuit of genome-wide association studies: where are we now?. Not having a subscription, I can’t access more than the abstract, which says in part:

It is now 5 years since the first genome-wide association studies (GWAS), published in 2005, identified a common risk allele with large effect size for age-related macular degeneration in a small sample set. Following this exciting finding, researchers have become optimistic about the prospect of the genome-wide association approach. However, most of the risk alleles identified in the subsequent GWAS for various complex diseases are common with small effect sizes (odds ratio <1.5). […] The aim of this review paper is to give an overview of the evolving field of GWAS, discuss the progress that has been made by GWAS and some of the interesting findings, and summarize what we have learned over the past 5 years about the genetic basis of human complex diseases.

Dunno if this amounts to “GWAS simply not delivering the goods”, because I don’t know what the article’s conclusions are.

However, it certainly doesn’t look as though there will be any huge and decisive revelations forthcoming within the next six months about the more speculative issues concerning “the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations”. As the Economist op-ed noted, such discoveries depend on when it becomes “possible to do cheap `resequencing’”. And even when that does become possible, it’ll take a metric buttload of work to accumulate sufficient data to construct “a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions”.

So, while I’m sure that there are lots of interesting discoveries about population genetics awaiting us in the future, and that some of those discoveries might even spark some kind of “crisis” with some “alarming political implications”, I doubt we’ll have any such eventualities spoiling anybody’s Christmas this year.

[orcenio]

@RickJay

Well, you started the thread a bit early. We aren’t even halfway through the year.

I’ve no doubt nothing shocking will be revealed by December 31, but you’ve got to wait until then to make this the fun thread it could be.

I suppose that would be airtight; but who said I can’t stir the pot in the meantime? It just struck me today that quite a few months passed since Geoffrey Miller made his rant about secret meetings between educated scientists

In private, though, the more thoughtful GWAS researchers are troubled. They hold small, discreet conferences on the “missing heritability” problem: if all these human traits are heritable, why are GWAS studies failing so often? The DNA chips should already have identified some important genes behind physical and mental health. They simply have not been delivering the goods.

genetic claims about mental differences between “populations”

We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose.

And even musings about the social/political implications of such racist findings

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals.

My favourite is the claim that there are genetic economic advantages between countries/regions. For a wild-ass hypothetical, this claim is quite universally brought up and pondered.

The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

[Smeghead]

I can tell you that GWASs have proven to be extremely finicky. I have a paper in my office that discussed major problems with reproducibility and lack of proper controls in many studies. Very small perturbations in the culture conditions can lead to strong false positives. My impression of the general opinion is that nobody’s ready to give up on them, but they need to be done with much more care than has sometimes been taken in the past for them to be of real value.

[BrainGlutton]

Be patient! The crisis will come! But I can’t promise anything sooner than December . . . Look, gene-engineering a clone army takes time! (Poll: Cobra genes for poisonous bite – sensible feature, or overengineering?)

[Rand_Rover]

@Happy_Poster

This.

It’s not a forecast in the sense the OP seems to think.

It’s just a fun thing The Economist have been doing for almost a quarter of a century now.

Orcenio, you seem to have forgotten to respond to this. The “prediction” wasn’t a prediction.

[The_Hamster_King]

If the studies conclusively establish that genetically Africans are smarter than the rest of the planet, how will we respond to that information?

[orcenio]

@Rand_Rover

Orcenio, you seem to have forgotten to respond to this. The “prediction” wasn’t a prediction.

Your link[

The World in 2010 is the 24th edition of The Economist’s annual collection of predictions for the year ahead—with views from journalists, politicians and business people.

](The World Ahead 2022 | The Economist)Direct quote from the text

Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

How many times do I need to quote this?

[Rand_Rover]

1. It’s not “my link.” Someone else posted it.

2. You still haven’t addressed the main issue. The article you keep quoting is just part of a predictions section of a magazine. The people that are doing race/IQ studies didn’t say anything about revealing something startling in 2010. So, the only people you should be pitting (which is where this thread belongs) are the editors of the Economist, not the “resident racialists” of the SDMB. If any particular “resident racialist” said that startling results would come out in 2010, then you should be pitting that individual, not everyone who doesn’t automatically dismiss the race/IQ studies.

[TriPolar]

Maybe we missed the announcement. The ‘lame-stream’ media never covered that Mosque at Ground Zero thing either.

[orcenio]

@Rand_Rover

1. It’s not “my link.” Someone else posted it.

Then perhaps you should have read it before quoting him? or did you read it, but ignore the opening sentence?

2. You still haven’t addressed the main issue.

I wrote the friggin OP; what is this “other” main issue that I have seemingly missed?

The article you keep quoting is just part of a predictions section of a magazine.

Yes, it is; isn’t it.

The people that are doing race/IQ studies didn’t say anything about revealing something startling in 2010.

No, they haven’t; haven’t they.

So, the only people you should be pitting (which is where this thread belongs) are the editors of the Economist, not the “resident racialists” of the SDMB.

That is just faulty logic.

1. “Race realists” are always pit worthy subjects.

2. This specific thread is about another 6 month old thread, the article that started it, and the idiotic lengths “race realists” went/go to defend this unsupported belief. So I ask again, when’s this looming crisis gonna start? I’m still friggin waiting…

If any particular “resident racialist” said that startling results would come out in 2010, then you should be pitting that individual, not everyone who doesn’t automatically dismiss the race/IQ studies.

Like I wrote before, race realists are always pit worthy.

[orcenio]

Yo! If anybody wants to go ahead and start pitting some race realists, be sure to call me and let me in on that action.

[Rand_Rover]

orcenio, I’m curious about something. What do you think about anthropogenic global warming?