5 ms·

One actual researcher mentioned good habits will get anyone into their 80's but everyone tested over 105 has most of 100 certain genes. Really old age may be g

by sammyo 2y ago

One actual researcher mentioned good habits will get anyone into their 80's but everyone tested over 105 has most of 100 certain genes. Really old age may be genetic.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
busterarm 2y ago
No researcher will actually make this argument though because they'll immediately be called a eugenicist.
- jraph 2y ago
  Why? It's not making an argument, it's describing. And describing is not taking action. [edit] about describing truth or evidences: we need that. Of course it all depends on how you present the truth, whether you are actually doing pseudoscience or not, whether you are manipulating concepts that are actually scientific or not, and whether you are conflating correlation with causation or not.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    Are you familiar with the controversy around a book titled "The Bell Curve"? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
    - jraph 2y ago
      No, but there's a title "Lack of peer review" in your link. This doesn't look like science. There a lot of pseudoscience around IQ too, probably starting with the very concept of IQ for measuring "intelligence" (for which we would need a strong definition anyway)
      - joenot443 2y ago
        There are plenty of very real issues with Murray and The Bell Curve, but to say IQ is pseudoscience is a ridiculous claim.
        jraph 2y ago
        > to say IQ is pseudoscience is a ridiculous claim Is this claim really ridiculous? A quick search yields convincing results that hints at scientists questioning the concept: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.h... "Scientists debunk the IQ myth: Notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient by singular, standardized test is highly misleading" - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund... "IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds" There are many things wrong with how IQ is tested, and even how the whole notion was born. (note that between my comment and yours, I had edited that sentence a bit, it's not worded as strongly now - this is because I don't doubt much that IQ was scientifically researched, so saying IQ is pseudoscience may indeed a bit far-fetched, but I still think the whole notion is quite broken)
        busterarm 2y ago
        IQ tests are not and have never been intended to measure intelligence. They're intended to be a measure of potential. The fact that those articles got it wrong from the basic definitions should indicate there is a problem with the interpretation. If you look at the actual first study link, for example, it doesn't debunk IQ but highlights logistical problems of pen & paper testing and sample size. What they then do is present an alternative measurement based on brain scans. They also do this intentionally to avoid controversial questions of heritability, race and gender that people associate with IQ measurement, as laid out by their introduction.
        jraph 2y ago
    - fatbird 2y ago
      The Bell Curve wasn't simply descriptive. It contained "policy implications based on these purported connections [between IQ and race]." It opened by saying that if you want to hire good employees, you should hire by IQ... and then connected IQ to race, implying that racial discrimination is justified. On examination, many of the sources were directly tied to white supremacist organizations. The Bell Curve is a singularly poor example of a scientific description of the status quo attracting unfair attacks.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Researchers don’t care about that. We’ve already got IVF with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. So far it’s mostly used for eliminating genetic disorders like fragile-X but there’s nothing stopping parents from trying to select for other attributes except having enough money to pay for it and finding the right doctor. Though realistically the most you can really do now is avoid genetic disorders and select the sex of the baby. That ship has sailed.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Lol, you're telling me. I literally worked with one of the pioneers of human germline gene modification with IVF. Oh, that sweet, sweet DARPA money. I miss that paycheck. I can assure you he had (and still has) a small contingent of protesters at all of his speaking engagements and a number of conspiracy theorists online who think that he is literally the devil. Only academic types even really know that he exists, so these protests are from the research community. There's even univeristy-published research comparing him, by name, to the Nazis. /s used to write quality control software for IVF labs.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    >Researchers don’t care about that Haven't been around a lot on planet earth, have you? I can excuse you.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  From a quick web search - "nature vs. nurture" seems to be safe for discussion, on traits far more sensitive than "could you live to 85, or to 105?".
- malfist 2y ago
  Clearly a researcher has made that argument or GP wouldn't be talking about it.
derbOac 2y ago
I do aging genetics research and in fact that's the opposite of my impression so far. Not trying to be contrary, I'm sympathetic to that idea, but most of what I've seen suggests idiosyncratic environmental effects become more prominent as you age, even into late age. Those random fatal events, cumulative exposures, random nucleotide flips, and so forth, all add up more with time. I suspect aside from lifestyle changes and drugs targeting those affected pathways, gene and "epigene" editing is the thing that will result in longer lifespans. But genetic and epigenetic editing targeting random accumulated mutations with age, not necessarily those at birth. The phenomenon in the linked piece is important because it throws a monkey wrench into a lot of stuff. I'm skeptical of biological measures of aging because of the widespread idea that people can be biologically older or younger than chronological age. I think it's going to take some large population with good, verifiable, maintained records at birth, which will take some time to establish.
- theptip 2y ago
  Any review papers or pop-sci writeups you like on potential approaches for in vivo epigene editing?

by sammyo 2y ago

One actual researcher mentioned good habits will get anyone into their 80's but everyone tested over 105 has most of 100 certain genes. Really old age may be genetic.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

busterarm 2y ago

No researcher will actually make this argument though because they'll immediately be called a eugenicist.

jraph 2y ago
Why? It's not making an argument, it's describing. And describing is not taking action. [edit] about describing truth or evidences: we need that. Of course it all depends on how you present the truth, whether you are actually doing pseudoscience or not, whether you are manipulating concepts that are actually scientific or not, and whether you are conflating correlation with causation or not.
- busterarm 2y ago
  [flagged]
- david-gpu 2y ago
  Are you familiar with the controversy around a book titled "The Bell Curve"? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
  - jraph 2y ago
    No, but there's a title "Lack of peer review" in your link. This doesn't look like science. There a lot of pseudoscience around IQ too, probably starting with the very concept of IQ for measuring "intelligence" (for which we would need a strong definition anyway)
    - joenot443 2y ago
      There are plenty of very real issues with Murray and The Bell Curve, but to say IQ is pseudoscience is a ridiculous claim.
      - jraph 2y ago
        > to say IQ is pseudoscience is a ridiculous claim Is this claim really ridiculous? A quick search yields convincing results that hints at scientists questioning the concept: - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.h... "Scientists debunk the IQ myth: Notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient by singular, standardized test is highly misleading" - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fund... "IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds" There are many things wrong with how IQ is tested, and even how the whole notion was born. (note that between my comment and yours, I had edited that sentence a bit, it's not worded as strongly now - this is because I don't doubt much that IQ was scientifically researched, so saying IQ is pseudoscience may indeed a bit far-fetched, but I still think the whole notion is quite broken)
        busterarm 2y ago
        IQ tests are not and have never been intended to measure intelligence. They're intended to be a measure of potential. The fact that those articles got it wrong from the basic definitions should indicate there is a problem with the interpretation. If you look at the actual first study link, for example, it doesn't debunk IQ but highlights logistical problems of pen & paper testing and sample size. What they then do is present an alternative measurement based on brain scans. They also do this intentionally to avoid controversial questions of heritability, race and gender that people associate with IQ measurement, as laid out by their introduction.
        jraph 2y ago
  - fatbird 2y ago
    The Bell Curve wasn't simply descriptive. It contained "policy implications based on these purported connections [between IQ and race]." It opened by saying that if you want to hire good employees, you should hire by IQ... and then connected IQ to race, implying that racial discrimination is justified. On examination, many of the sources were directly tied to white supremacist organizations. The Bell Curve is a singularly poor example of a scientific description of the status quo attracting unfair attacks.
throwup238 2y ago
Researchers don’t care about that. We’ve already got IVF with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. So far it’s mostly used for eliminating genetic disorders like fragile-X but there’s nothing stopping parents from trying to select for other attributes except having enough money to pay for it and finding the right doctor. Though realistically the most you can really do now is avoid genetic disorders and select the sex of the baby. That ship has sailed.
- busterarm 2y ago
  Lol, you're telling me. I literally worked with one of the pioneers of human germline gene modification with IVF. Oh, that sweet, sweet DARPA money. I miss that paycheck. I can assure you he had (and still has) a small contingent of protesters at all of his speaking engagements and a number of conspiracy theorists online who think that he is literally the devil. Only academic types even really know that he exists, so these protests are from the research community. There's even univeristy-published research comparing him, by name, to the Nazis. /s used to write quality control software for IVF labs.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Researchers don’t care about that Haven't been around a lot on planet earth, have you? I can excuse you.
bell-cot 2y ago
From a quick web search - "nature vs. nurture" seems to be safe for discussion, on traits far more sensitive than "could you live to 85, or to 105?".
malfist 2y ago
Clearly a researcher has made that argument or GP wouldn't be talking about it.

derbOac 2y ago

I do aging genetics research and in fact that's the opposite of my impression so far. Not trying to be contrary, I'm sympathetic to that idea, but most of what I've seen suggests idiosyncratic environmental effects become more prominent as you age, even into late age. Those random fatal events, cumulative exposures, random nucleotide flips, and so forth, all add up more with time. I suspect aside from lifestyle changes and drugs targeting those affected pathways, gene and "epigene" editing is the thing that will result in longer lifespans. But genetic and epigenetic editing targeting random accumulated mutations with age, not necessarily those at birth. The phenomenon in the linked piece is important because it throws a monkey wrench into a lot of stuff. I'm skeptical of biological measures of aging because of the widespread idea that people can be biologically older or younger than chronological age. I think it's going to take some large population with good, verifiable, maintained records at birth, which will take some time to establish.

theptip 2y ago
Any review papers or pop-sci writeups you like on potential approaches for in vivo epigene editing?