2006 August 27 Sunday
British Footballers Storing Baby Stem Cells For Injuries

You know some technological trend is arriving when popular sports stars and celebrities embrace it. Human umbilical cord stem cell banking is hitting the mainstream. English football (soccer) players are putting the cord blood stem cells of their babies in a cord stem cell bank.

PREMIERSHIP footballers are storing stem cells from their newborn babies as a potential future treatment for their own career-threatening sports injuries.

They are freezing the cells taken from the umbilical cord blood of their babies as a possible future cure for cartilage and ligament problems. Stem cells can be used to regenerate damaged organs and tissue because they are the earliest form of cells.

The article states that some of the footballers are storing their babies cord blood for the benefit of the babies. But I suspect their own high risk of injuries has made them a lot more aware of the idea of using stem cells to do repairs.

Britain, like America, has multiple umbilical cord stem cell banks. My advice if you want to use one: Make sure its financing ensures it will stick around for a decade or longer.

He is one of five professional footballers who have frozen their children’s stem cells with Liverpool-based CryoGenesis International (CGI), one of about seven commercial stem cell “banks” in Britain.

In the past five years more than 11,000 British parents have paid up to £1,500 to store their babies’ stem cells in the banks in order to grow tissue, should their children become ill.

These athletes may never benefit from the cord stem cells. Cord stem cells can be used for some childhood blood diseases and immune diseases. But the cells aren't yet usable in humans for most of the injuries they are likely to suffer.

Be prepared to spend some money. CGI's standard service of £1275 equals about $2,407.70 USD.

OPTION 1: STANDARD SERVICE - £1275

Send just £125 now for the collection kit and to cover transportation and administration costs.

The balance of £1150 becomes due after the sample has been processed and stored.

But you can save with option 2 by signing up online.

Umbilical cord stem cells have a number of advantages over adult stem cells.

Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants are less prone to rejection than either bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells. This is probably because the cells have not yet developed the features that can be recognized and attacked by the recipient's immune system. Also, because umbilical cord blood lacks well-developed immune cells, there is less chance that the transplanted cells will attack the recipient's body, a problem called graft versus host disease.

The umbilical cord stem cells are also younger and probably more vigorous and capable of more rapid and numerous cell division. Plus, the umbilical cord stem cells can probably become more cell types than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are even more flexible than umbilical cord stem cells.

Human umbilical cord stem cells used in rats after a heart attack reduced the amount of heart damage/

Tampa FL (Jan. 4, 2005) – Stem cells from umbilical cord blood effectively treated heart attacks in an animal study, report cardiologist Robert J. Henning, MD, and colleagues at the University of South Florida and James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital.

When injected into rats' hearts soon after a heart attack, stem cells taken from human umbilical cord blood (HUCB) greatly reduced the size of heart damage and restored pumping function to near normal. This improvement occurred without the need for drugs to prevent the rats' immune system from rejecting the human cells.

Maybe 5 or 10 years from now it'll be routine to inject umbilical cord stem cells into hearts after heart attacks.

Another study from September 2004 found that umbilical cord stem cells reduce the extent of stroke damage in an animal model by delivering neurotrophic factors that helped neurons in the damaged region to survive.

Stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood, then given intravenously along with a drug known to temporarily breach the brain's protective barrier, can dramatically reduce stroke size and damage, Medical College of Georgia and University of South Florida researchers say.

"What we found was interesting, phenomenal really," says Dr. Cesario V. Borlongan, neuroscientist and lead author of the study published in the October issue of the American Heart Association journal, Stroke.

Researchers first gave the drug, mannitol, to provide temporary passage through the blood-brain barrier then transfused human umbilical cord blood cells into a stroke animal model. When used in the first hours and days following a stroke, stroke size decreased by 40 percent and resulting disability was significantly reduced.

...

The Stroke paper also explored how stem cells provide neuroprotection. The researchers speculated it was by providing the large influx of nourishing neurotrophic factors secreted by the stem cells. To test that theory, they looked at what happened when they used antibodies that negated some of the factors. "When we blocked the neurotrophic factors, it blocked the positive effect," Dr. Borlongan says.

Neurotrophic factors such as Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), nerve growth factor (NGF), and neurotrophin three (NT-3) help neurons stay alive and encourage neural stem cells to divide. Stem cells that deliver these factors could plausibly help prevent neurons from committing suicide when they are damaged from a stroke - or from a trauma experienced on a football field.

Is it worth it to bank your baby's umbilical cord stem cells? Hard to say. Umbilical cord stem cells will become useful for a much larger range of illnesses and disorders in the future. But the same will happen with other kinds of stem cells. Umbilical cord stem cells will get more government research funding than embryonic stem cells. So for that reason they have better prospects. But methods will surely be found to make adult stem cells and adult differentiated stem cells more flexible, youthful, and useful. By the time you need stem cell treatments you might have multiple choices. On the other hand, maybe your baby will need a treatment 15 years from now and umbilical cord stem might be their best choice at that time.

By Randall Parker    2006 August 27 08:35 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 0 )
2006 March 23 Thursday
More Single Women Using Sperm Donors

Writing for New York Times Magazine Jennifer Egan covers the increasing use of sperm donors by single women.

Karyn said she hoped to join a population of women that everyone agrees is expanding, although by how much is hard to pin down because single mothers by choice (or choice mothers), as they are sometimes called, aren't separated statistically from, say, babies born to unwed teenagers. Between 1999 and 2003 there was an almost 17 percent jump in the number of babies born to unmarried women between ages 30 and 44 in America, according to the National Center for Human Statistics, while the number born to unmarried women between 15 and 24 actually decreased by nearly 6 percent. Single Mothers by Choice, a 25-year-old support group, took in nearly double the number of new members in 2005 as it did 10 years ago, and its roughly 4,000 current members include women in Israel, Australia and Switzerland. The California Cryobank, the largest sperm bank in the country, owed a third of its business to single women in 2005, shipping them 9,600 vials of sperm, each good for one insemination.

As recently as the early 60's, a "respectable" woman needed to be married just to have sex, not to speak of children; a child born out of wedlock was a source of deepest shame. Yet this radical social change feels strangely inevitable; nearly a third of American households are headed by women alone, many of whom not only raise their children on their own but also support them. All that remains is conception, and it is small wonder that women have begun chipping away at needing a man for that - especially after Sylvia Ann Hewlett's controversial 2002 book, "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children," sounded alarms about declining fertility rates in women over 35. The Internet is also a factor; as well as holding meetings through local chapters around the country, Single Mothers by Choice hosts 11 Listservs, each addressing a different aspect of single motherhood. Women around the world pore over these lists, exchanging tips and information, selling one another leftover vials of sperm. (Once sperm has shipped, it can't be returned to the bank.) Karyn found both her sperm bank and reproductive endocrinologist on these Listservs. Three-quarters of the members of Single Mothers by Choice choose to conceive with donor sperm, as lesbian couples have been doing for many years - adoption is costly, slow-moving and often biased against single people. Buying sperm over the Internet, on the other hand, is not much different from buying shoes.

Even if these single women had managed to find a suitable man to marry them some women would have ended up as single moms anyway.

Discussion of single motherhood nearly always leads to talk of divorce. More than a third of American marriages end that way; often there are children involved, and often the mothers end up caring for those children mostly on their own, saddled with ex-spouses, custody wrangles and nagging in-laws. Considered this way, single motherhood would seem to have a clean, almost thrilling logic - more than a third of the time, these women will have circumvented a lot of pain and unpleasantness and cut straight to being mothers on their own.

Anyway, who wants all that hard work and compromise involved in being married?

While nearly every woman I spoke with had her own history of romantic near misses and crushing disappointments, most also saw advantages to proceeding on their own. "This baby will be my baby, only my baby," Karyn told me that night at Caliente Cab. "The thing I'm afraid of is that after doing this, I might not want to get married. It seems like a lot of hard work, a lot of compromise. Someone ends up short, and usually it's the mom, because by the time you get to the child and your husband and the dog, there's not much left."

Women want men with higher status. But there's a limited number of chiefs to go around and a lot of men up stuck being indians. Not every man is bright, funny, sexy, and successful. Not all the men who are want all the compromise and hard work involved in being married either.

So what still holds back many single women from having children on their own? The desire for security - financial and otherwise, the desire for a man to help out with all the work of raising children, religious beliefs, and fear of disapproval from friends, family, and co-workers.

The single mother route is a tough road to travel.

The fact that Shelby is in a relationship at all is unusual; the majority of mothers I spoke with - even those with older children - had remained single. Many expressed a willingness to date if the opportunity were to come along, but they work long hours to support their kids, and when they're not working, they want to see them. For all the comparisons between being divorced with children and having them alone, there are critical differences: an ex-husband who spends any time at all with his kids frees up pockets of time when a woman could potentially see someone new. Even minimal child-support payments would reduce the financial burden on her, and substantial ones could allow her to work less. Perhaps most important, a child with only one parent is immensely dependent on that parent, and the mother of such a child tends to feel her responsibility acutely. It can be painful - and expensive - to leave your child with a baby sitter after a whole day away, just to go out on a date.

I see a few ways that advances in biotechnology will lead more single women without good mate prospects to choose donor sperm:

  • Women will be able to reduce the risks of bad pregnancy outcomes by use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) testing and other reproductive biotechnology.
  • Advances in reproductive biotechnology (e.g. cell manipulations to make more youthful eggs from a woman's adult cells) will reduce infertility in women in their 30s and 40s. So more women will have the time to build up careers and wealth that will give them the resources to raise children on their own.
  • Costs of reproductive technologies will fall.
  • The development of much cheaper whole genome DNA testing and DNA sequencing technology will provide women with much greater insight into the relative advantages of different sperm donors. For example, by comparing her own DNA and those of tens or hundreds of thousands of sperm donors a woman will be able to get odds on what range of IQ her kid would have with each sperm donor or the odds for green eyes or excellent motor coordination or low risk of asthma.

I figure if risks of bad outcomes can be lowered, women can have babies later in life after achieving greater financial security, costs drop, and women can make far more informed choices among sperm donors then a single woman in her 30s or 40s or even 50s will be alot more likely to have children on her own.

As I've stated here many times previously: most women will have better DNA choices from donor sperm than from the best man each can manage to find to marry (if they can even find a suitable man to marry - and many can't). Cheap DNA sequencing will highlight what is already the case now and make the differences in quality a lot more transparent. This transparency will increase the number of women who choose donor sperm over mate sperm. The transparency about sperm DNA will also increase the willingness of women who can't find a mate to go it alone.

Also see my previous post "Personal genetic profiles and the mating dance".

Thanks to Rob for the tip.

By Randall Parker    2006 March 23 07:02 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 23 )
2004 November 29 Monday
Genetic Testing Will Remove Mystery About Human Potential

On the Gene Expression blog Canton points to an Australian firm, Genetics Technologies, that is offering a genetic test for potential athletic performance.

The test examines a gene known as ACTN3, which produces a structural protein found in fast-twitch muscle fibres. Research involving elite-level athletes from the Australian Institute of Sport has shown that the different forms (“variations”) of the ACTN3 gene may be associated with an improved ability to excel in either sprint/power events, or in endurance events. So whether you’re an athlete, or young athlete-to-be, the ACTN3 Sports Performance Test will help direct you toward achieving your maximum natural potential.

This test does not discriminate good athletes from bad athletes. ACTN3 Sports Performance Testing is designed to assist athletes with identifying the type of events, distances or sports in which success is more likely. The association of different genetic variants with power / sprint versus endurance events appears to apply in a wide range of sports, including track and field, swimming, cycling, rowing, judo, etc. Testing may also assist athletes in tailoring their training for optimal performance within their sport of choice.

The cost for this test is $110 Australian which is about $87 US. This test does not measure all the factors that go into determining potential for all types of athletic performance. Most of the genetic contributors to athletic performance still await discover. Rather, this test measures just one gene that affects the performance of fast-twitch muscle fibers. It will take the identification of probably thousands of more genetic alleles that influence athletic performance before genetic testing will achieve its full potential to predict individual athletic performance limits.

Canton objects to the test for potentially robbing people of the motivation to rise above their genetic limitations.

But what, exactly, are they offering you that can't be determined without this miracle of modern technology? A fundamental part of living life is figuring out your aptitudes. Being guided by statistics towards one sport or another doesn't save you time -- it just robs you of the opportunity to beat the statistics and be a marathon runner who has an abundance of fast-twitch muscle fibers.

But step back a bit and look at it from the perspective of those who have the ideal genetic variations for, say, sprinting. As a result of widespread genetic testing someone with less than optimal genetic variations for sprinting is going to have a harder time competing successfully even if that person never gets tested and has no idea what their genetic potential is. Why? Genetic testing is going to make it easier to find more people who have great genetic potential for a sport so that they can be steered toward that sport. As a result genetic testing will make it difficult for those with less than ideal genetic variants for a sport to compete in that sport.

I realize many people love to see someone prevail over daunting obstacles and tough odds. But the identification of all the genetic variations that contribute to athletic performance in combination with mass genetic testing is going to lead the identification and encouragement of large numbers of people who now are never trying seriously to perform in sports. Therefore people best suited for a sport will enter it in far greater numbers and those who now face tough but occasionally surmountable odds will face impossible odds.

What I said doesn't just hold for sports. Surely there are genetic variations that influence ability to excel in opera singing, ballet dancing, musical composition, musical performance, writing, engineering, and a great many other pursuits. It even seems very probable that there are genetic variations for the ideal special forces soldiers not only for athletic performance but also for handling extreme physical and mental stress. The identification of those genetic variations that contribute to many types of human performance will lead to genetic aptitude tests that will be used in combination with biotechnological instruments (e.g. scanning devices such as MRIs and CAT scanners) of how a person physically developed to provide a much more accurate picture of that person's performance potential. These tests will constituent what will be, in effect, biological aptitude tests. in combination with existing conventional aptitude tests these tests will steer people with specific types of greater potential more accurately toward the fields of human endeavour for which they have natural gifts.

Of course the identification of genetic variations that affect athletic performance will provide starting points for the development of drugs, gene therapies, cell therapies, and other treatments that will boost athletic performance and raise the potential for individual humans to achieve in a large range of areas. So just as we become more able to predict our potential we will be able to raise our potential as well. These biotechnogically raised levels of performance will also be to known limits, albeit higher limits. So there will be less mystery about our individual potential regardless of whether we decide to enhance ourselves.

By Randall Parker    2004 November 29 01:18 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 6 )
2004 July 25 Sunday
Eugenics Debated In Germany

Eugenics is considered in many circles to be morally repugnant. Among Germany's political elites this attitude is especially prevalent as a reaction to Nazi killings and sterilizations which were motivated in part by ridiculous Nazi genetic theories (though a ruthless tribalistic view of the other was a powerful motivation as well). As a reaction to Nazi era practices pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) of defects in babies conceived in test tubes is against the law in Germany even though it is legal in almost all other Western countries. In spite of elite views most Germans favor the practice of PIGD to avoid defects in offspring.

The procedure, called pre-implantation genetic diagnostics (PGD), is forbidden in Germany but has been used in fertility clinics elsewhere since its invention in 1989.

The latest firestorm erupted last month at a Berlin conference on human reproduction, when researchers released a survey indicating that 4 in 5 Germans approve of PGD to prevent genetic diseases.

...

The findings seem to fly in the face of the consensus among politicians. A parliamentary commission reexamined the legality of PGD in 2002 - and unanimously decided to keep PGD strictly forbidden.

Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnostics (also sometimes abbreviated PIGD) is legal and used in most Western countries. Therefore it can be argued that eugenics is already being widely practiced with little opposition by many people who are using in vitro fertilization to start pregnancies. Also, the genetic testing of couples before conception in order to provide advice about risks of having a baby amounts to eugenics as well. The use of knowledge of genetics of prospective parents or embryos to decide whether to proceed with a pregnancy is eugenics. Eugenics is not defined as something only governments carry out. Whether individuals use genetic technology to alter genetics of offspring or governments mandate the use of technology for eugenic purposes either way the use of genetic knowledge to alter reproductive outcomes is a form of eugenics.

I expect to see the practice of eugenics to become more widespread as the cost of genetic testing drops, as the expanding body of genetic research allows us to derive increasing numbers of useful insights from genetic tests, and as it becomes possible to do gene therapy on eggs, sperm, and embryos. While most eugenic decisions in the West will be left to individuals I also expect to see laws passed to discourage or even to forbid the passing along of certain genetic variations - and not just variations that cause what are widely held to be defects. For instance, when genetic variations that make a person very likely to be highly violent are identified then I expect most people to eventually favor the outlawing of knowingly passing along those genetic variations to future generations.

As eugenics becomes something that larger numbers of individuals can practice for their own benefit the stigma associated with the term eugenics is going to fade. As it becomes possible for individuals and couples to make more decisions about the genetic make-up of their offspring it is going to become necessary to remove the general taboo associated with the term eugenics so that the costs and benefits to society as a whole for particular genetic variations can be debated. Some parents will inevitably select genetic variations that make their children more problematic for the rest of us (for example, by reducing the impulse to carry out altruistic punishment). Since I think it unlikely that most governments will ban eugenics entirely we will need to come up with criteria for which genetic variations are allowable.

By Randall Parker    2004 July 25 10:39 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 9 )
2004 January 16 Friday
Will Eternal Youthfulness Lead To Less Ambition?

In a post entitled "Would potential immortals be risk-averse?" Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution also explores the question of whether long-lived people will be less ambitious.

A related question is whether immortals would be less ambitious, since they might always feel they could accomplish their goals in a more distant future. As long as we are citing fiction, I recall seeing a television show about immortal beings. They were content to remain homeless and spent most of their time sitting around a campfire and talking. They accumulated few possessions. They never feared such a course of action would lead to death, and they always held the option of trying to do more.

In my own post on this topic "Will Longer Lives Make People More Risk Averse?" I explored the question of whether the development of medical treatments that will offer eternal youthfulness will cause people to become extremely risk averse. Aubrey de Grey thinks people will go so far as to stop flying in airplanes and even stop driving cars. I don't think this will happen for reasons very similar to why young people do dangerous things even though they have many decades to live: a lot of people are bored and want to get their kicks. Many (though by no means all) people are biologically wired to be strongly motivated to desire experience of intense and dangerous thrills. Plus, human brains are not wired to accurately measure risks and therefore some people are bound to do things that are more dangerous than they believe to be the case.

One factor tends to argue against the idea that eternal youthfulness will lead to low ambition: A young mind and body is an energetic mind and body. An energetic mind and body will find ambitious undertakings much easier to perform. If something feels like it takes less effort to accomplish it then people are more likely to try to accomplish it. My guess is that youthfulness will increase accomplishment by making work seem more effortless. My further guess is that this feeling of effortlessness will outweigh the effect that will come as the prospect of a long life removes the sense of urgency for the need to ccomplish things before getting too old. So the possibility exists that external measures of ambition will rise even as internal feelings of ambition decline. People might actually end up feeling less ambitious even as they accomplish more due to the ease with which they will be able to exert themselves.

Whether future eternally youthful people will become less ambitious also depends on the answer to the same question I raised about eternal youthfulness and risk aversion: What kinds of personalities will people choose to give themselves once they are able to make enduring changes to their personalities? People could choose to give themselves hard driving highly motivated and goai-oriented personalities. In that case, people might use multi-thousand year lifespans to carry out plans that take hundreds or thousands of years to execute. Or they might just keep going around and finding new goals to achieve that take less time to accomplish.

The bigger question I have about personality engineering is this: Are there personality types which people are less likely to change away from and therefore will people who periodically change their personalities eventually end up at one of the personality types that people tend to not want to switch away from? One might imagine each personality as having something akin to an energy state. The lower the energy state the less the likelihood that a person, once in that state, would ever decide to leave it. Perhaps once it becomes very easy to change personality types the human race will gradually distribute out into the "low energy state" personality types. There may be radically different personality types which each cause the people who think as those types to totally lack the desire to become another type. So humanity might end up dividing up into those types, whatever those types might be.

By Randall Parker    2004 January 16 12:49 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 13 )
2003 November 20 Thursday
Donald Kennedy: Brain Scan Privacy Should Be Protected

Donald Kennedy, editor of the journal Science, calls for brain scans to be given privacy protections equal to DNA sequences.

America recently passed legislation preventing businesses from obtaining customers' DNA amid fears they could use it to discriminate against those deemed more risky. In Britain a moratorium is in place to prevent companies from accessing customers' genetic material.

Prof Kennedy told the Guardian: "There's a push to prevent genetic information being used by companies for adverse selection, and at least equal protection should be given to brain scan data."

What makes brain scans seem special is that scanning techniques may eventually provide insights into personality type, behavioral tendencies, and, when conducted in concert with appropriate environmental stimuli, they might even eventually provide insights into beliefs and memories. For instance, brain scans might eventually be usable as part of a better lie detector test. The desire to keep one's own thoughts secret is certainly a reason to place some sort of restrictions on what insurance companies can get access to. But most brain scans are made for more mundane purposes that make them little different than scans done in other parts of the body: to discover tumors, clots, leaks in arteries, and other medical problems. A blanket ban on insurance company access to brain scans is no more or less justifed than a blanket ban on insurance company access to chest scans.

Can all that much about a person's thoughts be divined from a brain scan? Razib of Gene Expression has pointed to a pretty good response to the recent report about being able to detect racism with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) brain scans. In that response Carl Zimmer says that there is a lot of subjective judgement involved in interpreting brain scans and we should take such reports with a grain of salt. In time more rigorous brain scan studies linking scan results to beliefs and feelings will be done with appropriate double blind controls and larger groups of patients even as brain scanning machines become more sensitive, accurate, and cheaper to operate and interpret. The ability to use fMRI brain scans to learn more about a person's thoughts will no doubt improve with time. But is that one single application of brain scan information a reason to single out brain scan results to restrict insurance company access to those results? Couldn't insurance companies just be banned from accessing brain scan tests that are done to study beliefs and feelings?

Is there anything about brain scan results that make them in some way more logically equivalent DNA sequence information as far as insurance companies are concerned? Remember that the big problem with DNA tests is that they will eventually provide a great deal of insight about the long term risks that each person has for various diseases. Brain scans may eventually do that if they can, for instance, detect the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease decades before disease symptoms become noticable. But the same may turn out to be true of blood tests that may eventually be able to predict Alzheimer's risks and other neurological disease risks decades in advance.

The early detection of neurological diseases is part of a larger trend that is resulting from the broad advance of medical testing in general. Look at how cholesterol tests have become increasingly more refined as a single number for blood cholesterol has been broken down in the HDL, LDL, and other components and now even subtypes of HDL are being discovered while other potential risk factors such as C Reactive Protein (CRP) are being investigated. Also, scans to detect plaque build-up and artery and heart abnormalities have steadily become more accurate and useful. The sensitivity of a broad range of biological tests is going to continue to advance to make it increasingly easier to detect a large variety of diseases and disease risk factors at progressively earlier stages.

At first glance, what might seem to make DNA tests different than other types of tests - including brain scans - is that DNA tests will be able to provide an assessment of many health risks before any sort of disease process has even begun. For instance, a female baby at birth will be able to be scored for breast cancer risk before the baby has even gone thru puberty to grow breasts that can become cancerous in the first place. But DNA sequence tests are not unique in their ability to detect disease risks decades before diseases develop. For instance, there are events that happen during development that cause variations in outcomes by changing epigenetic programming in various parts of the body. Epigenetic information tests will also eventually become available. One way to respond to this is for genetic testing privacy laws could be extended to encompass epigenetic testing results as well.

But other ways to detect differences in developmental outcomes will also be developed. For instance, advanced imaging techniques may be able to measure the relative sizes and details of the shapes and activity of glands and organs. From those scans it may be possible to calculate risks for glandular disorders and organ disorders. Imaging and other sensing techniques may be able to detect heart problems decades before they become life-threatening. There does not appear to be a clear dividing line between health risks detected well in advance of disease using genetic testing and risks detected in advance using other kinds of tests.

The problem posed by advances in medical testing for insurance is not limited to DNA testing or even DNA testing plus brain scans. Costs of tests will fall, newer and less onerous tests will be introduced, and existing tests will become more sensitive even as more sophisticated and automated methods will be developed to analyse test results and use them to more accurately predict the development of future health problems. People will therefore discover more health risks at much earlier stages of their lives. This will cause those at greater risk of diseases to seek more medical insurance while those at less risk will buy less insurance. Bans on insurance company access to medical test results will not prevent this problem from developing because the high risk buyers of insurance will buy more while low risk buyers buy less. Insurance companies will have fewer healthy customers and more unhealthy customers.

Update: There is an important and beneficial way that early disease risk identification can actually improve the workings of the medical insurance market: If insurance companies are allowed to know as much about the health risks of insurance applicants as insurance applicants know about themselves then insurance companies will eventually offer policies contingent upon the applicants getting certain treatments in advance or continually in order to maintain coverage. Look at elevated cholesterol for example. It would make some sense for an insurance company to require a 50 year old with elevated cholesterol to take Lipitor and/or to go on a cholesterol lowering diet to lower cholesterol below some target point as a condition of coverage. One can even imagine a sliding scale of premiums based on cholesterol test results.

As more health risks become identifiable at early stages and as more treatments are developed to reduce specific risks the incentive for the insurance companies is going to be to require treatments as a condition of coverage. The insurance companies may require that the applicant pay for the risk-reducing treatments. Some treatments, such as cholesterol lowering drugs, may need to be taken continually for years. But in the future real "fix it" treatments will become available. For instance, a more permanent way to fix elevated cholesterol problems will be to do gene therapy to the liver so that it produces different quantities of the precursor lipoproteins that form parts of various types of blood cholesterol molecules. Basically, change the DNA programming of a liver for a high risk person to make it function more like the liver for a very low risk person.

This approach of providing incentives for risk reduction could be expanded in all sorts of ways. For instance, as various forms of medical tests become cheaper and easier to do imagine periodic testing to measure how well each person is nourished and how much stress a person is under. A person pursuing a lifestyle that causes less wear and tear on the body ought to be able to pay lower insurance premiums than a person who chooses a diet and lives under conditions that pose greater health risks.

This approach of pricing more accurately to risks has obvious precedents in other insurance markets where, for instance, insurance companies offer lower rates if fire detection and fire fighting equipment is installed and where structures are inspected and modified to be less likely to catch fire in the first place.

Update: A few recent reports illustrate how medical testing advances will allow progressively earlier identification of diseases and disease risks. First off MRI brain scans can identify those at risk of Alzheimer's Disease several years before clinical symptoms become identifiable.

Using a new technique to measure the volume of the brain, they were able to identify healthy individuals who would later develop memory impairment, a symptom associated with a high risk for future Alzheimer's disease. The study is published in the December issue of the journal Radiology.

In the small study, led by Henry Rusinek, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Radiology at NYU School of Medicine, the researchers used MRI scans and a computational formula to measure a region of the brain called the medial-temporal lobe over a period of two years. This area contains the hippocampus and the entorhinal cortex, key structures allied with learning and memory. The researchers found that each year, this region of the brain shrank considerably more in people who developed memory problems compared with people who didn't. The medial-temporal lobe holds about 30 cubic centimeters -- the equivalent of one-sixth of a cup -- of brain matter in each hemisphere of the brain.

"With our findings, we now know that the normal healthy brain undergoes a predictable shrinkage that can be used to help recognize Alzheimer's several years before clinical symptoms emerge," says Dr. Rusinek. "We believe this is the first MRI study to report these findings in healthy people, but it is only the first demonstration that extremely early diagnosis is possible, and the technique still requires additional work before it is ready for the clinic," he adds.

The technique was about 90 percent accurate, meaning that it correctly predicted cognitive decline in nine out of 10 people, and it also correctly identified 90 percent of those whose memories would remain normally for their age.

However, the study only involved 45 people; future studies need to ascertain whether the technique would be as accurate in a much larger pool of subjects. In addition, it remains to be shown whether other neurodegenerative diseases that affect the aging brain can also be accurately identified with this technique.

In another study blood pressure and C-reactive protein combine to more accurately predict stroke risk.

When levels of both blood pressure and C-reactive protein (CRP) were elevated, the risk of future heart attack and stroke increased as much as eight times, researchers report in the Nov. 25 issue of Circulation.

"What our study shows is that, at all levels of blood pressure, knowledge of CRP levels greatly improves our ability to predict which patients are at very high risk," said Dr. Paul Ridker, the director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and the senior author of the study.

In yet another study Duke University Medical Center researcher Jason Allen has found evidence suggesting that nitric oxide metabolite levels are inversely associated cardiovascular disease risks.

"First, it appears that a nitric oxide metabolite measured in the blood after exercise may discriminate between healthy patients and those with cardiovascular disease and is related with a physiological response of the artery diameter," Allen said. "Also, these biochemical and physiological markers can be positively influenced by exercise in patients who are at risk for cardiovascular disease."

The number of tests for health risks and the accuracy of the predictions made from test results will steadily increase. DNA sequence testing will be just one of many kinds of tests that will be used to more accurately predict health risks.

By Randall Parker    2003 November 20 01:01 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 0 )
2003 November 07 Friday
UN Debates Therapeutic, Reproductive Cloning Ban

The UN is worried about cloning.

While there is virtually universal support at the United Nations for a treaty banning human cloning, the international community is deeply divided over therapeutic cloning.

Scientists see it as a promising avenue in the battle against disease while anti-abortion activists and many Catholics see it as the taking of human lives

There is something almost classic about this debate where diplomats and the forces of international law are so assured they are tackling an important emerging issue while they ignore a real problem that has been developing for years. In particular, the UN is unified about the supposed threat of reproductive cloning while ignoring a change in reproduction practices that is a far greater threat to society in large part because it is already happening on a large scale. What change am I referring to? If you guessed sexual selection go to the front of the class. See, for instance: Girl Shortage Causes Wife Buying In India, Genetic Testing Changing South India Mating Practices, and Human Natural Selection In Taiwan to see just how rapidly this practice is spreading. There is an upside in that it will probably select for higher intelligence in offspring. But the downside will be societies with large numbers of sexually frustrated males and that could cause everything from internal unrest to wars. <

Aside: Europe has experienced quite the come down from their certainty that they were not torn by the sorts of divisions over abortion that characterise US politics. But along came more southern European members and suddenly they too face debates about abortion and therapeutic cloning that have people in Brussels unable to find a consensus on issues that provoke strong passions in opposing factions.

But what is even more interesting about all this? At the risk of seeming a bit esoteric: I the definition of "clone" is going to end up being very difficult to pin down in the long run. If cloning is defined by reference to the DNA sequence of a donor and if the prohibition is against a person having an exact duplicate made of himself or herself then what happens when someone decides to have an child who is made from a 2.0 improved version of their DNA sequence? After all, 20 years from now we will all know our personal DNA sequences and I can easily see someone deciding to make someone a whole lot like themself but without, say, the heartbreak of seborrhea, allergies, asthma, or a hairline that starts receding when they reach the age of 17. Many women will go for permanent blondness for their daughters. Just a couple of SNP changes and suddenly no need for peroxide. Allow your kid to look almost like you but be smarter, healthier, and better-looking. Make a child who will grow up to be an idealized image of what you always wanted to be.

You don't suppose those UN folks have considered this possibility do you? My guess is they haven't. Think about it. When it becomes possible to make small alterations in offspring DNA how many SNP alterations (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms or single letter DNA changes) should be required to be made in order to make an offspring not be an exact clone of yourself? I figure I needed to satisfy some high SNP difference requirement I'd opt for a whole bunch of silent mutation changes (changes in ways and in places that do not cause any functional changes - and there are just tons of those that can be done btw) that would not appreciably alter the result.

Bottom line: if the UN bans reproductive cloning expect people to carefully read the treaty language and then to "program around it".

Update: One other point about reproductive cloning: If a government or a cult made hundreds or thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of copies of the same person that would be a problem. But would single copy cloning of a person for progeny really create a substantial problem? It'd be like having more twins. But my guess is that by the time reproductive cloning can be done safely and cheaply the technology will have advanced to the point where the "version 2.0" approach of making clones better will be available and most cloners will opt for it. So most clones will not be identical. Expect them to be healthier, smarter, and better looking. Individual level cloning will not cause much of a problem. But cult or government-level cloning could pose problems.

The more substantial conflict is going to come over the question of what future generations should be like. Once all the genetic variations that influence cognitive function are identified battles and perhaps literally wars will be fought over the moral and empathetic characteristics and sensibilities of future generations.

By Randall Parker    2003 November 07 04:18 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 2 )
2003 October 21 Tuesday
Genetic Insurance Is Not A Solution To Genetic Testing Problems

Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution argues for genetic insurance instead of denying insurance companies the ability to use genetic test results in setting premium levels.

Genetic insurance is a better way of handling the problems brought on by genetic testing. Genetic insurance would pay out depending on the results of a genetic test. If you turn out to have a gene implying a higher risk of heart disease, for example, then the test would pay you enough to cover your now higher health and life insurance premiums and perhaps also something to cover the possibility that you will have a shorter working life.

The basic problem this proposal is trying to solve is that if people have genetic defects that predispose them toward various kinds of diseases and if medical insurance companies are allowed to ask for and know genetic test results then some will find medical insurance too costly or not available at all. The denizens of the US Senate, in their infinite lack of wisdom, want to prevent medical insurance companies from knowing genetic test results. But such an asymmetry of available information would cause high risk people to sign up for more insurance while low risk people decided to sign up for less. Revenues would go down while costs rose for the insurers. That is not a sustainable state of affairs.

Tabarrok's proposed solution will only work for a short period of time at best. The problem is that genetic testing costs are inevitably going to fall so far that everyone will have their DNA entirely sequenced either at birth or while developing as an embryo. There is not going to be a period of universal ignorance about each person's test results during which genetic insurance could be purchased.

A variety of techniques promise to drive down the costs of DNA sequencing by orders of magnitude including microfluidics (see here and here and here) and nanopore technology (see here). Leroy Hood predicts $1000 per person DNA sequencing within 10 years. Whether DNA sequencing becomes cheap enough for the masses in 10 or 20 years that day is coming.

Also, even genetic test insurance invites cheating with secret tests done in advance of official tests. Unscrupulous people (of which the world has no shortage) could get their DNA tested by, say, a lab in another country and get the results back secretly before deciding what genetic insurance to buy in advance. Plus, the size of the pay-out for such a policy would be hard to choose. How big would it need to be to pay higher medical insurance rates for, say, 20 or 30 years? Kinda depends on whether treatments are developed in 10 or 20 or 30 years that can fix the problems that a particular genetic variant causes. Picture a gene therapy, for instance, that programs the liver to lower blood cholesterol or to make blood cholesterol molecules larger. How long will various types of genetic risk factors remain risk factors? Actuaries are not going to be able to make a decent guess.

The very learned and clever LSE graduate Mick Jagger opined 30 years ago in Fingerprint File "These days its all secrecy, no privacy". Mick has definitely been a man ahead of his time. I constantly see signs that privacy is going to be impossible to maintain for everything from personal DNA sequences (see, as a good starting point to my previous posts on the subject: Easy Method To Extract DNA From Fingerprints) to who one is or where one is (see my entire Surveillance Society archive). More information will be available because all kinds of information will become cheaper, faster, and easier to collect, store, and sort through.

Update: Alex has responded to objections I've raised to his argument. He argues that the danger of people getting their DNA tested before they buy genetic insurance is a minor problem easily solved by a contract clause in insurance contracts forbidding previous testing. However, I do not think that in the long run a contract clause will be sufficient to deal with the problem. It will eventually become too easy for a single person to find out their own DNA sequence without anyone knowing that they have done it. Once DNA sequencing devices become operable by an unskilled individual anyone will be able to find out their own DNA sequence. Also, anyone who finds out the genetic sequences of their parents will have useful information about their own risks. If one of their parents is homozygous for some harmful dominant mutation they can be assured that they also have that risk factor. But my bigger objection to the problem remains that future generations will find out our genetic risks at too early of an age for there to be a previous point at which to buy genetic insurance.

There is one other problem with genetic insurance policies as a solution: the need to convince insurance companies to offer them in the first place. Genetic insurance policies could, in theory, be sold now since genetic testing is still fairly rare. But how to write such a policy in advance of various risk factors being identified? One big problem is that we don't know how much of the difference in total disease incidence will turn out to be a function of genetic variations. Keep in mind that some risk factors are of the sort that if you have the risk factor you have X percent increased chance of a disease before age Y. But other risk factors of the sort that you have an X percent of a disease before age Y if you also do A and B and you don't do C. An insurance company writing a policy now would have no way of knowing when factor genetic X will become testable or when the dependence of factor genetic X on behavioral or environmental factors A, B, and C will become known or how difficult it will be for people to avoiding doing A and B or start doing C.

Another problem is that we don't know to what extent people in the future will tend to behave in ways that make their genetic risk factors more or less of a problem. For instance, suppose there are genetic risk factors for type II diabetes (I'd personally be willing to bet serious money that there are several). Well, obesity is a major risk factor for type II diabetes and the incidence of obesity is rising rapidly.

The proportion of Americans with clinically severe obesity increased from 1 in 200 adults in 1986 to 1 in 50 adults in 2000—growing twice as fast as the proportion of Americans who are simply obese, according to a RAND Corporation study published today.

To be classified as severely obese, a person has to have a body mass index (a ratio of weight to height) of 40 or higher—roughly 100 pounds or more overweight for an average adult man. The typical severely obese man weighs 300 pounds at a height of 5 feet 10 inches tall, while the typical severely obese woman weighs 250 pounds at a height of 5 feet 4 inches.

This illustrates an important question: what do you call a genetic risk factor in the first place? If someone has a genetic risk factor for eating too many sweets and that makes them fat and they evenutally get type II diabetes as a result then should the insurance policy pay out? If it does pay out does it pay out when the risk factor for eating sweets is identified? Or when the risk factor for type II diabetes is identified? Or when type II diabetes develops? Or should there be different payouts for different combinations of these events?

One can imagine variations on genetic insurance policies. For instance, one variation could be that you get paid out only if you A) have the risk factor and B) get the disease. There are already disease-specific insurance policies though. So would such a policy add anything of value?

Update II: There is one other bone I want to pick with Alex: how can he claim that most people do not have serious genetic defects?

We should also remember that genetic insurance will be quite cheap because most people do not have serious genetic defects.

To put it another way: what is a defect? Many of the genetic variations that shorten life were selected for and have benefits in spite of their effects upon longevity. Some genetic variations that lengthen life never got selected for strongly enough to become widespread and so not everyone has them. If you lack some life-extending genetic variation does the variation that you have instead constitute a defect? Suppose you lack the genetic variation in Cholestryl Ester Transfer Protein (CETP) that makes cholesterol molecules bigger and extends life as a result. Well, are you defective? Certainly it would make sense for a life insurance company to treat you differently if it knew your CETP alleles. There will probably turn out to be thousands of genetic variations that influence life expectancy and the incidence of disease. Some of those variations will turn out to even improve our chances for some diseases while making our chances worse for getting other diseases. Some of the costs and benefits will be very complex to describe. So how can a policy be written to account for all of this?

Another excellent example is the question of what is a mental defect. Robert Plomin argues that most genetic variations that cause learning disabilities are not abnormal variations but rather just collections of normally occurring variations that were selected for. The people who have learning disabilities are not, in many cases, suffering from a mutation or other developmental defect that occurred in them. They just happened to get a collection of alleles from their parents that cumulatively lowered their intellectual abilities to the point where people today would consider them learning disabled.

By Randall Parker    2003 October 21 05:07 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 9 )
2003 October 18 Saturday
Tall People Make More Money But Higher IQs Matter More

It should come as no surprise that people are biased in favor of tall people and that this translates into economic advantages.

Short people may be short-changed when it comes to salary, status and respect, according to a University of Florida study that found tall people earn considerably more money throughout their lives.

"Height matters for career success," said Timothy Judge, a UF management professor whose research is scheduled to be published in the spring issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology. "These findings are troubling in that, with a few exceptions such as professional basketball, no one could argue that height is an essential ability required for job performance nor a bona fide occupational qualification."

Judge and Daniel Cable, a business professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel-Hill, analyzed the results of four large-scale research studies - three in the United States and one in Great Britain - which followed thousands of participants from childhood to adulthood, examining details of their work and personal lives.

Judge's study, which controlled for gender, weight and age, found that mere inches cost thousands of dollars. Each inch in height amounted to about $789 more a year in pay, the study found. So someone who is 7 inches taller - say 6 feet versus 5 feet 5 inches - would be expected to earn $5,525 more annually, he said.

"If you take this over the course of a 30-year career and compound it, we're talking about literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings advantage that a tall person enjoys," Judge said.

The desire to assure that one's offspring will earn a higher income will serve as a powerful incentive for people to do genetic engineering on their eggs, sperm, and fetuses to ensure that their babies have the best possible chances in life. The prospects for boosting future average earnings potential are even greater from IQ boosts than from height boosts. A mere $5,525 annual salary increase is nothing compared to the differences in salary that would come if one could boost one's offspring's intelligence by, say, 20 IQ points.

Note that there is an important productivity difference between height enhancement and IQ enhancement: Height just makes some people more able to get jobs or close sales or otherwise beat other people when competing for the same existing resources but it probably doesn't increase overall productivity. By contrast, higher intelligence boosts one's ability to do mental work. Height differences, by contrast, are probably a net drain on productivitiy because to the extent that people judge each other by height they judge each other less by differences in real performance. The economy is made less efficient by judgements made on any basis other than real workplace productivity differences. By contrast, boosts in cognitive abilities will lead to dramatic increases in workforce productivity.

Will people genetically engineer their children in the future? Any poll taken today that attempts to measure public attitudes toward offspring genetic engineering probably overestimates eventual future general opposition to the practice. Once prospective parents are offered concrete specific options for providing their offspring with advantages in height, looks, or cognitive abilities the issue of genetic engineering will change from an abstract moral or philosophical question to one in which personal interests are considered and personal benefits and costs are weighed. Given the enormous potential benefits from offspring genetic engineering for health, physical abilities, and mental abilities my guess is that the desire to provide those benefits for one's own offspring will shift a lot of people's opinions toward support for genetic engineering of offspring.

Another factor that is going to play a big role in shifting opinion in favor of offspring genetic engineering is national interest and the competition between nations. The United States faces the very real problem that China has over 4 times as many people as the US and is growing rapidly. The Chinese are fairly bright folks on average and, as Intel chairman Andy Grove has recently argued, it is probable that the United States will lose leadership in software and other industries to China and other countries. What can the US do with a smaller population? Make it smarter. Of course, China will be able to do the same and the Chinese will have no moral qualms about doing so. Therefore the case for making the US population smarter will become even more compelling.

Economic globalization is bringing people all over the world into direct competition with each other. Competition is getting more fierce and people will become generally more willing to embrace new innovations in order to get advantages over their competitors. Fear and greed will both work to promote the widespread embrace of offspring brain genetic engineering.

Update: A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper from August 2006 by Anne Case and Christina Paxson find that tall people make more money because increased height is correlated with higher IQ.

It has long been recognized that taller adults hold jobs of higher status and, on average, earn more than other workers. A large number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain the association between height and earnings. In developed countries, researchers have emphasized factors such as self esteem, social dominance, and discrimination. In this paper, we offer a simpler explanation: On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter. As early as age 3 — before schooling has had a chance to play a role — and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests. The correlation between height in childhood and adulthood is approximately 0.7 for both men and women, so that tall children are much more likely to become tall adults. As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which they earn handsome returns. Using four data sets from the US and the UK, we find that the height premium in adult earnings can be explained by childhood scores on cognitive tests. Furthermore, we show that taller adults select into occupations that have higher cognitive skill requirements and lower physical skill demands.

Therefore the market is not unfairly rewarding tall people just for being tall. Intelligence differences explain average income differences as a function of height.

Increased height due to better nutrition has probably been accompanied by increased intelligence in the last century in much of the world.

There's a lesson here for those looking for egg donors: If you can not find out the IQ of prospective egg donor women go for the taller ones. That'll give you a better chance for higher IQ babies.

By Randall Parker    2003 October 18 07:18 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 22 )
2003 October 10 Friday
Will Neuroceutical Usage Widen Ability Gaps Within And Across Societies?

Zack Lynch argues that drugs that will boost intelligence will improve the productivity of those who opt to use them.

As different aspects of mental health are better understood, more parts of the innovative process will be impacted such as accelerating learning via cogniceuticals to enhancing interpersonal communication with emoticeuticals. As neuroceutical usage spreads across industries it will create a new economic “playing field” wherein individuals who use neuroceuticals will achieve a higher level of productivity than those who don’t.

Many such drugs are already under development. In the future drugs will be available that raise intelligence and that increase the length of time that intense concentration can be maintained. Permanent memory formation will be enhanced. Short term memory will be enhanced as well. Improving the mental capabilities of workers is certain to boost economic productivity and output. Engineers will be able to hold more aspects of designs in their minds and combine design elements in different ways more rapidly. Writers will be able to remember more facts and ideas and formulate sentences more quickly. Managers will be able to think thru problems more thoroughly and do so for longer periods of time. Okay, great. Can't wait. But there are still major questions about how this will all play out. What follows are speculations on the likely distribution of usage of brain-boosting drugs within populations and whether such drugs will make us more or less alike in our mental abilities.

First of all, we start with the fact that people differ in their intelligence. We are not all equally capable to start with. There is general intelligence and then there also are various components of mental functioning (e.g. spatial perception, short term memory, ability to form long term memories) that tend to vary with general intelligence but not perfectly so. For instance, a person can suffer brain damage that prevents the formation of long term memories and still retain the ability to hold short term memories. But the important point here is that people differ in their innate mental abilities.

Given that people start with different innate abilities what will the effect be of the use of brain-boosting drugs. If everyone used brain-boosting drugs would we become more or less equal in mental abilities? Well, it depends in part on why people differ in ability in the first place and the mechanisms by which the brain-boosters will work. By analogy, suppose two engine were identical except one had cleaner spark plugs than the other and hence ran at higher horsespower. If you added something that cleaned the spark plugs then only the lower horsepower engine would benefit and the effect would be to bring the two engines closer together in measured horsepower. But if you took two engines that were of different size and therefore different horsepower (say 100 and 200 hp) and you gave them better fuel that boosted them both in horsepower, by, say 10% the effect would probably be to widen the gap in absolute horsepower since they'd go to being 110 and 220 horsepower. A 100 hp difference would be replaced with a 110 hp difference. Also, imagine some enhancement to an engine's ignition system or fuel system that could only be added to engines that have camshafts that are strong enough to withstand greater force applied to them. Not all engines have the ability to get boosted in horsepower by use of a better fuel system because some other part would break if that happened. Or it could be that only if one has valves of a certain shape that an improved fuel mix could be properly utilized.

My guess is that different brain-boosting drugs will be discovered that operate in ways analogous to each of the engine scenarios outlined above. Some brain-boosting drugs will be discovered that will basically give less smart brains some improvement that smarter brains already have. So those brain-boosting drugs will narrow the differences in intellectual abilities. But it is also likely that other brain-boosting drugs will be discovered that boost by some percentage across all minds and therefore will have the effect analogous to that of the better fuel that makes the performance gap between engines even wider. Still other brain-boosting drugs may turn out to only benefit the smartest because, for instance, it could be that certain genetic variations that boost intelligence can be enhanced by drugs but you would have to have the intelligence-boosting variation that a drug operates on in order to benefit from the drug.

So will brain-boosting drugs overall narrow or increase the spread of intelligence in human populations? My guess is that they will tend overall to widen the spread. Drugs do not seem like effective agents for improving inefficiencies in enzymes that may lower intelligence. Gene therapies will probably be able to do that eventually. But simple classical chemical compound drugs are probably not going to be able to fix most protein shape variations that cause some to be not as smart. Also, to the extent that intelligence is caused by having a larger number of neurons and a generally larger brain, well, short of making the brain case bigger with surgery it is going to be hard to give a smaller brained person more volume for growing new neurons. Plus, trying to expand a fully differentiated brain is going to be difficult. Though there are much better prospects for feeding drugs to babies to make their brains to grow larger. Still, if we restrict our analysis to fully grown adults my guess is that brain-boosting drugs will tend to widen the range of intelligence in a population if the drugs are used equally by all.

Of course, the "if the drugs are used equally by all" assumption is not likely to hold up in practice. Look at the whole world. Certainly when brain-boosting drugs first become available they will not be used by everyone all at once. The drugs will not be approved in all countries at the same time. Some people will be afraid to try them. Some won't be able to afford them. The most affluent in the most industrialized countries are likely to try them at a faster rate. Also, people who do mentally difficult work already will have the biggest short-term incentive to try brain-boosting drugs. Someone who is just digging ditches, is worried about the risk, doesn't see any immediate economic benefit, and who sees the cost as substantial will probably decide to wait. But someone who is a trader on Wall Street tracking huge numbers of bond contracts and pulling down a few hundred thousand dollars a year is going to jump on a drug that boost intelligence or memory before other traders get a leg up by jumping on it first. People in especially competitive and highly paying occupations will have the biggest incentive and means to be first users.

This all leads me to believe that brain-boosting drugs will tend to widen the distribution of the level of mental functioning in any one society and in the world as a whole. This will provoke a variety of political responses. For instance, expect to see demands from the political Left for government subsidies and price controls on drugs that boost intelligence. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Government subsidies to fund the purchase of brain-boosting drugs will probably turn out to be a net benefit for society as a whole if the drugs help unemployed people to learn skills that turn them into taxpayers.

By Randall Parker    2003 October 10 02:59 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 7 )
2003 October 03 Friday
Baby Boys Keep Marriages Together Better Than Baby Girls

Steven E. Landsburg reports in Slate on a new study that finds male babies keep marriages together better than female babies.

In the United States, the parents of a girl are nearly 5 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of a boy. The more daughters, the bigger the effect: The parents of three girls are almost 10 percent more likely to divorce than the parents of three boys. In Mexico and Colombia the gap is wider; in Kenya it's wider still. In Vietnam, it's huge: Parents of a girl are 25 percent more likely to divorce than parents of a boy.

The Slate article reports on a paper published by Gordon Dahl of the University of Rochester and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and Enrico Moretti of UCLA and NBER) enitlted The Demand for Sons: Evidence from Divorce, Fertility, and Shotgun Marriage. (PDF format and that is a draft copy of the paper)

Specifically, we show that having girls has significant effects on divorce, marriage, shotgun marriage (i.e., when the sex of the child is known before birth), remarriage, fertility stopping rules, and child support payments.

Using a simple model, we show that, taken individually, each piece of evidence does not necessarily imply the existence of parental gender bias. But taken together, our empirical evidence indicates that US parents strongly favor boys over girls. The bias is quantitatively important, but seems to be slowly decreasing over time. When we compare the US with five developing countries, we find that gender bias in the US is generally smaller, and is only a fraction of the bias in China.

We begin by documenting the effect of offspring gender composition on the probability of divorce. We find that mothers with girls are significantly more likely to be divorced than mothers with boys. The effect is quantitatively substantial, explaining a 4% to 8% rise in divorce rates in the U.S.1 By itself, this effect is not necessarily evidence of parental bias. For example, it is well documented in the child psychology and sociology literature that the presence of the father in the household when kids are growing up is more important for boys than girls.2 It is possible that parents have unbiased gender preferences, but they decide to avoid or delay divorce if they have boys because they realize the harmful effects of raising a son without a father present in the household. We call this the “role model” hypothesis. Alternatively, it is also possible that the monetary, psychological, or time costs of raising girls are different than the costs of raising boys. A higher cost of raising girls could also explain the documented effect of children’s gender on divorce.

We turn to the effect of child gender composition on marriage. We find that, controlling for family size, women with only girls are substantially more likely to have never been married than women with only boys. The chance a women will be married decreases by two to seven percent for an all-girl family relative to an all-boy family, depending on family size. For divorcees, a similar pattern emerges. Not only are divorced mothers with all-girl offspring less likely to remarry, when they do remarry they are more likely to get a second divorce.

Perhaps the most striking evidence comes from the analysis of shotgun marriages using Vital Statistics data. First we show that, at delivery, gender of the first child is not correlated with marital status for first time mothers. This is reassuring, because for most parents in the sample, gender of the first child is unknown until birth. We then test whether gender of the child affects marital status at delivery when gender is known in advance (with high probability) because the mother has taken an ultrasound test during pregnancy. Among women who have had an ultrasound test, we find that mothers who have a girl are less likely to be married at delivery than mothers who have a boy. We interpret this finding as evidence that fathers who find out their child will be a boy are more likely to marry their partner before delivery.3

The first footnote reports that gender mix in offspring also reduces probability of divorce.

1 While not the focus of this paper, we also find that gender mix reduces the probability of divorce. Other researchers have also documented a demand for variety (Ben-Porath and Welch, 1976, 1980; Rosenzweig and Wolpin, 1980). Angrist and Evans use the demand for a mixed sibling-sex composition to study the effect childbearing on female labor supply (1998).

It might be that having a gender mix in offspring provides each spouse with a child they can better identify with and relate to or otherwise to be satisfied with the result that both spouses may feel more satisfied with the marriage:

2 There is much evidence that fathers play a bigger role in the development of their sons than their daughters. Fathers spend more time with their sons (Lamb 1976; Morgan, Lye and Condran, 1988). Longitudinal data on child development show that the absence of a father has more severe and enduring impact on boys than girls. For example, boys are found to suffer more from divorces than girls (Hetereington, Cox and Cox, 1978). In most cases, children are assigned to the mother, irrespective of sex.

Perhaps men subconsciously realize that there is a greater need for them to stick around for their sons than for their daughters? Or perhaps the behavior of being more desirous to stick around for raising sons was evolutionarily selected for because sons need their fathers more than daughters do?

Also, having daughters leads to polygamy:

Our final piece of international evidence utilizes the fact that 12 percent of marriages in Kenya are polygamous. Among all married women, we find that those with girls are more likely to be in a polygamous relationship compared to women with boys. We interpret this as evidence that the desire for boys lead some husbands to marry another woman if his first wife delivers a girl.

All these results suggest that as the technology for controlling offspring sex becomes more widespread the effect will be to increase the ratio of male to female offspring on a worldwide scale. Think about that. Will males become more common than females all over the world in 20 or 30 years? While some radical feminists are arguing that men are obsolete and headed for the dustbin of history people are using technology to have more male than female offspring.

Those who think this will necessarily boost the status of women in a society might be surprised by the effect that the use of amniocentesis and ultrasound to guide sex selective abortions is having in India: Girl Shortage Causes Wife Buying In India. The female shortage in India and China may become a worldwide phenomenon as other methods of baby gender selection such as the service offered by Microsort become more widely available.

By Randall Parker    2003 October 03 03:31 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 19 )
2003 August 13 Wednesday
Easy Method To Extract DNA From Fingerprints

Ottawa University Heart Institute researcher Maria Viaznikova has developed a fast easy way to extract DNA from fingerprints for sequencing.

Viaznikova said her team's method consistently yields 10 billionths of a gram of DNA, on average, from a single fingerprint. The findings were revealed at the American Society for Microbiology's nanotechnology conference in New York earlier this month. Although 10 "nanograms" might not sound like much, for DNA analysis, even 0.1 nanogram is enough, Viaznikova said. "Scientists try not to use less than 5 to 10 nanograms, so this is fine." She said forensic scientists have known for about five years that fingerprints contain DNA. However, commonly used extraction techniques need several hours or even days of lab work. "We can do it in 15 minutes," she added.

The article quotes experts who want restrictions on when government agencies can sequence a person's DNA with required notifications to tell a person their DNA is being sequenced. But these kinds of demands miss a very important point: once DNA sequencing becomes cheap and easy enough to be done by devices that can be operated by a single individual who has no special skills it will be impossible to discover the bulk of sequencing that will be done.

See my previous posts Will The Death Of Genetic Privacy Hasten The End Of Freedom? and Genetic privacy: can it be protected? for more on the implications of advances of this kind. What already seems naive about my previous posts is that I speculated on how women would try to get saliva samples or other cell samples from close contact with guys in order to get DNA samples. Well, getting a DNA sample will be easier than that. It will be easy to get a DNA sample from any person seen holding a drink in a bar. When they get up to leave someone could walk by and grab one of their drinking glasses to take a quick sample off of it. The person trying to get the sample never even has to meet their quarry. Combine the ease of sample acquisition and cheap DNA sequencing and personal genetic privacy will become impossible to maintain.

This ability to sequence another's DNA is going to have interesting ramifications for paternity suits. A woman will be able to stalk a guy by going to the same bar or restaurant, grab a glass he held, get a sample, and then sequence the guy's DNA. The woman can then judge the suitability of the guy's DNA. If he passes muster in terms of what she wants in a child she will also be able to use the DNA sample to have it be manipulated in a microfluidic device to make a viable set of chromosomes to use in artificial fertilization. Then she'll be able to sue for paternity. Will courts hold men responsible for offspring when the men start claiming they never even met the women who sue them for paternity?

By Randall Parker    2003 August 13 10:43 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 3 )
2003 July 13 Sunday
Sydney Brenner: Biological Evolution Is An Obsolete Technology

Speaking at the International Congress of Genetics in Melbourne Australia Nobel Prize winner Sydney Brenner says biological evolution is obsolete.

Another laureate, Professor Sydney Brenner, who helped crack the DNA code, told the 2750 at the conference that biological evolution was an obsolete technology. "The brain is more powerful than the genome."

By this he means random generation of mutations which then get sorted thru by natural selection and survival of the genes which optimize reproductive fitness. As far as humans are concerned he is not right quite yet. But in another 20 or 30 years he will be. Natural selection is still happening in humans right now. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by analysis of data from the Australian Twin Registry (ATR) published a couple of years ago in Evolution, the genetic variations for higher intelligence and delayed childbearing are being selected against in industrialized societies.

University-educated women have 35% lower fitness than those with less than seven years education, and Roman Catholic women have about 20% higher fitness than those of other religions.

In spite of the fact that the results are consistent with what we see happening around us in our regular lives one of the researchers who co-authored the paper professed to be surprised by the results.

“I was staggered by the results we got,” said Dr Owens. “When we decided to control for these factors, I wasn’t expecting anything to come out of it. I thought, ‘let’s just run with the analysis’. But there was a massive difference in the number of children born to families with a religious affiliation. Many of the Catholic twins we studied had an average family of five children, where other families were having only one or two children.

“We also found that mothers with more education were typically having just one child at an older age. Their reproductive fitness was much lower than their peers who left school as early as possible. Again, and again, our analyses for these two factors came back with the same results.”

The researchers who published the study did not even mention the word "intelligence" but the conclusions are pretty plain to see. I expect higher intelligence to be selected against for the foreseeable future. The first change that might begin to swing the trend back toward selection for higher intelligence may come as a result of cheap DNA sequencing. When the genetic variations for higher intelligence are identified and it becomes cheap to check a prospective mate for genetic potential for producing high intelligence offspring then some people are going to start using the results of such tests as guides when choosing mates. As I've discussed in previous posts, cheap DNA sequencing will also increase the incentive for women to use sperm bank sperm.

The next big change will probably come when it becomes possible to do germ line genetic engineering to give one's progeny genetic variations that enhance intelligence. Then the vast bulk of all genetic changes that get introduced into progeny will be placed there as a result of conscious human intent and not as a result of the occurrence of random mutations. At that point we will be able to say that biological evolution by natural selection on randomly generated mutations will be obsolete.

By Randall Parker    2003 July 13 02:44 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 12 )
2003 June 25 Wednesday
UK Government Proposes Genetic Screening Of All Newborns

The British government is considering the possibility of collecting DNA samples from all newborn babies born in Britain.

All babies born in Britain could have their DNA stored in a national databank for their future medical treatment as part of a £50m genetics initiative published yesterday.

At this point the proposal has been made only to refer the matter to a commission to study the idea and make a report in a year and a half.

· Asking the Human Genetics Commission to consider the case for screening babies at birth, and storing their genetic profiles, to provide doctors with the knowledge to individually tailor their healthcare - and to report by the end of 2004.

The British government is obviously thinking in terms of having genetic profiles as standard information that every doctor will have on every patient. It makes perfect sense for doctors to have such detailed information. Early testing will identify genetic metabolic disorders that must be treated from a very early stage. They will also identify risk factors for future diseases and provide guidance for preventive measures for those at special risk. Plus, eventually most drugs will have identified for them specific genetic profiles which contraindicate their use or which indicate specific dosing regimens. From a medical standpoint genetic profiles will become so powerful that to not routinely use them will eventually come to be seen as malpractice.

The British government, as operators of a national health care system, see the collection of genetic data by the government as a logical step. The national health care system will greatly benefit and patients will benefit. From purely a medical effectiveness standpoint the decision seems a no-brainer for them. Plus, the database of genetic profiles, cross-referenced with health and other records would provide a bonanza of information for medical researchers. Absent a large public outcry I expect the British will implement their proposal. If there is too much political opposition to this proposal in the short term that will probably only delay its eventual implementaiton. As more desireable medical uses of genetic profiles are discovered the British public will gradually become more supportive of the idea that all doctors should have genetic informatoin available on every patient.

As part of a set of proposals on genetics-related issues the British government also is proposing the outlawing of secret collection of DNA without consent.

The new law of DNA theft is intended to stop people from secretly collecting genetic material from "dental floss in dustbins" or from hair on a comb. It will protect celebrities and those involved in unwelcome paternity tests.

Alistair Kent, director of the Genetic Interest Group, raises an obvious and reasonable objection to this proposal:

"While this may be necessary to protect celebrities from prying newspapers, criminalising desperate fathers trying to prove their paternity may not be the best approach."

In the long run genetic privacy will be impossible to protect. Once cheap compact DNA sequencing machines built using nanopore technology become widely available (my guess is in 10 to 20 years) it will become too easy for a single person to get a DNA sample and test it without any help.

By Randall Parker    2003 June 25 02:49 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 1 )
2003 June 11 Wednesday
Identical Twins Live Longer Than Fraternal Twins

Clones, er, I mean identical twins, live longer.

Zaretsky analyzed the responses and found one factor - social communication between twin partners - that was highly correlated with longer life in identical but not fraternal twins. Other types of social interaction, including active membership in church or community groups or close relationships with other relatives or friends, did not preferentially benefit identical or fraternal twins.

"Clearly, identical twins who communicated frequently survived longer than those who did not," he said. "This was not true of fraternal twins, whether they communicated or not."

In line with the Scandinavian studies, he found that the median life span of identical twins is 82 years - that is, half live more and half live less - versus 80.5 years for fraternal twins.

Interestingly, identical twins exhibited healthier behavior, which also contributed to their longevity. More of them exercised and fewer smoked in comparison with fraternal twins.

Zaretsky noted that exercise at all levels above the lowest level of exercise increased longevity.

"This indicates that a moderate amount of exercise is highly beneficial for health, and that highly vigorous exercise is not more beneficial than moderate exercise," he said.

What is going on here? Do they give each other better advice because they understand each other better? Or do they just feel better knowing that someone else so thoroughly understands them and can empathize with them? My guess is that the longer life is due to a reduction in stress caused by knowing someone who more deeply understands and sympathises. This reduces stress and stress reduction would definitely raise average life expectancy.

This result suggests a politically incorrect idea: Once the technology of cloning is perfected clones will live longer than non-clones. You can imagine just how unbearably snobbish that knowledge will make some class conscious clones in the future: "Oh you singletons, without fellow clones to talk to how ever can you bear to live your lonely wretched lives?" This will of course lead to gangs of resentful marginalized singleton youth roaming around looking for clones to beat up on.

By Randall Parker    2003 June 11 02:42 AM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 12 )
2003 June 02 Monday
Bill McKibben Thinks Genetically Improved Children Will Be Robots

Bill McKibben, author of the book Enough argues that a genetically engineered children would be more akin to robots than to humans with free will.

But I've tried also to raise a deeper set of issues: the meaning of a human life will disappear if we make these changes. To understand what I mean, imagine yourself an 'improved' child. Is your intelligence your own? Is your mood your own, or the result of some protein pumped out by your cells in response to a particular stretch of commercial DNA added by your parents before your birth? Would your accomplishments, your hopes, your dreams mean anything in the way we reckon it now in such a world? Or would you be more akin to a robot?

Here is my problem with that argument in a nutshell: there are aleady people walking around who have genetic variations that make them far more prone to be happy or sad than the average person. Do these people have free wills? There are also people walking around who have genetic variations that make them brilliant. They can sit down and as easily read and understand a math book on real analysis or complex analysis or topology like most people can read a junk novel. Are these brilliant people lacking in free will?

Most of the genetic variations that parents will first try to give their offspring via fetal gene therapy will be genetic variations that will be identified in the already existing human population. The reason is simple: it will be far easier to figure out what the existing genetic variations do than to design and test new genetic variations. But whether a person inherits a genetic variation from parents or from genetic engineering if it is a naturally occurring genetic variation then will the person be any more or less human? If so, why?

To argue that the introduction of an existing variation into a particular fetus will rob that fetus of free will one would have to be willing to accept the idea that there are existing humans walking around with the same variation who have either only partial conscious control over what they do or no control at all.

I'm personally willing to consider the idea that some people have compulsions and desires that are so strong that they can not control themselves. I'm also willing to consider the idea that there may be genetic variations that effectively prevent a person from developing much of a conscience or empathy toward others. But if such variations already naturally exist in the genetic code of some humans then is this an argument against genetic engineering of children in general? Or is it perhaps an argument against allowing people to have progeny that possess those variations which give them uncontrollable impulses?

If there are genetic variations that, for instance, make people more violent or devoid of any sense of fairness does it matter whether those genetic variations are passed down by sexual reproduction or fetal genetic engineering? If so, why?

McKibben does get one thing right:

A political debate is coming, therefore – a political debate on what it means to be a human being.

But that debate is not just a political debate. It is a debate about the scientific basis for human nature. Scientifiic discoveries will demonstrate a great many ways in which genes influence personality, desires, conscience, compassion, empathy, intelligence, and other mental attributes. Our practical problem will be that there are many naturally occurring combinations of the extent to which people possess each of these human attributes. One person might have a strong conscience, out-going personality and enormous spatial intelligence with less verbal intelligence. Another person might have less of a conscience but more compassion and more verbal reasoning and yet less spatial ability. When all these things become controllable using genetic engineering we will be faced with the question of whether some combinations of attributes will cause us problems if too large a fraction of humanity possesses them.

By Randall Parker    2003 June 02 04:10 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 5 )
2003 June 01 Sunday
Steven Pinker Says Human Genetic Engineering Unlikely

Steven Pinker, author of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (see some reviews here), has written an essay arguing that genetic enhancement of humans is too unlikely to worry about.

Why are technological predictions usually wrong? Many futurologists write as if current progress can be extrapolated indefinitely-committing the fallacy of climbing trees to get to the moon. They routinely underestimate how much has to go right for a development to change our lives. It takes more than a single ''eureka!'' It takes a large number of more boring discoveries, together with the psychological and sociological imponderables that make people adopt some invention en masse. Who could have predicted that the videophones of the 1960s would sink like a stone while the text messaging of the 1990s would become a teenage craze?

I find all of his arguments on this subject to be questionable and am surprised to read them coming from such an able mind.

Pinker is right that linear trends can not be extrapolated indefintely. But the problem with his argument is that the rate of biotechnological advance is more likely to accelerate than decelerate. See the FuturePundit Biotech Advance Rates archive for some of the reasons why.

Pinker argues that since many traits such as personality and IQ are due to complex interactions between multiple genes it will be very difficult to puzzle out how changes to genes will affect traits of the mind. Well, there are several billion people in the world and therefore many existing combinations of genetic variations already existing in the human population. Once it becomes cheap and fast to sequence the DNA of each person then it will become possible to sequence the DNA of millions of people and do a massive comparison of mental traits (e.g. IQ, personality tests, and various facts from life histories such as arrest records, mental illnesses, and involvement in various hobbies and forms of recreation) and genetic variations to tease out complex relationships between genetic variations.

Scientists are gaining the ability with computers to collect and analyse absolutely massive amounts of data. The ability of scientists to study interactions in complex systems will only become greater with time. The complexity of human biology will not prevent scientists from figuring it out in enormous detail.

Then Pinker comes to the fact that while identical twins are a lot more like each other mentally than they are like fraternal twins they can still differ in significant ways. Environment still matters. To Pinker's way of thinking this is somehow supposed to be a disincentive to human genetic engineering. But think about it from a prospective parent's position. Given two sets of genetic combinations if one set dramatically increases the odds of getting a child with a certain personality type as compared to the other combination even if the outcome is not guaranteed parents may elect to go with the combination that tilts the odds. Right now some people are choosing to try the Microsort service for sex selection of offspring even though the outcome is less than 100% guaranteed to be successful. Also, by opting for a route that includes the use of IVF they may be increasing the risk of birth defects in their children. Yet they are doing so along with many others who are using IVF to start pregnancies.

Pinker tries to argue that most people will be turned off by the idea of reproducing via unnatural means. This is a curious argument to make in an age when some women schedule the date to hormonally induce labor or to have a Caesarean section because a chosen date is more convenient than waiting for natural processes to bring the pregnancy to an end. Pinker points to in vitro fertilization as a procedure that people resort to only when they are unable to reproduce in the more conventional way. But there are already couples using it in order to have babies to use as donors of tissue to treat another child for a genetic disorder. The utilitarian attitude that couples bring to such a decision ought to give pause to anyone who thinks the wider public will not embrace biotechnological manipulations of early stage fetuses.

Also, and more importantly, there are already a growing number of people reproducing using artificial means in place of sexual relations because they want to select the sex of their offspring (again, see the Microsort service for details). They are using artificial means to control If it becomes possible to control more characteristics besides sex is there any reason to suppose that no portion of the populace will be attracted to "unnatural" interventions when it becomes possible to have them? For instance, many genetic variations that contribute to intelligence will be found and most will be found to not have severe side effects. Why won't many prospective parents be attracted to the idea of providing those genetic variations for their offspring?

We live in an era when millions of women terminate pregnancies every year using the rather unnatural procedure of abortion. We live in an era when millions of people undergo an increasing assortment of plastic surgery procedures, take recreational drugs, use drugs to alter their moods to treat mental illness, and give drugs to their kids to make them concentrate better in school. Where is the popular fear of the biologically unnatural? For cosmetic purposes Isolagen now offers (at least in assorted Western countries where it has approval - it is current seeking FDA approval) a service to take a person's cells, grow them outside of their body, and then to inject those cells back into locations under facial skin in order to provide a more enduring facial enhancement than is provided by collagen shots. An affluent public does not shrink from the latest appearance-enhancing biotechnology. Why will they shrink from biotechnology used on humans for other purposes?

Pinker also argues that since people are repulsed by genetically engineered soybeans they will not opt to have genetically engineered children. Well, 74% of the US soybean crop is genetically engineered to be resistant to the Roundup pesticide. If revulsion was such a big problem how could all this soybean be getting sold and consumed? Again, where is the big revulsion to biotechnology that provides the basis for his expectation that people will not opt to genetically enhance their offspring?

It is my estimation we are within at the very most 20 years of the time when a large assortment of gene therapies will be available to genetically enhance fetuses. Once it becomes possible there will be a stampede for genetic enhancement. Gene therapy will have a very positive image with the public when a large assortment of gene therapies to cure illnesses and to enhance performance of adults become available. The public, accustomed to having gene therapy done on themselves for benefical purposes as adults, will not shrink from considering gene therapy options when planning to have children.

By Randall Parker    2003 June 01 09:14 PM   Entry Permalink | Comments ( 18 )
2003 May 13 Tuesday
Personality Changes With Age And So Do Crime Rates

Personality changes as people age.

WASHINGTON — Do peoples’ personalities change after 30? They can, according to researchers who examined 132,515 adults age 21-60 on the personality traits known as the “Big Five”: conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness and extraversion. These findings are reported in the May issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

From this large sample of volunteers recruited and examined over the Internet, lead researchers Sanjay Srivastava, Ph.D., and Oliver P. John, Ph.D., working at the University of California at Berkeley, found that certain changes do occur in middle adulthood. Conscientiousness increased throughout the age range studied, with the biggest increases in a person’s 20s; this trait is defined as being organized, planful, and disciplined, and past research has linked it to work performance and work commitments. Agreeableness increased the most during a person’s 30s; this trait is defined as being warm, generous, and helpful, and has been linked to relationships and to prosocial behavior. Neuroticism declined with age for women but did not decline for men; this trait is defined in people who worry and are emotionally unstable. It has been linked to depression and other mental health problems. Openness showed small declines with age for both men and women. Finally, extraversion declined for women but did not show changes in men.

Both neuroticism and extraversion scores were higher for younger women than for younger men. But for both of these traits – and most strikingly for neuroticism – the apparent sex differences diminished with age.

Of the 132,515 participants, 54 percent were female, all lived in the U.S. or Canada, 86% were White and 14% were Asian, Black, Latino or Middle Eastern. A subset of the sample – 42,578 – were asked about their socioeconomic status. Of these participants, 405 (1%) said they were poor, 7,614 (18%) said they were working class, 23,024 (54%) said they were middle class and 10,718 (25%) said they were upper-middle class.

This study contradicts an often cited view that personality traits are genetically programmed to stop changing by early adulthood. There is considerable evidence against it, say the authors. In the study, “average levels of personality traits changed gradually but systematically throughout the lifespan, sometimes even more after age 30 than before. Increasing conscientiousness and agreeableness and decreasing neuroticism in adulthood may indicate increasing maturity – people becoming on the average better adapted as they get older, well into middle age.”

The full paper is available online in PDF format (i.e. you will need Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer to read it). Page 7 of the PDF has a nice set of graphs that plot the measured personality characteristics as a function of age.

The really interesting question that this paper does not answer is what causes the personality changes as people age? Does experience with life cause most of the changes? That