College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Tweaking the roots of intelligence

By Elliot and Ryan Ash

Print this article

Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Updated: Friday, January 9, 2009

Genetic inheritance and other biological factors strongly influence the ability to "overcome obstacles by taking thought."

The current science, as neuroscientists Jeremy Gray and Paul Thompson review it, suggests that at least 40 percent of variability in intelligence results purely from genetic inheritance. Another 20 percent of intelligence measured by IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests stems only from differences in the fetal environment.

In our lifetime, these hard-wired limitations may no longer be destiny - think "Gattaca." Even now, scientists are developing ways to improve upon our natural intellects, to bust the genetically privileged minority's monopoly on smarts by building better brains.

"Enhancing intelligence is not science fiction," writes psychology professor Michael Gazzaniga in the October 2005 issue of Scientific American Mind.

Humans have been using nicotine and caffeine to assist cognitive tasks for centuries. According to a New York Times survey, as many as 20 percent of college students have used prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine (Adderall) to help them study. Gazzaniga writes that these drugs can improve SAT scores by more than 100 points. Meanwhile, herbal memory-aid supplements of dubious effectiveness drive a billion-dollar industry.

Neurobiological research is closing in on new and exciting ways to artificially increase fluid intelligence, as measured in IQ tests. Gazzaniga notes that "many 'smart' drugs are in clinical trials and could be on the market in less than five years."

Such medicinal therapies generally result in no more than a 10 percent to 20 percent improvement on test scores, but more dramatic cognitive enhancement efforts, such as gene therapy, might offer more substantial improvements.

Scientists at Princeton Univ-ersity modified a gene in mice that determines sensitivity to a particular neurotransmitter, which resulted in "superior ability in learning and memory in various tasks." We have little reason to believe that similar effects could not be reproduced in humans.

The discoveries don't end there. Neuroscientist Philip Shaw, for instance, has characterized a dramatic thickening and thinning of the cerebral cortex unique to children of superior IQ. This "particularly efficient sculpting of the brain" could serve as a blueprint for medicinal modulation of children's brains during periods critical to the development of intelligence.

It seems clear that within our lifetimes, scientists will be able to artificially enhance our cognitive abilities. The implications are colossal.

Success in knowledge-based economies depends significantly on intelligence. Rest assured, other less ethically conscious countries will utilize these technologies to improve labor productivity. If America wants to maintain its dominant economic position, it may have to do so as well.

Hypothetically, a critical mass of cognitively enhanced innovators will eventually lead to a positive feedback effect, in which intelligence enhancements are used to design better intelligence enhancements. Technology then advances at unprecedented rates.

Just as important, the health of our political institutions relies on an intelligent and critical public. To become informed in a technological democracy, voters must master technical scientific issues and understand the subtleties of globalization. Cognitive enhancements can help the country identify leaders capable of dealing with a world of ever-increasing complexity.

Despite the potential benefits, cognitive enhancement might be fatally flawed. These technologies will be expensive, and it is likely that without intervention, only the wealthy will be able to afford them. Only rigorous governmental regulation overseen by nonpartisan experts will ensure a fair distribution of cognitive enhancement treatments.

Science alone cannot give answers to these ethical questions. The implications of intelligence enhancement are worth the consideration of every brain, enhanced or otherwise.

Elliott and Ryan Ash are Plan II seniors.

Comments

Be the first to comment on this article!







log out