For those of you who are, or in my case, were, into professional sports, this site lists their political donations. I was surprised that Joe Theismann or Barry Switzer gave mostly Democrats. Also, the African Americans were more Democratic than I had expected (I’d assumed that their wealth would have worn away their cultural orientation in regards to politics).

A paper in Nature Genetics describes a mutation in a tomato gene that leads to fruits that don’t ripen. This would be an important discovery in itself–the ripening of fruits is certainly an economically interesting trait–but a further twist makes it even more interesting. The twist: the mutation is actually an epimutation. That is, the two alleles–the non-ripening allele and the wild type allele–have no difference is sequence, but rather a difference in the methylation status of the promoter. The methylated allele is expressed at a lower level, leading to an inhibition of ripening.

Also interesting is that the methylation status of the allele seems to be fairly stable– they claim to have seen a tomato revert from the non-ripening phenotype to wild type three times in 3000 plants grown since 1993. So this epimutation acts essentially in a Mendelian fashion. Whether this will be a common occurrence in plants (or other taxa) remains to be seen.

Related: epigenetics in humans

Read More

The NYT has an article up about how supposedly malleable IQs are by a professor trying to get more money for early childhood education programs. Aside from the arguments about funding a program that is not that effective , the merits of the NYT article are questionable.

Kirp’s argument is based on two studies by the same researcher: Michel Duyme. Before anything is stated about the studies, I’ll point out that while the participants in these studies may be new, the theory and designs are not. Herman Spitz’s masterful work goes over many of these types of studies, and the overall result is not too impressive for those thinking IQ is easily changed. If your educational psychology professor didn’t make that book a required reading, join Questia and read it, or snag it from the local library.

Now on to the NYT article…….

About the first study, Kirp writes:

Regardless of whether the adopting families were rich or poor, Capron and Duyme learned, children whose biological parents were well-off had I.Q. scores averaging 16 points higher than those from working-class parents. Yet what is really remarkable is how big a difference the adopting families’ backgrounds made all the same. The average I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 – 12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly modest means had average I.Q.’s of 92.4, while the I.Q.’s of those placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm that environment matters – the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led.

Darth Quixote has already deeply delved into this study, and there is no need to repeat him here. I will add:

So where does leave us? Capron and Duyme sum it up best:

Although these findings clearly indicate that the biological parents’ background contributes to observed differences in IQ between extreme groups, as does that of adoptive parents, more detailed interpretation is difficult (p. 553)

which is a far cry from Kirp’s interpretation:

the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led.

About the second study, Kirp writes:

A later study of French youngsters adopted between the ages of 4 and 6 shows the continuing interplay of nature and nurture. Those children had little going for them. Their I.Q.’s averaged 77, putting them near retardation. Most were abused or neglected as infants, then shunted from one foster home or institution to the next.

Nine years later, they retook the I.Q. tests, and contrary to the conventional belief that I.Q. is essentially stable, all of them did better. The amount they improved was directly related to the adopting family’s status. Children adopted by farmers and laborers had average I.Q. scores of 85.5; those placed with middle-class families had average scores of 92. The average I.Q. scores of youngsters placed in well-to-do homes climbed more than 20 points, to 98 – a jump from borderline retardation to a whisker below average. That is a huge difference – a person with an I.Q. of 77 couldn’t explain the rules of baseball, while an individual with a 98 I.Q. could actually manage a baseball team – and it can only be explained by pointing to variations in family circumstances.

One has to do some digging elsewhere, but the study he is referring to is from PNAS. Since the study is free to read, I’ll only go over the major points:

As to a critique, first the selection criteria is loaded. No one with any sense about them would think that being abused/neglected from birth so bad that the legal system has to intervene would not decrease cognitive functioning. This is not at all what is meant when discussing “Average Expectable Environment.” So right off the bat we know that these kids are not at all the same as a regular Joe (or Jane) off the street who has Borderline IQ. Thus, right off the bat we would expect that after any semblance of stability, the kids’ cognitive functioning would improve (i.e., return t
o its normal state).

Second, while there is some difference between the IQs across groups, it isn’t major (max: Low SES PIQ vs High SES PIQ, d = .9 [r2=.17]; min: Low SES VIQ vs. High SES VIQ, d=.5 [r2=.06]), indicating SES explains somewhere between 6 and 17 percent of the variance in post-adoption IQ scores. While there is definitely an effect, given the extreme nature of the study’s categories, it does not appear to be much of one.

Third, it is very difficult to say with much certainty that IQ scores from scale, developed with one set of theoretical guidelines and one set of 1950s norms are directly comparable other IQ scores from a different scale, developed with a totally different theoretical orientation that uses a set of 1970s/1980s norms. This is even more so when the Bayley scale is used. For those of you that have given the Bayley (all 2 of you!), you know it is an extreme pain to administer and that it is about as unlike the Wechsler instruments as you can find a test that still measures cognitive ability.

Fourth, while there was an overall mean increase in IQ, in addition, there was a universal gain in variance (stnd. dev. increased approx 9 IQ points). Thus, assuming that the before and after IQs were directly comparable, the majority of the scores fell into these ranges:

A few things to notice. 1. There were at least some kids in both categories who, pre-adoption, were in the average range. Given the stark conditions of their pre-adoption upbringing, that is amazing – and likely has little to due with a nurturing environment. 2. There were at least some kids in both categories who, post-adoption, were in the Mild to Moderately Deficient range. Meaning – they still were classified as MR. If the environment is so powerful, why didn’t their IQ rise also? 3. It is a fair assumption that even the Low SES households were much better off for the kids than their abusive/neglectful original home. If the environment is so powerful, then why are some children doing worse, IQ-wise, post-adoption?

Fifth, buried in the next to last paragraph of the study, we find this statement:

This study shows that stability for rank can be found following a marked environmental change after 4 years of age regardless of the SES of adoptive families. The factors explaining this stability are undoubtedly different from those explaining the gains in mean IQs.

Interpretation: the worst performers before the adoption tended to be the worst performers after the adoption. The only thing that happened was a linear transformation of scores (i.e., post-score ≈ a*pre-score + b) across all SES groups, which could be due to many things, including: changing IQ scales and/or many years of living in an “average expectable environment.”

So, what we end up with is a picture much more complex and intricate than Kirp allows. What we can definitely conclude is that abusing or neglecting your children so bad that the government has to take them away tends to produce lower IQs (although some kids will still be in the average range), but was this really in question? What we can also conclude is that for some children in the MR range, adoption into high SES environments will not significnalty improve thier IQ. If the environment is so powerful to change cognitive abilities, then how did this happen? Last, I think we can conclude that Kirp’s attempt to glorify the ability of the environment to change IQ is not much more than the wheel, reinvented.

[1.] I did it using the bootstrap feature in AMOS. I can go into more detail by email or in the comment box.

Heredity, the official journal of the Genetics Society, has a podcast.

I suspect the basic general process of introgression is clear to most of you, though I will get back to it soon. But here are some papers with candidate genes (click “related” for more references):
RRM2P4, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14513410&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum"dystrophin, xp21.1 and 17q21.31. Also, I should add in the amusing evidence that archaics and moderns had sexual intercourse (amusing, but scientific nonetheless). Finally, a more theoretical paper that just came out.
There are other possibilities, like MC1R, but that could also be frequency dependent selection. More to come soon, I promise….

Seed has a piece on the discoveries relating to menopause and its importance to the “Grandmother Hypothesis.” Unlike male decline in fertility menopause is a specific and deliberate sequence of proactive processes by the female body to shut down reproductive capacity. Something like this is almost certainly functionally significant, and anthropological work which seems to show cross-cultural evidence of lower infant mortality in the presence of a maternal grandmother in the household is another important avenue in the overall program.

Below the fold, readers, this is what I mean by doing your technical homework.

Read More

Of course, you knew this, but now so do others.

TangoMan Adds: See the related post – Intelligence in UK declining?

Steve has already reported on the issues that New Jersey State Police are having with an ever rising number of women and minority applicants who are applying for positions but who are disproportionately failing the background checks, physical exams and written tests. But what happens when some of these applicants do pass the tests? Another case of a woman officer being overpowered by a handcuffed suspect has made the news:

A suspected burglar put in handcuffs after his arrest attacked a woman police officer and then escaped by driving off in her car.

The female officer was driving the man to Slough police station when he forcibly took control of the car.

The man, one of three arrested on suspicion of burglary, dumped the car in Keel Drive about six minutes away.

Also, recall the case of the black police officer who sued for racial discrimination because the police force promoted him beyond his level of competence and his incompetence led to disciplinary action:

A BLACK police bodyguard who protected the Duchess of Cornwall has won $70,000 compensation after suing Scotland Yard for “over-promoting” him because of political correctness.

Sgt Leslie Turner — the first black personal protection officer to guard the royal family — will receive the “racial discrimination” payout after reaching an out-of-court settlement with London’s Metropolitan Police.

His representatives argued he landed the prestigious job as Camilla’s bodyguard only because he was black.

It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned.

He launched legal proceedings against the force in October and Scotland Yard chiefs have agreed to pay “substantial” compensation — understood to be about $70,000 — to the married father of two.

Colleagues of Sgt Turner, who was born in Britain, say he is a “model professional”‘ who had a good relationship with Prince Charles and Camilla.

He began guarding Charles in August, 2004 and was re-assigned to Camilla in February last year when the royal couple were engaged.

But in June, it emerged he had suddenly been replaced.

Royal insiders stress that the decision to move him was not taken directly by Clarence House. But they concede that the race row is extremely embarrassing for Charles and Camilla.

Had Sgt Turner’s case reached a tribunal, potentially embarrassing secrets about Charles and Camilla’s lives may have been aired.

A Met spokesman refused to confirm the compensation deal.