Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can a molecule that makes mice smarter heal a human brain?

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–55 of 55 posts

Re: Can a molecule that makes mice smarter heal a human brain?

#51

Post by greendragon »

phkahler wrote: post #46
hinkley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some distant point in the future we will understand biology so well that we can see the ways in which evolution produced local maxima for certain processes, and we will be able to see alternate versions that are more optimal but would (almost) never evolve on their own. At that point, we will indeed be able to create artificial molecules or genes that make brains more efficient at using oxygen and sugar to produce…

...ways in which evolution produced local maxima... There is a compelling argument against any simple way to enhance people. It's that if a simple change even the addition of a single molecule could make people significantly better, evolution would have found that change already. With nature we are stuck with much more incremental change. So I agree that science may eventually find some nice enhancements but they wil…

This isn't exactly true, since the human meaning of "enhance" is quite different from the evolutionary meaning. For example, iodine (an element, not even as big as a molecule) supplementation at the fetus and early childhood stages can, among other benefits, result in as much as a 13 point IQ increase from a previously deficient region's average. This is a huge enhancement by human standards. Why hasn't evolution found a way to have our bodies produce iodine automatically (perhaps by producing iodomethane like some algae?) at that stage of life, or maybe only by the mother when the child is in the womb or perhaps produced and distributed only with breast milk? Then even if you lack natural sources of iodine you'll still benefit. It should be easy, it's just a single element!

Well even for "simple" things like the addition of a single new element, or a single new molecule, or a single new protein, the details are complicated, and any mutation that depends on a prior mutation to be beneficial has to wait until the prior mutation is close to fixation and is common among the species. Evolution is slow and only cares about reproductive fitness, and can easily get trapped in local maxima and a species can even evolve to extinction. Because of that, it can miss obvious (to human intelligence) low hanging fruit. So I don't think that "evolution would have found it already" argument is very compelling. Evolution is dumb, it's amazing it works at all.

Re: Can a molecule that makes mice smarter heal a human brain?

#53

Post by crooked-v »

beambot wrote: post #44
goatlover wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we can't know from a sample of one whether the placebo effect was in play, or whether the individual's response was atypical.

How do you think humanity learned about new medicines before clinical studies? A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step; or in this case, a single experimenter.

This is also how people learn about the dangers of fan death, how carrots help improve your night vision, and that bulls are enraged by the color red.

Re: Can a molecule that makes mice smarter heal a human brain?

#54

Post by beambot »

crooked-v wrote: post #53
beambot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think humanity learned about new medicines before clinical studies? A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step; or in this case, a single experimenter.

This is also how people learn about the dangers of fan death, how carrots help improve your night vision, and that bulls are enraged by the color red.

Those examples seem super consequential compared to all the medical advancements that we got... I would gladly keep the medical advancements in exchange for turning off fans inside, eating more carrots, and avoiding red around bulls (or just avoiding bulls altogether; they stink).

Thankfully, humans like to try new things and then apply cause-and-effect reasoning to create good, new hypothesis (based by early citizen science evidence). I suspect that trait has massive benefits in our evolution. I hope people don't get put off by calls for "rigorous science" and keep experimenting on their own... and that the scientific establishment latches on to good ideas to do more rigorous studies! [The two aren't mutually exclusive! It's not zero sum!]

Re: Can a molecule that makes mice smarter heal a human brain?

#55

Post by phkahler »

greendragon wrote: post #51
phkahler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...ways in which evolution produced local maxima... There is a compelling argument against any simple way to enhance people. It's that if a simple change even the addition of a single molecule could make people significantly better, evolution would have found that change already. With nature we are stuck with much more incremental change. So I agree that science may eventually find some nice enhancements but they wil…

This isn't exactly true, since the human meaning of "enhance" is quite different from the evolutionary meaning. For example, iodine (an element, not even as big as a molecule) supplementation at the fetus and early childhood stages can, among other benefits, result in as much as a 13 point IQ increase from a previously deficient region's average. This is a huge enhancement by human standards. Why hasn't evolution fou…

>> For example, iodine (an element, not even as big as a molecule) supplementation at the fetus and early childhood stages can, among other benefits, result in as much as a 13 point IQ increase from a previously deficient region's average. This is a huge enhancement by human standards. Why hasn't evolution found a way to have our bodies produce iodine automatically (perhaps by producing iodomethane like some algae?) at that stage of life, or maybe only by the mother when the child is in the womb or perhaps produced and distributed only with breast milk? Then even if you lack natural sources of iodine you'll still benefit. It should be easy, it's just a single element!

FYI Iodine is concentrated by the breasts so as to provide it to babies via milk for exactly this reason. Iodine is critical to a lot of things. What you overlook is that as an element (atom) there is no way for the body to "make" iodine. The only way to get it is through what you eat and drink. In my opinion, the thyroid hormones are mostly a way for the body to store iodine - they are numbered T1, T2, T3, and T4 based on the number of iodine atoms in the molecule. The thyroid gland also concentrates iodine for use in making these hormones, but ultimately the only way to get iodine is to consume it - which I highly recommend.

Post reply on HN