[Solstinox]

I’ll let them go first. I insist.

We can barely manipulate simple organisms without causing negative second order effects to cascade through our systems.

[cjbgkagh]

It would be a matter of concentrating specific SNPs that are already identifiable in human populations. There is no need to create new SNPs of unknown outcomes. There would be no difference if the SNP was put there through intervention or if it was inherited by a parent. Since these SNPs already exist the outcomes can and are being studied.

[Solstinox]

These are the types of assumptions and blindspots that lead to unintended negative effects.

Your approach assumes that the distribution of those SNPs at the population level is immaterial.

What makes an allele attractive at one frequency can expose new liabilities at a different frequency.

[cjbgkagh]

>> Your approach assumes that the distribution of those SNPs at the population level is immaterial.

No it doesn't.

  >> What makes an allele attractive at one frequency can expose new liabilities at a different frequency.

So there is this thing called statistics...

There is a false assumption in behavioral genetics that behavior and intelligence are weakly linked to 1000s of SNPs which would make it rather difficult to stay within normal bounds, but in reality there are a few rare SNPs that dominates high intelligence. The RCCX genes of TNXB, CYP21A2, and C4 being the strongest. Of these I would focus on only two TNXB SNPs and there are many people walking around today who have them.