Too Hard for Science? The Genetic Foundations of Intelligence

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


 

The scientist:Klaus Zuberbuhler, professor of psychology at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, scientific director of the Budongo Conservation Field Station in Uganda, co-director of the Taï Monkey Project in the Ivory Coast, and deputy director of the Living Links to Human Evolution Research Center at the Edinburgh Zoo.

The idea: Scientists investigating the evolution of human intelligence often look at our closest ape relatives for insights. "By comparing chimpanzees and bonobos with modern humans, we can draw inferences about behavioral, motivational and cognitive traits that are ancestral, or shared with apes, and traits that are derived, or uniquely human, evolved during the last 5 to 6 millions years," Zuberbuhler says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ideally, researchers would like to see what effect genetic variations have on the behavior, motivations and cognition of healthy, normally developed individuals both within a species and across closely related species. Gene defects that lead to abnormal conditions "usually provide little help in understanding of how genes influence variation in normal individuals," Zuberbuhler says.

The problem: Ideally, to experimentally study each of the many genetic factors linked with intelligence, one would need individuals representing each of the untold numbers of combinations of these genes to observe the outcomes — and, really, multiples of each combination for experiments. Scientists would probably also not only like to see what happens with these combinations in one species, but compare results across closely related species, such as humans, bonobos and chimpanzees. Aside from the sheer logistical difficulties involved with finding or breeding such combinations, there come the moral and ethical questions of experimenting on model organisms with the level of intelligence one would like to study.

The solution? Scientists are currently surveying thousands of genes across humans and closely related species to see which might have changed over time and thus be linked with the evolution of human intelligence. They are also focusing on variations in genes that are strongly linked with cognition, such as FOXP2, Zuberbuhler says, which is associated with speech and language.

Image of Klaus Zuberbuhler from his Web page.

*

If you have a scientist you would like to recommend I question, or you are a scientist with an idea you think might be too hard for science, e-mail me at toohardforscience@gmail.com

Follow Too Hard for Science? on Twitter by keeping track of the #2hard4sci hashtag.

About the Author:Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time he has traveled to all seven continents. Follow him on Twitter@cqchoi.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe