industry & research
campusreview.com.au
So, what are some other explanations?
The major one is environmental experience.
“There is good evidence to show that
if you take a child whose parents and
grandparents have low IQ test scores, and you
raise that child in a healthy, stimulating and
academically challenging environment, you’re
likely to improve his or her IQ,” she says.
This means that, in her view, precision
education is deceptive, and can be
adversely determinative.
"[For example] a child with apparently
low IQ gene variations, if there ever were
such a thing, could be taught in a less
challenging way than necessary. This could
lead to a negative, self-fulfilling prophecy.
That’s because parents and teachers, like all
humans, will act in a way that confirms the
‘low IQ’ bias, and that won’t bring out the
best in the child.”
Regardless, even if intelligence could be
genetically quantified, Smith says there’s
no way it could be matched to educational
methods and content as yet, as we don’t
know enough about the neurobiology and
psychology of learning. For example, she
claims that learning style theories are highly
contentious, and we know even less about
how the brain encodes information in
different ways.
THE EPIGENETICIST
THE EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
Intelligence quotient (IQ) is the label applied
to one’s learning ability. It follows that, by
Plomin’s logic, if genetics can predict 60
per cent of learning ability, it can predict 60
per cent of IQ.
Many researchers contend that Plomin’s
assumption is inaccurate. Dr Jennifer
Smith is one of them. The educational
psychologist thinks that “while intelligence
is quite heritable, at this stage the idea that
particular genes can accurately predict
one’s IQ is highly questionable”.
To support her view, she referred
to the recent, largest ever study of
genetic intelligence, published in
March in Nature. From a sample size of
240,000 people, researchers found 538
genes specifically linked to intelligence.
Yet, of these genes, only 7 per cent
were linked to intelligence differences
between people.
“There are other important factors that
explain variations in intelligence,” Smith
says. “And these factors are ones that we
can often control.”
Epigenetics refers to how genes (comprised
of DNA) are expressed. For example, a
mouse may have genes for black and white
fur, but if only the white ones are 'turned
on', the mouse will be white.
How does this relate to precision
education? “The same genes can have
epigenetic differences, which potentially
means genes’ activity can be changed
in regards to intelligence,” says Jeffrey
Craig, an associate professor from the
Environmental and Genetic Epidemiology
Research Group at the Murdoch Children’s
Research Institute.
Again, this appears to corrode Plomin’s
reasoning. If epigenetics can influence
intelligence, couldn’t education premised
on genetics be flawed?
Plomin dismisses this possibility. He says
precision education would be based on DNA
alone, and this never changes. “Epigenetics
is no big deal,” he says. “It has nothing to do
with inherited DNA differences.”
Nonetheless, Craig also takes issue with
Plomin’s view on genetics. Specifically, he
says the genetic component of intelligence
differs between developed and developing
countries (as mentioned, Plomin simply
states it is 60 per cent).
“If you go to low-income countries,
genetics will appear to comprise less of
intelligence, but environments there are
different. There are issues around access to
sanitation, teachers and hospitals.
“In those countries, it’s much better
to focus on the environment to improve
education outcomes. That’s why we need
to think beyond genetics.”
THE ETHICS EXPERT
Jane Tiller, an adviser on public health
genomics at Melbourne's Monash University,
is concerned that basing a person’s
education on their DNA is too deterministic.
“Arguably, we may never have the
information we need to do that,” she says.
Even if we did, she foresees potential
ethical issues. First, to Plomin’s point that
precision education could be used to help
the academically needy.
“As a society … we don’t have a good
track record for using genetic technology
to help the marginalised,” she says.
“Technology is expensive … Equity of
access is a big concern.”
Currently, direct-to-consumer DNA tests
are only offered commercially. Aside from
the financial constraints this could impose
on consumers (for the purpose of precision
education or otherwise), Tiller thinks this
could cause multiple other problems.
First, the tests are offered without medical
oversight or genetic counselling.
“I would be concerned about parents
ordering DNA tests to ascertain their
kids’ intelligence, and not giving them
opportunities they might have otherwise
given them,” Tiller said.
Then, there’s privacy. DNA testing
companies frequently sell users’ genetic
data to third parties. Although this is
stipulated in their terms and conditions, like
with other products, many people don’t
read or understand them.
Yet, perhaps most significantly, test results
aren’t always accurate, Tiller says. This is
pertinent to intelligence. Website DNA.Land,
for example, offers a ‘General Intelligence
Trait Prediction Report’. The scientist that
did the underlying programming for these
reports, Yaniv Erlich, told The Atlantic that he
did so specifically to disprove a strong, known
connection between genes and intelligence.
Overall, Tiller thinks precision education
could be a mixed blessing. “It has great
potential and some risks.” ■
19