 President Paulson, members in the faculty and the student body, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot refrain from calling your attention, especially those who missed the first session in the chapel, in a few rather unusual and celebratory words, on the earth speaker. He admonished all of us, especially the younger members of this audience, and listened with care and concentration. Open your minds for once, as he said, but keep your mind open to opinion as opposed to knowledge, and so on. I think that is extremely important because, as I have taught in young people and others, I mean that they do not yet know a tremendous amount, about the subject that we discuss today and tomorrow. They are in awe and fear rather than wonder, and therefore, because they have a tremendous responsibility and a tremendous opportunity in a and tomorrow. Enorm judgments. It is especially wise of our first speaker to ask everyone of us, young or old, and listen when more care, perhaps, you know, listen to anything here or there. The subject is that important. It is my privilege to introduce the first formal lecture of this first Nobel Symbolium. He is Dr. Selman Reed, Professor of Zoology at the University of Minnesota, and Director of the Institute for Human Genetics. Professor Reed is a New Englander by birth, a name of Vermont. He is measured by years and by the scope and vigor of his activities, I should say vigor, of his activities. He is still a young man. At the right U.S. U. of Montpellier High School, he went to Dartmouth, from which he right U.N. in 1932 with others called Lottner. Then he went to Farmer on his master's degree in 1933 and Doctor of Philosophy in 1935. And after that, 30 years ago, he began his career as a teacher and as a geneticist. And within 20 years of that time, he reached the top. Four years first at McGill University as a humble lecturer in genetics. Then back to Harvard as a assistant professor of biology, two years before and two years after the war. The M.M.V. guy that Dr. Reed kindly gave me at my request says nothing about the years 1942 and 1945, but I can tell you that he spent those three years in the Navy. Since 1947, that is, for the past 18 years, he has been at the University of Minnesota. When he seemed to be holding the University of Ireland in length while living in St. Paul, perhaps not a bad idea. At the University, first assistant professor and then old professor of zoology, although I'm not sure what an old professor is all of, and then director of the, as I say, of genetics, human genetics. He's an author, an investigator, an executive of numerous scientific societies in learning the greatest ones in his field and the nation as well as in the state. He has long been at the top of his profession. He's been honored by many state and national organizations. He's been the first one in the recipient of many research grants. And I understand his hobbies and his sport, and one sentence I don't quite understand when it looked at me is that it ran fully with the sex life of houseplants, which might be interesting. His art with some life seemed to me an emanation to understand and explain human behavior. But it's definitely of anything more important for the peace and welfare of the world for all of us to understand the behavior of ourselves in relation to ourselves and everyone else. What are the mental injunctions of the art and the art have been? Know myself, and in my own superior self, be true. With the help and guidance of Professor Reed and men like him, we may someday, oh well, not solve a responsibility for Professor Reed. I'm in trouble already with this device, but I guess we'll be able to solve the problem. Thank you, President Carlson, Dr. Hinch, the other nobel laureates, and my wife, Dr. Reed, for accompanying me, and all 800 participants each and every one. Every time that I visit Gustavus, I fall more in love with it, and it is a pleasure to be here today. My assignment is to present the essence of the science of human genetics so that the subsequent speakers will not have to pause to explain the simple facts of heredity basic to their discussions. I will spare you the detailed didactic description which my hundreds of beginning genetic students have endured, because those invited to this symposium have had some previous acquaintance with genetics and realized that the dominant gene is not made of red chalk and the recessive of green. What I propose to do is to describe one or more examples of the most important genetic mechanisms in terms of reproductive fitness and eugenic significance. Gregor Mendel demonstrated the behavior of dominant and recessive traits without ever having heard of a chromosome. He realized that each offspring receives half of its heredity from its father and the other half from its mother. He could see that heredity depended upon simple manipulations of pairs of traits and was thus a function of the number two. The recent recognition of human genetics as an important discipline has been due in large part to the impact of the beautiful pictures of human chromosomes which are a proof of the reality of the Mendelian laws of heredity in man. Most every physician since 1900 has known that Huntington's career behaves as a Mendelian dominant trait. This means that one member of a pair of an affected person's chromosomes has the gene on it which disturbs the person's physiology in such a way that the person behaves in a psychotic fashion, decreases in intelligence, and loses motor control of the muscles. The grimacing and spectacular muscular incoordination resulted in the branding of the Korea as a witch in colonial days, but the psychological disturbances due to this gene are more harmful to the patient than the muscular malfunctions. The most interesting of the early papers on Huntington's career to me is Bulletin 17 of the Eugenics Record Office by C.B. Davenport and Elizabeth B. Munsey M.D. This study was published in 1916. It traces the genealogies of the descendants of the original Korean patients who came to Long Island and to Massachusetts. There were about six of the original persons with Huntington's career who came during the 17th century and with their descendants accounted for the 962 Koreacs identified by Davenport and Munsey in 1916 either as living patients or ones for whom records of their disease had been preserved. It is quite clear that this dominant gene has had remarkable fitness even though the patient dies a horrible death. The reason for the spread of this deleterious gene is that it does not usually incapacitate the patient until after the child bearing period is over. The Eugenics Record Office Bulletin includes a fascinating map which shows the migration of the dominant gene for Huntington's career from the east to the west coast with steps of one generation or more on the way. It is important to remember that in past generations Korean and normal persons could expect to have significantly more children than were necessary for mere self-replacement. This permitted a rapid spread of the gene for Huntington's career as the country grew. Furthermore, if the gene should have a disproportionately large representation in the lower socioeconomic groups we could expect it to have a higher frequency than would otherwise be the case because of the higher reproductive rates of the lower socioeconomic groups. These considerations do not indicate that someday everyone will have Huntington's career. They merely suggest why the gene persists in some individual family lines for at least 15 generations as in Davenport's material and why its frequency is far above the replacement value due to new mutations. The frequency of the gene for Huntington's career in the lower peninsula of Michigan has been estimated by T.E. Reed and Chandler to be about 1 per 10,000 persons. T.E. Reed and James Neal estimated the mutation rate for this gene to be about 5 times 10 to the minus 6 mutations per locus per generation and 5 per million. This means that not more than one case in 10 results from a new mutation while the other 9 out of 10 were transmitted from an affected parent in each case. The gene for Huntington's career is rare in the population but it is of great interest as a direct challenge to practical eugenics. In counseling young persons who have a 50% risk of having this gene in each of their cells I do not have the conviction to urge them to refrain from having any children. Instead I equivocate and suggest that the risks are so great that they should expect to be satisfied with a small family. The reason for this of course is that half of these individuals will not have the gene for the disease and will not have any affected offspring. But if we cannot bring ourselves to control this most insidious of genes we need not expect society to attempt to control less terrifying traits. The heredity of a dominant trait such as Huntington's career is simple. A patient passes the dominant gene to half his offspring who eventually develop the disease. The other half of the children receives a normal gene partner from the affected parent and as they got the normal gene only they will have only normal children. The genetic basis for Huntington's career is simple but we still have come to no decision as to how to prevent the transmission of this gene which every sensible person would consider to be an absolutely undesirable gene. We must move on to the recessive type of inheritance. We remember that a person's chromosomes come in pairs one member of each pair from the person's father and the other from his mother. If two genes at the same place on the chromosome pair are chemically different one of them may produce a result that you can see such as Korea and is therefore considered to be a dominant gene. The other member of the gene pair may not give a visible effect and because it is not evident in the person even though present it is called a recessive. If two people marry who both carry the same recessive gene at the same geographic position on the chromosome one quarter of their children would be expected to have this recessive gene on both members of their appropriate pair of chromosomes. When the recessive gene is present on both members of the chromosome pair its effects will no longer be concealed as it was in the carrier person but will express itself and result in a trait such as albinism. Half of the children of the carrier parents will be carriers also while one quarter of the children will not have the albino gene present on their chromosomes at all nor transmit it to future generations. The albino child usually is produced by normal but carrier parents while one out of four children from two carrier parents will be albinos. Most marriages are between persons without the albino gene so that in Caucasian populations we find that only about one birth in 20,000 is an albino. You may be astonished to learn that while only one person in 20,000 is an albino one person in every 70 is an unwitting carrier of the recessive gene for albinism. The picture is very different among some tribes of Indians of Central America and Southwestern United States where about one in 200 persons is an albino and one in eight is a carrier. The reader is referred to the paper of Keeler in 1964 and that of Wolf and Grant in 1962 for the details of the gene frequencies which are remarkably similar for the affected tribes in Panama and in Arizona. We do not know why these Indian tribes differ so sharply from other Indians and Caucasians in their astonishingly high frequency of albinism. However, it is impossible to prevent me from speculating as follows. First, the Panama and Arizona Indians must have had some ancestors in common many centuries ago. Some one of these founding fathers must have had a mutation to the gene for albinism which has been transmitted to his descendants perhaps being lost in some lines of descent but becoming well established in others as a result of genetic drift. Genetic drift is the process by which a gene can get a foothold as a result of random sampling in numerically small populations. Even a deleterious gene such as albinism with a fitness of perhaps only 50% could conceivably become frequent as a result of genetic drift alone. Second speculation, it is fairly certain that metastases from skin cancers and failure to find mates because of the albinism itself cut the reproductive fitness of the albino very significantly. However, it is possible that the normal carrier of this particular gene for albinism may have a slight reproductive advantage over the normal person who is not a carrier. Wolf and Grant produced the arithmetic to show that if the reproductive success of the albino is only 50% of that of the normal carrier and the success of the normal who is not a carrier is 96.2% of that of the carriers, then there would continue to be one albino in every 200 persons indefinitely. What we are saying is that if the normal carrier of the gene for albinism has a slight reproductive superiority over the non-carrier, the continuing production of albinos will be assured. Presumably this is also the case for the albino gene in Caucasians where we must choose between an unreasonably high mutation rate or a small reproductive advantage of the carrier over the non-carrier in order to explain the frequency of this deleterious gene. The carrier of the albino gene in Caucasian groups does not have as great a relative advantage as does the carrier in the Indian tribes. This may be related to the considerably greater identity of the chromosomes in the small inbred Indian tribes compared with the Caucasian populations. However, this is sufficient speculation about albinism for now. A second recessive gene, which I'll bring to your attention, is that for fibrocystic disease of the pancreas. I was among the first to show that this disease behaves as a good Mendelian recessive in 1949. With this disease, one can detect the carriers in some proportion of the cases, though not in all cases. Some carriers excrete in their sweat excessive amounts of chlorides as do all the patients and thus may be identified. Fibrocystic disease is present at birth or appears during the childhood years. It is an unusually pernicious disease because it keeps the child in the hospital about half of the time. The child was expected to die of the disease in the past, but now he often survives as the result of improved and continuous medical management. Only the very wealthy could afford the tremendous expense involved so that in almost all cases the cost is borne by society, via Blue Cross or other community resources. The disease is also relatively frequent, being present in as many as one per thousand of Caucasian births. The financial burden for each case to society is so tremendous that it is legitimate to bring it to your attention. The damage from the psychological trauma to the family and patient is of even greater concern than the economic aspects of the trade. Fibrocystic disease was selected as an illustration of a recessive trade because it is one of the few of eugenic interest where some of the carriers could be identified with certainty in premarital tests. I would suggest that the simplest version of the SWET test be made available for all persons upon application for a marriage license. It is possible that two persons found to have abnormally high chloride values might decide not to marry. Legislation to this end does not seem very likely to appear, which indicates how little concern exists for the birthright of each child. Indeed, in Minnesota, there is no required premarital blood test which would reduce the incidence of syphilis and other diseases. Everyone is much concerned about the health of the 40 whooping cranes which live in Louisiana during the winter, but few people give much thought to the 80 children who are born each year in Minnesota with fibrocystic disease, at least from the point of view of prevention of the disease. There is always intense interest in cures for diseases, but not so much concern about their prevention. We have spent perhaps too much time on the sharply defined Mendelian recessives and dominance, which fortunately are rare traits. Our most frequent traits, such as height and intelligence, are different from the clearly Mendelian ones, such as the blood groups. One can be completely lacking in antigen B of the blood groups and have excellent health. On the other hand, no one could exist with zero height and a person with an IQ of zero would not be conscious. Thus, frequent traits are not all or none propositions, but are a variable in expression and, when measured, produce a skewed curve or often a normal curve. These quantitatively variable traits must depend for their expression upon more than one pair of genes and, therefore, are said to be polygenic traits. The most valuable kind of polygenic trait which we possess is that of intelligence, as measured by tests of any kind. Intelligence is not a single characteristic and we cannot measure all of it. Nonetheless, we can talk about intelligence in general terms and the word means about the same thing to me as it does to you. The clamor resulting from the nature-nurture misunderstanding seems to have obscured the obvious relationship between the evolution of the cerebral hemispheres and the basic intelligence of each species. The chimpanzee is smarter than the cat and the cat is brighter than the canary. The differences in intelligence between these animals are primarily genetic and, obviously, multifactorial and polygenic. One can view the astonishing expansion in size and efficiency of the forebrain from the modest organs of our insectivorous-like ancestors to the really incredible mental equipment of Homo sapiens man the wise. Let us speculate about man's breeding structure during the major part of the evolution of his intelligence. It is the consensus that agriculture began to develop sometime around 8,000 B.C. Man's survival and increase was greatly enhanced as a result. Previous to this time, there could have been only hunting and food-gathering groups with no established urban life. Each breeding group had to be relatively small with considerable inbreeding being inevitable. In such small groups, favorable new mutations for higher intelligence could have been established quickly and spread rapidly to other neighboring clans or tribes. Presumably, the evolution of higher intelligence, as distinguished from the lower intelligence of the apes, occurred during the last one million years or so, which would encompass about 35,000 generations, a little less than 30 years per generation. Let us now face the baffling problem of the rate of evolution of higher intelligence. There were no IQ tests for cavemen. However, there is little harm in assuming that our ancestors of 35,000 generations ago had an average IQ of at least 30 in present-day terms. If we assume that the average intelligence evolved from an IQ of about 30, equated to the present average of 100, there has been an increase of about 70 IQ points in about 35,000 generations. This is two-thousandths of an IQ point for the average rate of change per generation. This figure is an absurdity, in a sense, in that it is not realistic to think of any average rate of change persisting for 35,000 generations. However, this extremely small rate of change, whatever it might have been, does serve notice that even during the greatest spurts of man's evolution, the largest change in any one generation must have been modest indeed, only some small fraction of an IQ point. The world population has now reached 3 billion persons, and it will take only 15 years more to reach the fourth billion. It should be clear that no large genetic changes in the average intelligence of the people of the world are likely to occur in one generation. If striking fluctuations are reported, one should discount them to some extent. They are likely to result from bias due to the use of different psychological tests, different sampling methods, or other pitfalls rather than from fundamental environmental or genetic changes. Let me present an excellent example of the ease with which scientists can be mistaken. One of the main concerns of the eugenics movement depended upon the peculiar misconception that the mentally retarded more than replace their numbers while the most brilliant citizens fail to marry or have few children. If this were true, the average intelligence of the nation should be falling, and man would be losing the trait which makes him intellectually superior to all other species. The basis for the eugenic concern was the well-established fact that the larger the family of children, the lower the average intelligence of those children. One investigator had calculated that the intelligence of one area of England was dropping by about four IQ points per generation. This could not continue for long without ensuing disaster if it were true. It occurred to me in 1949 that the eugenic premise might be based on a seriously faulty design of the experimental method employed. All members of each generation with no children had been omitted from the studies of the past, which might lead to a large enough bias to vitiate the possible significance of the negative correlation between the number of children in the family and their average intelligence. My most helpful wife, Dr. Elizabeth Reed, and later a graduate student, James B. Higgins, and I set out to explore the problem. We found that it made a striking difference when the childless members of each generation were included. Our study profited from an extensive earlier project at the state school and hospital for the retarded at Faribault, Minnesota. The 1911 to 1918 work was an evaluation of the intelligence and social characteristics of about 500 patients and their relatives. We excluded some of the family groups because the patient was not actually retarded or because he was an epileptic. The 289 pro bands re-retained seemed to be genuine cases of mental retardation without major complications other than those due to their retardation. We studied the grandparents and all of their descendants in these 289 kinships, as well as the persons who married any of the descendants. This gave a population of 82,217 persons. The 289 pro bands were an insignificant fraction of this sample of humanity, which seemed to us to be practically identical with any random sample of this size which might have been selected by any other means. The results of interest here concerned the 1016 families where an IQ value was available for both the father and the mother and at least one child. These amounted to a total of 4,071 persons with known IQ values in this sub-sample. We are well aware that the value of a single intelligence quotient may be slight. However, in a large collection of IQ values the errors in the individual tests should largely cancel out. The sharp differences to be presented are certainly not the result of testing errors. These data provided the expected negative correlation of minus 0.3 between the number of children in the family and their intelligence similar to the findings of previous investigators. We found that the low average intelligence of the children in large families was anticipated by low average intelligence of their parents as measured when the parents were children themselves. Thus, the future mothers of the 370 families each with two children had an average IQ of 104.5 while the future mothers of the 5 families of 9 children averaged only 90. The intelligence quotients for both fathers and mothers showed a substantial negative correlation with the size of the families they produced some years later. This last point is very important and it had not been demonstrated quantitatively before. It is also worth noting that the important and sharp drop in the intelligence of the parents occurred in those who produced 6 or more children. It is also significant that only 39 out of the 1016 families or 3.8% had 6 or more children. This sounds as if the least intelligent were rapidly outbreeding the remainder of the population with the higher intelligence ratings. However, we have committed a gross statistical error by ignoring the fact that these parents had a sizable number of brothers and sisters who remain childless. Everyone in the parental generation must be included in the sample if it is to have any statistical validity. The previous workers had omitted one of the most important single classes of persons in the parental generation, the childless. The necessary innovation of including the childless brothers and sisters of our parents results in a striking change in the picture. This is because there is an extremely important differential intelligence in intelligence between the childless and those with children. There is also a difference between the married and the unmarried in the population. This must be so because the severely mentally retarded seldom marry. The severely mentally retarded thus pull down the average of intelligence for all unmarried persons. This should not be interpreted as a reflection upon the intelligence of single persons. It is merely stating the obvious fact that the severely retarded are handicapped in obtaining mates, especially when they are institutionalized. The sharpness of this differential can be indicated by pointing out that 42% of our group of unmarried persons were retarded while only 4% of the married persons had IQ's values of 70 or below. The average IQ for the unmarried was only 80.46 while the IQ for the married was above 100. This is the kind of thing that was mentioned by Professor Cush this morning when he said that all of the speakers were semi-loom-fixed, which in my case is not true. I'm only schizophrenic. Our findings have been confirmed by Bajima, who studied the subsequent reproduction of a complete sample of children in the Kalamazoo public school system. The Minnesota and Michigan studies show clearly that if we take all the persons in one generation and arrange them according to their IQ values, then the average number of children for the persons with IQ values of 70 and below is only 2.09 while the average number of children for all persons with an IQ of 131 and above was 2.98. The retarded then produced only 2.909 children on the average when all of the childless ones were included while all of the persons with IQ's of 131 and above produced 2.98 children. Thus when the experimental design is correct, there is no excess of children produced by the mentally retarded. Indeed, the data which are given in detail in our forthcoming book gives some hope that the evolution of higher intelligence may be still continuing. It would be impossible to prove that there is any genetic change either for better or worse in intelligence because the rate of change for a single generation must be so terribly small in the world as a whole. So while we cannot prove that the IQ is rising, we can show clearly that the eugenic fears of the past that the IQ was falling rapidly were based upon an error in experimental design and therefore without scientific basis. Let us return to our central topic of the study of genetic changes in relatively stable physical environments. This subject is often called population genetics. We have seen that the genes for Huntington's Korea and Albinism persist for longer or shorter periods of time because these genes are transmitted from generation to generation with the need for only occasional new mutations to replace those lost because some of the affected persons fail to produce their quota of children. It is more important to know what is happening with a polygenic trait such as intelligence for many obvious reasons. Man has achieved his place as the species which has subdued all the others not because his muscles are more massive but because his brain is better. The record is clear that his intelligence has been improving at an extremely slow rate for millions of years. Presumably the genetic mechanisms for many of the small parts of intelligence are fundamentally the same as the mechanisms for Huntington's Korea and Albinism. The greater complications are due to the fact that many more pairs of genes and many more environmental factors are interacting to produce the trait we call intelligence than is the case with a mental disease such as Huntington's Korea. Perhaps the greatest boon resulting from the disciplines of evolution in population genetics is the realization that the ortho-selection for higher intelligence is probably continuing today much as it has in the past. Are there any ways in which this extraordinarily slow process can be accelerated? Could we cause a more rapid increase in the proportion of genes for higher intelligence with a corresponding decrease in the proportion of genes for lower intelligence? It is not necessary to accept any specific theory for the basis of intelligence to conclude that it can be improved. Those oriented toward the environmental philosophies expect improved education, the war on poverty, and other social actions to bring this about. All must agree that no large genetic change is likely to occur in the whole human species in one generation. The important question from the practical point of view is how to manipulate society so that the genetic gains and the environmental improvements will both be optimal. The aspirations of mankind are committed to this goal. The practical problems of how to guide our evolution for physical and mental improvement during the many generations of the scientific future are the greatest importance now. It is these problems that the succeeding speakers will struggle to resolve in their own ways as well as can be done at this stage of our knowledge. Thank you all. There isn't too much time, but if you want to... We have, I think, 15 minutes, and I sure will bring the questions. Dr. Reed will try to answer them. And he can answer. I won't try to answer. While we're waiting for the calculation of the reasoning, are there any questions from anyone here in front? It's obvious to me, Dr. Reed, that we can have society and develop markedly its interests and success in scientific investigation without changing the IQ very much. Is that right? With a world population of three to four billion people that no genetic change can proceed very fast because these changes must come about family by family, that is. Although every family in the world might change its ideas, perhaps, somewhat. The genetics and their behavior somewhat. The genetics would not change at a terrifically fast rate and we look back to the past to see that this must have been the case that the change was slow. If we have a rapid genetic change in some trait, this very likely is localized in some area and not worldwide. And presumably in the long run, we are concerned with the worldwide change rather than the smaller ones that might come about though naturally some smaller places would have to serve as models for the world as a whole. In other words, society can improve greatly without having any material change in its IQ. Sorry? Society can improve greatly without having any material change in its IQ. Yes, certainly the environmental opportunities are immediate whereas genetic improvement is in the future. I'll see which ones I can give a basic one. Is IQ completely a result of heredity or does the environment education and so on have a significant effect? Of course it does. There isn't any question about this and we have some ideas as to the amount of effect that the environment can cause under usual conditions. We should state our platitude or truism that no one could exist without both his heredity and environment. There would be utterly impossible to be present without either one. If you had the heredity of an amoeba, you would then be an amoeba and the environment of the amoeba would not be particularly conducive to getting a PhD. Here is a question which says please discuss pile up of deleterious genes as mentioned by Muller. This question implies that relaxed natural selection permits the increase of genes for specific abnormalities and it is quite possible that it does. On the other hand this change worldwide must be very slow indeed and presumably it would be very slow in most communities. There is a change quite certainly in the kind of natural selection that goes on. In the past it was much concerned with infectious agents and death due tuberculosis, influenza, pneumonia and so on. The infectious agents are now not as important by any means as the genetics of the circulatory system that is more than half of all deaths now result from a breakdown of the circulatory system which while the genetics for this are still foggy indeed must have an obvious relationship. It is again you can't have a person without the genetics for a circulatory system. I see I am getting too many of them here. Is there any evidence that man had more intelligence at one time in prehistoric areas? The difficulty we have of finding out what the IQ of the caveman was I of course don't know whether he did or whether he didn't but I assume that it was not greatly more than it present because the paleontological studies of skulls of previous man do not indicate any greater intelligence in the past than we have at present. Obviously I am not going to have time to answer all of these selecting ones that seem to be more interesting to me. I have a question here which will undoubtedly come up before we are finished with the sessions. Since the increased use of birth control it seems that those who practice this are of the more educated and higher socioeconomic groups. Do you think this could have an effect on the overall intelligence? I would think yes that it might but again the effect is going to be small in the long range and presumably we would assume that eventually every couple will have the understanding to control their reproduction and it will not longer be socioeconomic privilege. Is it true that at least one mutation occurs in every person? Yes I think it is probably quite true that more than one mutation occurs in every person. We don't know the precise value for this but to return to Mueller he has estimated that one out of every 10 eggs or one out of every 10 sperm has a new mutation in it. The figure may of course not be precise on the other hand within some order of magnitude it is correct. Here is a nice hot one. Is there any significant difference in IQ between any two races? Those of you who read the scientific literature realize that there has been a considerable amount of discussion at this point but in my opinion it is fair to say that we are not yet able to separate the results of heredity in an environment sufficiently so that we could come to any conclusion as to whether there was any difference in IQ between two races as we know that every race has the complete normal curve distribution of IQ values but there is also unquestionably a very important environmental difference in the habitats of various races. Could man be a mutation of the ape? That was one you were going to answer. No biologist assumes that man is a direct descendant of any ape as now known. The ancestors of both man and apes would go back to a common at some point but no one assumes that we are descendants of any ape at present time. The chimpanzee can count to seven which is better than some humans can do but that doesn't mean that we are a mutation from a chimpanzee. Do you actually think the so-called war on poverty is going to help our environment enough to produce a distinct genetic change? Well, this is a speculative question. I would not think that it would have any larger immediate effect on the genetics of the 180 million people in this country but it certainly could improve their IQ from a purely environmental way and this is the thing that we have been asked to do. Well, this is a very good question. The title of my talk is the mental process of genetic change in a stable physical environment. Now this topic was assigned to me and I must admit that I wasn't really quite sure what it meant that is what a stable physical environment is. I decided that what it meant was a relatively stable physical environment. Do you think enforced prevention of the spread of deleterious genes is advisable in my more or less of a hobby which has been genetic counseling the question of course has often been asked of me whether the enforced prevention of the spread of deleterious genes is advisable. In a sense we do this already as we enforce the prevention of the spread of deleterious genes by institutionalizing people who are socially unable to look after themselves so that while we do this on sociological grounds it must have an effect from a eugenic point of view though again it isn't going to change the world population broadly. In other words the effect whatever it may be will be a rather slow one but we do already in our in all societies generally bring pressure against the individual with deleterious genes either by not selecting him as a mate because he is not pleasing to look upon in some cases where civilization looks after everyone and provides institutions for those who cannot look after themselves then as a byproduct of this we would certainly get a small eugenic effect. This question what is the life expectancy of the patient after Huntington's career first develops? The I am looking at this question primarily because we have studied Huntington's career in this state. Dr. John Pearson who is right there has carried out a careful search for all Koreas in the state and has worked out their pedigrees tracing them back to the ancestral families in all cases where this is possible it is my impression from the work that he has done and that others have done that the life expectancy of the patient after the career has been detected is something in the order of 15 years is that yes he says that's reasonable here is the question on what basis was the estimate of the IQ of 30 some 35,000 generations ago determined well as I pulled out of my hat as we of course have not any idea what the IQ was and it wouldn't have been possible to measure it with any test now available what I was trying to do there is that whatever you considered to be if you even wanted to consider it zero which is nonsense because all of our many of our non-primate ancestors that lived 45 million years ago must have had some amount of IQ but if you consider that they had none then you still would have arrived after 35,000 generations only at the 100 we have at present so if you divide the 100 instead of 70 by this number of generations you still get such a low rate of increase per generation that as such it is relatively ridiculous because it is such a tiny number such a small increase per generation and probably some generations had a greater increase than others particularly the farther back you go where the population was smaller at the beginning of agriculture it has been estimated that there are probably not more than 20 million people in the whole world which is a very small number indeed compared with the fourth billion that we will arrive at soon it is now 12 o'clock oh well this is a we can open up a I will not say what I was going to say this question says do you believe there are mutations for ESP well this of course is assumed in the first place that I believe in ESP and I am not sure that I do there was a I have seen a manuscript on this subject whether it will ever be published I am not sure but I think I will stop with ESP it has a good point thank you very much I have been a very ill question is not answered but in my opinion some of them are very interesting and I will suggest that Dr. Reed looked them over and we have them in the moderator and perhaps in the answer by Dr. Reed later or some other member of the panel during the last part of the program the panel itself and little to whose meeting challenged the expert here but I am going to challenge him on his one statement because I knew it all in school and I am sure I am going to send it from an 8 that is the end