Heritability of Human Intelligence: IQ and Eugenics

By: Karen Norrgard, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Norrgard, K. (2008) Heritability of human intelligence: IQ and eugenics. Nature Education 1(1)

How can we measure heritability to determine what amount of the complex trait of human intelligence is inherited? Also, what are the potential consequences of knowing the answer to this question?

 

The identification of factors that contribute to human intelligence has been a topic of study for over 100 years. Scientists, statisticians, educators, philosophers, and politicians have all weighed in on the matter. The U.S. eugenics movement of the early 1900s sought to prove that intelligence was almost entirely inherited. Today, it is well accepted that human intelligence is determined by a combination of genes and environment. Just what proportion of our intelligence is inherited remains a matter of scholarly debate, however.

Different studies have measured the heritability of IQ to be anywhere from 40% to 80%. If IQ were only 40% heritable, then only 40% of the variation in human IQ levels would be due to genetic factors. This would mean that environmental factors, such as schooling and diet, heavily influence human intelligence levels. On the other hand, studies that find the heritability of IQ to be closer to 80% suggest that environmental factors have little to do with the broad range of IQs observed in human populations. Such discrepancies as to the role of environment and genetics have led to the argument that ethnic differences in intelligence are due to genetic differences, thus fueling racism debates. These discrepancies have also led to suggestions that early intervention and schooling are a waste of resources. This long-lasting debate has motivated repeated scholarly attempts to ultimately define the heritability of IQ.

What Is Heritability and How Is It Estimated?

IQ is a continuous trait.
Figure 1: IQ is a continuous trait.
The IQ scoring system makes 100 the average value with different individuals' scores following a Gaussian distribution.
Copyright 2006 Alessio Damato.

Intelligence is a human trait that does not fall into distinct classes. This type of trait is known as a continuous trait, having a broad phenotype that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors (Figure 1). Quantitative geneticists attempt to determine to what extent genetic and environmental factors influence the variations seen in continuous traits, like intelligence, in order to estimate the heritability of these traits. Heritability does not tell us how much of an individual's IQ level is innate and how much is learned. Rather, heritability is a statistical measurement that applies to an entire population. Specifically, it is a measure of the proportion of phenotypic variation observed in the population that can be attributed to genetic factors. Theoretically, heritability can have a value between 0 (indicating that none of the variation is due to genetic factors) and 1 (indicating that all of the variation in the trait is genetic).

To get some idea of how much of a trait is influenced by genes, you need to be able to compare how much the trait differs between people with similar genes. One way scientists are able to do this in humans is to use monogenic twins. Identical twins are useful for this purpose because they make it possible for scientists to compare genetically identical individuals for specific phenotypes, thus enabling them to quantify the heritability of certain traits. There is, however, the caveat that environment plays a large role in generating variation, even in genetically identical organisms.


How Do Researchers Use Twins to Estimate Heritability?

Monozygotic (MZ) twins, commonly known as identical twins, arise from the splitting of a single early embryo; therefore, these twins are genetically identical. On the other hand, dizygotic (DZ) twins, also called fraternal twins, arise from the simultaneous fertilization of two separate eggs. DZ twins are thus no more related genetically than full siblings, but they do share an identical prenatal environment. By measuring how well a set of twins correlates for a specific phenotypic measurement (such as IQ), researchers start to get an idea of how much of the trait is influenced by genes. If genetics alone accounted for all the variation in IQ scores, the MZ twin correlation would theoretically be 1.0. Similarly, siblings and DZ twins, who share half of their alleles, would have a correlation of 0.5 if IQ variation was due to genes alone.

Table 1: Correlations of IQ Among Differently Related Individuals-Observed and Expected Correlations if IQ Variation Were Due to Genes Alone

Relationship

 

Reared

 

Observed Correlation*

 

Correlation if IQ Were Completely Heritable

 

MZ twins

 

Together

 

0.85

 

1.0

 

MZ twins

 

Apart

 

0.74

 

1.0

 

DZ twins

 

Together

 

0.59

 

0.5

 

Siblings

 

Together

 

0.46

 

0.5

 

Siblings

 

Apart

 

0.24

 

0.5

 

Parent-child

 

Together

 

0.41

 

0.5

 

Parent-child

 

Apart

 

0.24

 

0.5

 

Adoptive parent-child

 

Together

 

0.2

 

0.0

 

*Data from Devlin et al., 1997, based on original tabulations by Bouchard & McGue, 1981.

However, as shown in Table 1, the observed correlation between MZ twins is not 1.0, so there must be environmental factors that influence IQ variation. The fact that MZ twins who were raised apart have a lower correlation than those raised together further demonstrates the influence of the environment on IQ variation.

Researchers typically attribute the phenotypic variance in a trait to a combination of three components. First, additive genetic factors (A) are the cumulative contributions of all the different alleles of the genes that influence the trait. Second, common environmental factors (C) are those environmental factors that are shared equally by both twins. Finally, unique environmental factors (E) are those environmental factors experienced by only one twin. With the assumption that MZ twins share 100% of their genetic sequence and 100% of their common environment (although the latter assumption is problematic), the MZ twin correlation (rMZ) is therefore equal to A + C. Similarly, under the assumption that DZ twins share half their genetic sequence and 100% of their common environment, then the DZ twin correlation (rDZ) is equal to ½A + C. These statements can be summarized as follows:

rMZ = A + C

rDZ = ½A + C

From these two equations, the values of A, C, and E can be derived:

A = 2(rMZ–rDZ)

C = rMZ–A

E = 1–rMZ.

To reiterate, heritability is the proportion of phenotypic variation due to genetic factors; in other words, it is equivalent to A. Thus, the heritability of a trait is calculated as twice the difference between the MZ and DZ twin correlations. Furthermore, the proportion of variance due to common environmental factors is equal to the MZ twin correlation minus heritability, and the proportion of variance due to unique environmental factors is the same as the amount by which the MZ twin correlation deviates from 1.

Different Interpretations from Different Twin Studies

After the genetic correlations are tabulated, researchers try to determine what types of environmental factors have the most influence on variation in the trait. Researchers consider common environmental effects experienced by each twin, as well as unique environmental effects. However, depending on the statistical modeling performed by the researchers, these different environmental effects can appear to have a greater or lesser influence on the overall phenotype. For example, studies reporting similar IQ heritabilities can differ markedly in their estimations of the influence of the prenatal environment, a factor that was largely ignored until a 1997 study by Devlin and colleagues.

In their study, Devlin et al. used data from 212 IQ correlations, then applied alternative models for environmental influence. They found that the data fit better when more consideration was given to maternal effects and shared fetal environment. These researchers argued that shared maternal environment may contribute more to correlations in IQ between twins than previously thought, and they therefore speculated that interventions aimed at improving the prenatal environment might lead to an overall increase in the population's IQ.

Heritability of Other Complex Human Traits

Quantitative geneticists are at the root of the "nature versus nurture" debate with their work to determine the genetic and environmental influences on many complex human traits. Researchers in this field have claimed a genetic basis for a wide range of disorders, including schizophrenia, depression, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, as well as other human traits such as personality attributes and aggressive or addictive behaviors. Evidence of a genetic basis for a disorder or behavior can motivate molecular biologists to track down susceptibility genes, while evidence for environmental causes of disease or negative behaviors can help foster environments that will promote better health.

With the myriad variables influencing complex human traits, each study in quantitative genetics apportions the effects of genes and environment slightly differently. Thus, scientists may never agree on the best way to stave off depression or increase a child's IQ because these issues are so complex.

References and Recommended Reading


Devlin, B., et al. The heritability of IQ. Nature 388, 468–471 (1997) doi:10.1038/388468a0 (link to article)

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science 212, 1055–1059 (1981)


Flag Inappropriate

This content is currently under construction.

This reading is linked to the following Scitable pages:

Are human behaviors controlled by genetics, or are environmental factors major contributors to behavior? Such questions are fundamental to the study of behavioral genomics.
All Articles Within Genetics and Society (38)

Genetic Diagnosis and Disease Risks (5)

Genetic Testing and Human Impact (8)

Ethical Considerations (9)

  • Medical Ethics: Genetic Testing and Spinal Muscular Atrophy
    The mutation that causes Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) can be detected in a prenatal screen. But a parent's decision to test for this terrible disease is not as easy as you would think.
  • Genetic Inequality: Human Genetic Engineering
    As genetics allows us to turn the tide on human disease, it's also granting the power to engineer desirable traits into humans. What limits should we create as this technology develops?
  • Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs
    The eugenics movement of the early 1900s ultimately went horribly wrong despite its noble aims. What can we learn from this movement’s outcomes in order to avoid the repetition of these mistakes?
  • Bioethics in Genetics
    Can bioethics ever represent too much of a good thing? Where exactly is the line between too little and too much protection for patients in genetic counseling, research, and testing?
  • Diagnostic Testing and the Ethics of Patenting DNA
    Intellectual property rights offset the financial risks of funding research but limit information access. Can a balance between private interests and public desire for treatments be achieved?
  • Embryo Screening and the Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering
    What if you could screen embryos for diseases before they became babies? What if you had the power to choose the traits your baby would have? Would you use it?
  • Protecting Your Genetic Identity: GINA and HIPAA
    Genomics could enable the misuse and abuse of our most personal information. On the other hand, could genetic privacy acts like GINA and HIPAA close the shutters on progress in health research?
  • Questionable Prognostic Value of Genetic Testing
    Many experts predict that genetic testing for disease susceptibility is well on its way to becoming a routine part of clinical care. Yet many of the genetic tests currently being developed are, in the words of the World Health Organization (WHO), of “questionable prognostic value.” How can this be?
  • Ethics of Genetic Testing: Medical Insurance and Genetic Discrimination
    For disorders that are preventable or treatable, most people agree that genetic testing makes sense. But for diseases with no preventative measures, would you want to know if you were affected?

Genetically-Tailored Treatment (6)

Social Uses of Genetic Discovery (7)

Genetics and the Law (5)

  • Diagnostic Testing and the Ethics of Patenting DNA
    Intellectual property rights offset the financial risks of funding research but limit information access. Can a balance between private interests and public desire for treatments be achieved?
  • Protecting Your Genetic Identity: GINA and HIPAA
    Genomics could enable the misuse and abuse of our most personal information. On the other hand, could genetic privacy acts like GINA and HIPAA close the shutters on progress in health research?
  • Forensics, DNA Fingerprinting, and CODIS
    How ethical is it to keep a database of convicted felons' DNA profiles? Can we rely on DNA fingerprints for conviction? Many ethical issues surround the use of DNA in forensic technology.
  • Legislative Landmarks of Forensics: California v. Greenwood and Shed DNA
    Everywhere we go, we leave our DNA behind. Forensics profits from this “abandoned” DNA to solve crimes. As technology improves, could we wind up with a database of everyone’s DNA – including yours?
  • Sports, Gene Doping, and WADA
    Gene doping could stretch the physical limits of human strength and endurance. What are the consequences of gene therapy in sports competition, and more, importantly, is it safe?
 
Ask an Expert
Post Question



Nature Education Home Learn More About Faculty Page Students Page Feedback



Genetics

Event Reminder