[gurps] BioTech-- Eugenics Question

[Susan Koziel]

--- midnightwind at comcast.net wrote:

> Hi Gal Dynamo!
> 
> I always thought inbreeding brought out the
> recessives-- but I guess you're saying let them come
> out, we'll deselect them in the next generation or
> six...
> 
> I think a eugenics program would be similar to what
> you recommend.  Find ten males, ten females,
> generate 100 zygotes each, possibly in combination--
> but that's a huge program-- then select and
> cross-mix down through the generations... Especially
> with your insight of culling for recessives, which I
> initially thought was a barrier to a limited
> population pool-- that helps.
> 
> But I guess my question was still geared towards how
> many generations is reasonable to effect what level
> of change-- Bio-Tech recommendations aside? 

If my last email (which you haven't read yet, cause I
just posted it isn't clear).... the simple answer to
your question is - it depends what you are doing.

3 generations will give you a stable single gene
trait.
(generation one from a mutagenized population finds
the mutant, generation two finds a clear heterozygote
of the mutant, generation three finds the homozygote.
Next gene added repeat process). Looking for more then
a single gene complicates matters - looking for a
trait like IQ should employ a significantly different
strategy (ecotilling, or population mutagenesis and
molecular markers)

> Is it
> unreasonable to start with Steve Young attributes,
> or does one modify from base attributes of 10 as an
> example?

That depends on Steve Young's parents and grandparents
attributes... if his parents and grandparents have
similar attributes then start with his attributes (no
guarantee of success this way). You want to start with
a clearly distinguished trait - so the more
generations of the same attribute you can find the
better your chance of success. 
Otherwise start with base 10. 

> 
> Your comments of nature vs. nurture are noted. 
> OTOH, at such elite levels as Steve Young (or
> Michael Jordan)-- it clearly is not entirely about
> the environment.  Elsewise all their brothers and
> sisters would have similar success-- and clearly
> they don't.

Genetics are a stable thing... it's the baseline that
the underlies all the sibs in a family. So take hockey
players... if you start with a Sutter brother where
all six were star hockey players - that's more likely
a genetic trait. Someone like Steve Young (where sibs
and parents don't show the same trait) is more likely
a mutant that won't pass his genes on.
In the business we call this somatic mutation or a
genetic aberration... and we don't like those, they
mess our results up and make us travel down the wrong
theoretical path.... they are the bane of a breeding
program

....ergo you can toss Steve Young out of your pool of
starting possibilities.

-Sue