Human biology is a rather robust system.

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/survival-of-the-fl...

>"Let's change this very, very large, very, very old system that we don't really understand by just tweaking this one value that we're pretty sure does X ... and put it back into production. What could possibly go wrong?"

In a good number of cases, what some nucleotide does is pretty obvious.

There is a safer approach that can also result in very good ends. Embryo selection (what was in the Gattaca film). You make up 20 embryos in the lab, sequence all of them, pick the best one according to a set of criteria.

Estimated IQ gain is in the range of 10 IIRc per generation. Chinese are planning to do this - if they pull it off, inside 2 generations they'd have better human capital than Ashkenazi Jews (.2% of world population, 30%+ of physics Nobels, due to average verbal IQ of 115. That really skews distribution in the high-end...)

The Ashkenazi Jew intelligence being higher is probably a myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

A myth.

How do you then explain the glaring over-representation in sciences, scientific awards received and so on? (about 10x)

And that coincidentally Ashkenazi Jews outscore others on intelligence tests?

Are they all cheating? Is that what you are trying to say?

Not at all. The world Ashkenazi population has maintained cultural emphasis in the intellectual pursuits for centuries. I should know. I grew up with them. Their reverence for intellect and the life of the mind borders on the holy. If only more of us cared in the same way.

Hahaha, yikes! Too bad this article is from TechCrunch and not Nature, Science Daily, or even Psychology Today.

It gives a strange feeling, reading "A Dyson engineer explains why the company spent $71 million and four years developing a high-tech hair dryer" next to this conversation we're all suppose to have about changing the fabric of our biology.

I don't think that really makes sense because biological systems are constantly being recombined naturally. You're not introducing anything new, just creating a new combination. Every act of sexual reproduction is "tweaking" on two existing models in production that "work" as is.

It's more akin to putting out a new library or programming language (designed thing) into the internet (complex ecosystem).

Mcclintock aside, nature doesn't vault the spices barrier when recombining. So putting a fish gene into a plant (arguably the earliest use of GMOs in our food) is not something that could be considered "recombined naturally".