Human Intellectual Abilities Research Articles

EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION FROM A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW

Adrian Vlot used a lot of information when he wrote his article. I do not intend this brief presentation to give additional information or remarks on the topic. My aim is to support his ideas. I am a mathematician, physicist and theologian. I interpret science as a human activity describing and understanding the phenomena of the created universe based on observation, explaining the relationships in the universe afterwards and, in addition, discovering further areas via human intellectual abilities. In my interpretation technology is something through which man makes use of the experience, knowledge, discovered relationships and laws in practice to create new tools or new materials which facilitate further research. That is how science and technology are related. In historical chronology, technology preceded science but later science also achieved results preceding their application in practice. Among others, the chronological intertwining is represented by Faraday and Maxwell’s activities.

Introduction of section: enabling informed decisions about cancer risk.

Determining health risk is a science. Communicating risk information to a patient remains an art. This health care practice depends on complexities of human relationships, communication styles, intellectual abilities, and emotional receptivity. For the practice of risk communication to meet its goals, this art must also be informed by science. Evidence of how risk communication is most successful and when it translates into increased health should become the basis for the future practice of risk communication. Research on individual risk perception and health care decisions concerning cancer risks can currently inform the practice of risk communication. The focus of the next section in the monograph addresses risk perception and decision making under conditions of uncertainty, particularly where the information is complex, incomplete, and changing. While valuable data are reviewed and synthesized, many important areas for future research remain. My own profession of genetic counseling provides perhaps no better example of the need for health care providers to understand individual risk perception and the complexities of making health-related decisions. Genetic counselors appreciate the subjective nature of genetic risk. The loss inherent in a genetic risk is peculiar to the person concerned, as are the significance of the loss and the chance of its occurrence. Counselors often note the ways their clients polarize risk—its significance reduced to the dichotomization that either the genetic condition will or will not occur. Overall, it remains uncertain in genetic counseling how clients interpret and use genetic risk information in making their decisions about genetic testing and the value they place on the information. Studies of cancer risk communication have now been conducted in the context of genetic testing and will begin to shape future genetic counseling practices. The theoretical frameworks for understanding and communicating risk information and the efficacy of various decision-making models need to be studied not only in genetic counseling but also to a greater degree in cancer risk communication. The research on individual cancer risk communication related to risk perception and decision making reviewed in this monograph should inform future research and policy. The following background papers raise interesting areas of future inquiry. The first review article, by Alexander Rothman and Marc Kiviniemi, synthesizes the research evaluating approaches to communicating health risk information. They suggest that risk communication that includes not only a numerical risk estimate but also information about the causes and consequences of a health problem may prove most effective in successfully communicating risk information. Kevin McCaul and Heather Tulloch evaluate the evidence for why people decide to obtain or avoid cancer screening. They conclude that counseling should focus not only on removing barriers to screening but also on influencing beliefs about the value of screening. Robert Croyle and Caryn Lerman summarize results from recent studies of offering genetic testing for cancer predisposition to high-risk families. The evidence of efficacy and the policy implications of research findings on the use of decision aids for patients considering health care options are reviewed by Annette O’Connor and colleagues. They recommend that practitioners identify which health care decisions are sensitive to patients’ values and become familiar with available resources. Howard Leventhal and Barnett Kramer have authored commentaries on the articles.

Mutations in GDI1 are responsible for X-linked non-specific mental retardation.

Rab GDP-dissociation inhibitors (GDI) are evolutionarily conserved proteins that play an essential role in the recycling of Rab GTPases required for vesicular transport through the secretory pathway. We have found mutations in the GDI1 gene (which encodes uGDI) in two families affected with X-linked non-specific mental retardation. One of the mutations caused a non-conservative substitution (L92P) which reduced binding and recycling of RAB3A, the second was a null mutation. Our results show that both functional and developmental alterations in the neuron may account for the severe impairment of learning abilities as a consequence of mutations in GDI1, emphasizing its critical role in development of human intellectual and learning abilities.

Neuropsychological basis of learning and individual differences

It has not yet been one century since Galton (1892) suggested that, “there is a continuity of natural ability reaching from one knows not what height, and descending to one can hardly say what depth. I propose to range man according to their natural abilities.” Indeed, since Galton employed his application of elementary statistics to the study of individual differences, scholars have examined nearly every facet of human cognitive ability. Empirically supported models of human intellectual ability, perceptual processing, and memory have dynamically evolved since the time of Galton and researchers have a much greater understanding of what factors contribute meaningfully to the extent of human variability referred to by Galton. It is clear that at a cognitive level many factors of performance contribute to the demonstration of ability. What is equally clear is that the integrity of the central nervous system impacts very significantly on an individual’s capacity to perform. Anyone who doubts this very basic fact need only spend time with patients with dementing illnesses and observe the deevolution of cognitive abilities. Patients with focal brain lesions also provide a window through which one can examine how circumscribed deviations in brain anatomy impact on neurocognitive systems. With adults, the impact of a lesion on an established ability can be observed while in children, the impact of a lesion on the trajectory of cognitive development can be charted. Observing how known or suspected deviations in brain morphology impact on developing cognitive systems may not only provide data on the degree of interaction between various components of a theoretical formulation but may also implicate etiological mechanisms related to very significant behavioral disturbance. Thus, the neuropsychological approach to the study of learning and individual differences has two goals. First, like most investigators in the cognitive sciences, those with a neuropsychological orientation approach research on individual differences with the goal of developing a more comprehensive model of human percep tual and cognitive ability. Second, and unique to those who approach individual differences from a neurological view, there is a desire to articulate the neural underpinnings to cognitive processes in the hope of better understanding the