'Untouchable' science
Nicola Jones
Tuesday, 03 February 2009 19:01 UTC
Should scientists study race and IQ?
A pair of opposing commentaries published in Nature (vol 457; 12 Feb 2009) tackle the sensitive proposition that gender- or race-linked differences in intelligence ought to be studied.
Steven Rose argues that studies investigating possible links between race, gender and intelligence do no good to science or society. Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams argue that such research is both morally defensible and important for the pursuit of truth.
The commentaries can be read on Nature’s website (password required).
Neither party saw the other’s argument before publication. They have the opportunity to respond to each other and to continue the debate online here, where we also invite contributions from our readers.
Updated 11 February 2009 23:55 UTC
-
Replies
This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.
Jump to resultsResults
-
Anonymous
Response to Ceci and Williams
Steven RoseNature asked us to address the question of whether it was justified to research the causes of possible links between race, gender, genes and intelligence. My response was that the research questions were ill-posed and not susceptible of scientific answer. Despite the headline to their essay, that ‘the scientific truth must be pursued,’ Ceci and Williams agree that ‘genes do not explain between group differences.’ (Please note that we are all talking about group not individual differences here). Thus there is no scientific truth to be pursued. So why ask the question? Their response seems to be that it provokes good scientists to sharpen their critique of the poor science of those who do ask it, and that this advances the field. I agree; when in the late 18th century rival proponents of phlogiston and oxygen battled it out to account for combustion, the controversy was illuminating. But it was decisively settled, and within a decade phlogiston was dead. So too with race/gender/IQ. We had the debates some thirty years ago, and as Ceci and Williams agree, those who argued for genetic explanations for group differences (phlogiston theorists) lost. So why re-ignite a dead debate, unless it is to serve some socio-political, not scientific end?
About half of Ceci and Williams’ essay is taken up in listing some of those who have continued to insist that the issue is not closed, and in defending them against the criticisms and in some cases hostility they have generated. To make their case, they invoke the spectre of Lysenko. The comparison is illuminating. Lysenko falsified experimental data in defence of politically expedient but mistaken theories, with damaging effects on Soviet agriculture. When in the 1940s (not 1920s as they state) his theories received Stalin’s imprimatur, Soviet genetics, which had flourished through the 1920s and ‘30s, was destroyed. But they have their comparison the wrong way round. In the present case it is the proponents of race/gender/IQ theories who, as we agree, are defending a mistaken but politically expedient theory, with potentially seriously damaging social consequences. And, granted the sensitivity of the issues, and that the proponents of phlogiston theory are by and large precisely the white males whom the theory privileges, it is scarcely surprising that they have found themselves harshly criticised.
Ceci and Williams defend the principle of free speech; you should not be silenced for arguing for phlogiston, although your grant applications based on the theory are unlikely to be funded (except by Foundations For the Defence of Phlogiston, which certainly exist in the current case). But it is my impression that, far from being silenced, phlogiston theorists get quite a bit of air and print time. Freedom of speech should be defended, but it cannot be an unbounded freedom if, more than merely falsely crying fire in a crowded theatre, it provides the matches and petrol for those who are actively trying to set the place alight.
Posted by the editor on behalf of
Steven Rose -
Anonymous
Response to Rose
Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. CeciLamarck is Baaaack: Dangers Befall Censure of Science
Rose concludes his essay by noting, when it comes to research on race, gender, and IQ, “there is no valid knowledge to be found in this area at all.” He argues that such questions are not “well founded,” not answerable with the theoretical and technical tools available, do not contribute to basic scientific knowledge and do not aid in public policy-making. But what of the findings we cited? Is the worldwide increase in IQ not valid, and should its insights into the malleability of racial differences in intelligence be ignored? Is women’s superiority to men in mathematical grades unimportant? Do these findings not shed light on our progress? Does the convergence of Black and White test scores not inform our understanding of how to achieve a more fair and just society? All of these findings stemmed from research Rose termed invalid.
Acknowledging Rose’s eminence in his own research areas, one wonders why the decision of what others study should fall to him. Some find research on gender, race, and IQ offensive. We suggest they work to disconfirm it via empiricism and logic (as we have attempted), not by political rhetoric or preemptory ethics. Shutting down distasteful research by fiat—as opposed to by superior data and argumentation—will only increase suspicion that such research reveals truth, since (some will reason) if opponents could defeat it logically, they would.
Rose argues that the dubious biological underpinnings of race render meaningless scientific analyses. While we agree race is a flexible concept, it nonetheless has significant import in society, where it is responded to as a critical variable in many contexts. Ditto gender, which as Rose points out is highly influenced by socialization, but nonetheless, as a category, continues to offer important insights into human experience.
One-party science may appease some now, but eventually will stymie scientific understanding. This argument applies in all areas of science—including, for example, criticisms of anthropogenic global warming—as long as critics adhere to generally accepted canons of science, not those of a self-appointed Ethics Czar. If reputable science resurrected a modern variant of the discredited phlogiston theory, it too would deserve discrediting via empiricism. Some readers may recognize the recent renaissance of research on Lamarckian modes of genetic transmission,(ref 1) spanning mice to humans. These findings provide evidence that not all widely-acknowledged “dead” theories are 100% wrong—Lamarck was dismissed years ago, but today his ideas spur valuable science.
Rose argues that a single g-loaded coefficient such as an IQ score cannot capture “social intelligence, emotional intelligence, the intelligent hands of the craftsman or the intelligent intuition of the scientist.” We have published the identical position (refs 2,3). However, the limitation of IQ is not a reason to muzzle researchers who believe that, albeit imperfect, it can nevertheless provide important predictive information about all groups, as Kuncel and Hezlett illustrate with a 0.2 correlation between cognitive test score and degree completion, showing that such scores yield a 20% difference in completing graduate school, with this prediction unaffected by social status (ref 4).
Rose argues that “Broad divisions between ‘white’ or ‘Caucasian’ and ‘black’ or ‘Asian’ … hide genetically important subpopulation differences within these groups.” Although we agree these groups are not distinct races, his criticism misses the point—namely, self-defined race often provides the largest coefficient in models of achievement. It may derive its predictiveness from its effect on the environment, but this does not minimize the scientific validity of analyzing data in terms of self-defined race/ethnicity. The very same procedure is used in studies of personalized medicine showing preferential success of the heart medication BiDil for African Americans. Even if race is a proxy for a chain of social and environmental events that are not genetic, it could still be scientifically useful to analyze data in terms of it.
Rose correctly notes that race and gender differences have been used to justify a social hierarchy in which White males occupy the premier positions, and that pseudoscientific concepts on par with phlogiston served as the basis for unsound policies. No one, of course, endorses pseudoscience, but Rose has prejudged what qualifies. Researchers have undertaken careful statistical analyses of large national databases to examine effects of self-reported race, gender, and socioeconomic status on cognitive scores. Such studies cannot be dismissed as pseudoscientific. For example, recently several meta-analyses concluded:
We explicitly discuss research (over 20 citations) that examines relationships for racial and gender groups …. This research finds that the relationship between test scores and academic performance is effectively the same across groups. This fact is recognized by some of the strongest advocates of affirmative action(ref 4).
Analyses of large data sets that include …. cognitive ability tests used with nationally representative samples of high school students also showed very small reductions in test-grade correlations when controlling for SES (ref 5).
Disagreeing with these researchers does not entitle one to accuse them of providing scientifically unsound data for policies. Their research and measurement conforms to the canons of evidence. By showing that cognitive scores of various ethnic, gender, and racial groups remain essentially undiminished after controlling for differences in socioeconomic status, these investigators have advanced the debate—a debate that eventually will lead to a scientific consensus and better policies than would be possible in the absence of such data. Had their findings instead shown that all racial gaps were explainable by differences in income and education, we suspect they would be lauded by their critics.
Rose concludes by arguing that “although there are minor average structural and biochemical variations between Western men’s and women’s brains, speculations on their implications for how men and women may think or behave lack any empirical basis.” We have written and edited a number of books and articles on this topic (refs 6,7,8) and respectfully disagree. Empirical research shows that cognitive sex differences appear in 4-month-olds (refs 9,10). Even if one wishes to argue that these infants’ environment has already caused these differences, it does not gainsay their empirical basis nor their scientific validity.
1. Chong S, et al. (2007). Nature Genetics, 39, 614-622.
2. Ceci, S.J. (1996). On intelligence. Harvard Univ. Press;
3. Williams, W. M., et al. (2002). Develop. Rev., 22, 162-210.
4. Kuncel, N.R. & Hezlett, S. A. (22 June, 2007). Science, 316, p. 1696.
5. Sackett, P.R., et al. (2009). Psychological Bulletin, 135, 1-22.
6. Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M., & Barnett, S.M. (2009). Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261.
7. Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.M (2009). The mathematics of sex: how biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford University Press.
8. Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.M. (Editors). (2009). Why aren’t more women in science? Washington, DC: APA Books.
9. Quinn, P.C. & Liben, L.S. (2008). Psychological Science, 19, 1067-1070.
10. Moore, D.S. & Johnson, S.P. (2008). Psychological Science, 19, 1063-1066.
Posted by the editor on behalf of
Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci -
I don’t think scientist should study race and IQ.
I would affirmatively answer to this question ONLY IF I were in all the following situations:
1. I suspected that there are significant differences, in terms of intelligence, between different human ‘races’ or genders and I could guarantee that my preassumption would not interfere in the interpretation of results?
2. I was convinced that solving this question is a priority and, because of that, it is justified the needed investment
3. I was convinced about the ability of the IQ, as a single indicator, to assess human intelligence
And this is not my case. -
Every time this comes up, the argument is made that even raising the questions must have some prescriptive motivation behind it. No one wondered what McClintock’s motives were to study transposons in maize, and no one (worth listening to) suggested that Watson and Crick shouldn’t have gotten funding because they might really be interested in finding a genetic basis for race. To the extent that there are observable differences in cultures, it’s possible that people are curious how these developed, and want to know what we can learn from them to progress as a species. As an example, you’ll always find me wading into these discussions. I’ve been a participant at GNXP for years. What’s my motivation? My interest in these topics is precisely because they’re supposedly taboo. I’m also interested in what’s going on in the brain to cause people to experience hallucinations, and what can we learn from mind-altering drugs about how the brain works.
Having established that it’s possible to have scientific curiosity about taboo subjects without a hidden prescriptive agenda, the next step is to determine whether it’s possible to make statements of fact about cultural and ethnic differences. The measurements might not be perfect, and it’s well known that IQ tests have their issues, but as one factor along with many other things one might measure, it can provide some useful information. Many well done studies by non-ideologically motivated people have been done and are all exhaustively discussed at the site above. The question might be raised about misuse of this information uncovered by those who have agendas, but that’s no different in this area of study than in any other. People who have financial interests in growing corn use information uncovered during research into the health effects of corn syrup and cellulosic ethanol, but those studies still get done, and it can’t be presumed that the harm done by a fringe group is worse than the benefits derived from a non-ideological decision maker having access to the most accurate information possible.
So if it’s possible to want to study the subject without a prescriptive agenda, and it’s possible to make statements of fact about the issue, it sounds like a valid field of study to me. Now, the relative importance of this field can be debated at length, but so can the importance of transposons and dark matter and a whole bunch of other things.
Science cannot tolerate political correctness. People must be able to study what they are interested in studying without having motives imputed to them, or you end up making the argument that knowing the truth about differences is more dangerous than leaving it unknown, and that’s not a position any scientist wants to take.
-
Intelligence is a sensitive subject, however, why is it deemed acceptable to investigate the implications of race and ethnicity in relation to, say, disease resistance and drug efficacy, but not relate race to intelligence? I appreciate the argument that intelligence is very difficult to measure as it’s a very complex trait, but I think the nay-sayers are not putting enough faith in scientists. I cannot envisage any respectable scientist ever wholly equating race with intelligence. At the most, they would point out genetic determinants that associate with intelligence and purport how these differ between races. It’s an incredibly big call to say for sure that intelligence is defined by race, a call that I think the media (when they openly misinterpret our research), rather than the scientists, would make.
-
“I cannot envisage any respectable scientist ever wholly equating race with intelligence.”
What of the case of James Watson already raised? And that is only but the most obvious example. Scientists should not be banned from such work if they wish to do it (though as Rose points out, research is already controlled by funding bodies: truely free scientific enquiry is a myth), however they should be far more circumspect with their conclusions. The media too obviously has an important role to play in reporting such claims responsibly.
The reification of IQ, and elevation of it to a measure of general fitness, is a case in point. Scientists often wield this term in public with seemingly no awareness of how ‘IQ’ is understood in popular culture.
The real issue is perhaps not scientists’ wish to carry out such research, but the failure of much natural science training to equip them with the reflexive, socio-cultural awareness to deal with such topics in a way that is not inflammatory, and/or no more progressive than the century-old work of Hrdlicka and Hooten.
-
The problem seems to be the same as it has been since the 1930s, namely the near impossibility of defining the word “intelligence”.
The introduction of “IQ tests” has always seemed to be to be one of the best examples of the great political and social harm that can be done by the mind-boggling arrogance of scientists who thought they could sum up human abilities in a single number.
The same sort of problem exists with the present generation of bibliometrists, but so far they haven’t managed to inflict so much damage.
-
That a journal as Nature prints a call by Steven Rose to ostracise research on race and IQ all over the world, lets me fear that actually any such research will be outlawed within a few years. At the moment, there are only a very small number of journals and editors left who still dare to print a paper on this subject, see, for example, my most recent publication on text to link National IQ Means, and Their Underlying Gene Frequencies
I hade to live and to work 40 years under communist rule and had never imagined during this time that in 2009 the famous journal Nature would lend its voice for such an open call to persecution of scientists.
-
Volkmar Weiss says he fears a ban. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to ban any sort of research. The question is not whether to ban or not to ban, but how to distinguish good research from bad. I would maintain that any research that attempts to sum up a persons abilities in one number was is obviously over simplified, naive and hence bad work. It shouldn’t be banned but probably it should be rejected by referees as being bad science.
-
Well said, why waste valuable funding for yet more research into an concept who’s fatal flaws have long been apparent to everyone but the most fundamentalist positivists? Perhaps so few journal editors will touch this now because so few people still accept such a ridiculous notion as an IQ test. I suspect its very hard to find funding for Flat Earth research these days, but that is not the same as it being censored.
Results
-
