'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
-
Those who would seek to prevent research into the genetics of racial differences often cite the unacceptable ethical consequences of such research. I would like to present what those who are ‘fascist’, ‘racist’, or ‘hate-filled’ perceive as the ethical risks of not pursuing such research.
If there is a heriditary basis for differences in the distribution of clustral IQ scores, the failure to equalize them is not the result of ‘white’ cluster racism. To hold the ‘white’ cluster responsible for this gap is wrong.
If average clustral differences exist, it means that cluster mixing destroys the group characteristics of both clusters. Perhaps some will prefer mixed qualities, but they should not be told that the differences between their clusters are merely a social construct or ‘skin-deep’. If cluster mixing were to become practiced universally, the unique characteristics (diversity) of each cluster would be destroyed.
If average clustral differences in behaviour have a heriditary component, we can expect that those from different clusters will create different cultures. If individuals prefer the characteristics of their own cluster, this should be their right.
-
As an evolutionary biologist, I am grateful that creationists are not provided positions in scientific institutions. It seems similarly appropriate that some racists, who happened to receive science education at one point, are not given to chance to air their views in scientific institutions or journals.
And for the heck of it, let’s listen to www.alternatehistory.com on Volkmar Weiss, our brave guardian of science:
“Although Volkmar Weiss is no nazi, he advocates eugenics (including sterilization), supports theses by the authors of “The Bell Curve”, and advocates the restriction of voting (only for an intelligent elite). Nuff said."
Indeed, nuff said.
-
I agree with Ms. Gallegos that research into race and intelligence has the potential to enormously benefit humanity.
The fact is that people with low intelligence suffer from their cognitive impairment in a myriad of ways. Statistically significant inverse correlations between general intelligence as measured by IQ tests and educational attainment and socioeconomic status are well-documented. As someone with several diagnosed mental disorders, I can sympathize. Prior to diagnosis and treatment, I suffered from my bipolar, obsessive compulsive, generalized anxiety and attention deficit disorders greatly. (Yeah the genetic shuffle dealt me a pretty raw hand, at least in this regard.) My quality of life for a long time was far lower than it would have been had I not been so burdened by my genetics. I would love for research to come up with genetic treatments for my disorders so that future generations won’t have to experience what I experienced, and won’t be dependent on drugs for treatment. Similarly, I would love for research to come up with genetic treatments for low intelligence, so that future generations will not be so impaired and more people will enjoy a higher quality of life.
It is ironic, to put it nicely, that self-described egalitarians seem determined to shut down research that could potentially ameliorate some of the world’s most glaring socioeconomic inequalities. Whom are these people helping? If they were truly concerned with aiding the poor and disenfranchised, they would never be in favor of shutting down research that had the potential to help so many. It is their own ideology they seek to preserve by making such research taboo and nothing more.
-
Mehmet,
I don’t really understand your post. What has any of that got to do with science?
As Dr Satoshi Kanazawa wrote a couple of years ago:
“15 December 2006
Satoshi Kanazawa
Academic freedom to publish our research must be paramount, says Satoshi Kanazawa, whose work on IQ brought him death threatsDavid Hilbert is a hero of mine. His most famous quote – " Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen " (“We must know, we will know”) – seems at once to capture his purity and his optimism. In the first three words, Hilbert upholds the pursuit of knowledge as the most important goal of science; in the second three, he expresses his belief that complete knowledge is possible: not that we might or could know but that we will.
I maintain a purist stance on science. I believe that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the only legitimate goal in science (by which I mean basic science, as opposed to applied science) and the truth is its only arbiter. Nothing else should matter in science except the objective, dispassionate pursuit of truth, and scientists must pursue it no matter the consequences.
An article of mine that was published last month in the British Journal of Health Psychology challenges conventional wisdom in epidemiology and contends that general intelligence increases health and longevity in the contemporary environment. Part of my analysis shows that, across nations, average intelligence influences life expectancy and other population measures of health. As a result of subsequent sensationalist media coverage, I have received many obscene phone calls and e-mail messages, as well as a few death threats, from Ethiopians and other Africans because a newspaper reported, erroneously, that Ethiopia had the lowest average intelligence.
From my purist position, everything scientists say, qua scientists, can be only true or false or somewhere in between. My worst possible crime is that my conclusions are false. Truth is the only criterion that should matter or be applied in evaluating scientific theories or conclusions. They cannot be “racist”, “sexist”, “reactionary”, “offensive” or any other adjective. Even if they are labelled so, it does not matter. My findings in this paper are deeply offensive to me, but I suspect they are at least partially true.
When scientists begin to worry about things other than the truth and to ask “might this conclusion or finding offend someone?”, self-censorship sets in. They become tempted to shade the truth. What if a scientific conclusion is offensive and true? What is a scientist to do then? Many scientific truths are highly offensive, but scientists must pursue them at any cost.
It is not my job as a scientist to “use” scientific knowledge in any way to improve the human condition; that is the job of politicians, policymakers, physicians and other social engineers. Their goal of helping people and improving their lives is a noble (albeit non-scientific) one. Any successful intervention, however, must be based on the true understanding of nature. If social engineers do not know the causes of what they are trying to create or eliminate, how can they possibly hope to do so? By opposing and entirely disregarding certain scientific theories and conclusions a priori on ideological and political grounds, because they believe they should not be true, they risk not achieving their aim of helping people.
It struck me as extremely odd that my vociferous critics (virtually none of whom had read my article and who instead based their opinions on grossly inaccurate journalistic accounts) variously said: “Of course, I am all for the principle of academic freedom, but Kanazawa must be condemned because the potential implications of his research are deeply offensive.” They seem unaware of the inherent contradictions in this assertion. Note that my supposed crime is the potential implications of my research.
Academic freedom must be upheld, not because it is an inalienable, God-given right of all scientists, but because it is the best way to attain the truth. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That is why I strongly support the rights of creationists, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and anybody else to publish their ideas. The inherent flaws in their logic and evidence can be exposed only if their ideas are widely known and discussed. If we keep them hidden, we could never eliminate the possibility that they just might be true.
The only responsibility that scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they create. Blaming them for uses and misuses of their research by others is a sure-fire way to distract them from the single-minded pursuit of the truth because that would make them pause and entertain other criteria. If the truth offends people, it is our job as scientists to offend them. Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen."
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=207191§ioncode=26
-
There can be no objection to investigating any subject as long as the results are not misleading. I’d maintain that methods for measuring “intelligence” are so inadequate that there is a serious risk of getting misleading results.
Exaggeration of what can be gleaned from inadequate measurements is a sigh of arrogance of scientists. They are seen to be wanting to pump out another publication however poor the methods may be. It is behaviour like that which fuels the widespread distrust of science by the general public. That distrust seems to be rather serious to me, but it is largely self-inflicted. If you have any doubt about it, try this
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/study_multiple_stab_wounds_may_be?utm_source=a-section -
Of course it should be allowed to investigate these links. The problem is when differences in average IQ for groups are applied to the individual.
To give an example, I don’t think anyone disagrees that men on average run faster than women, and the biological reasons for this have some scientific interest. Now, when someone needs to employ a runner and ten people apply, one of which is the current 100 m womens olympic champion, it is unlikely any of the other nine can run faster, so this person should be chosen.
In other words, the spreads around the averages in IQ are too large to conclude anything about individuals and discriminate – this does not mean that the averages are necessarily the same or that there may not be genetic reasons for the differences.
Now, there is no reason why white people should be more stupid or smarter than black people, either of the two is possible, and it is possible the difference is too small to be statistically relevant.
It is also quite clear that the standard IQ test is biased towards white people, perhaps even towards men – as it was invented by them. For any meaningful study, first a non-biased intelligence test should be developed, I am not aware of one. -
Nature editor Henry Gee has a good blog post elsewhere on Nature Network about the questoin asked by these two articles. He suggests that “race” and “IQ” are not the best words to use – he suggests “genetic diversity” is more appropriate. His post puts the case for and against. Take a look .
-
Egalitarianism, or the ideal of human equality, has nothing to do with human intelligence or differences thereof, whether within or between various racial and ethnic groups. Otherwise, we confine the less intelligent among us as being “less human” than the rest, quite apart from the issue of race.
The real problem here, I would guess, is that our meritocratic elites secretly believe their superior intelligence somehow makes them “better” (as in “the best and the brightest”) than their less-gifted compatriots. That prejudice, in turn, helps explain their general indifference to the welfare of the left-hand side of the bell curve — as witness, for example, widespread cant (even out of Obama’s mouth, whom I otherwise adore) about giving everyone a chance “to get ahead” or “get a college education.” In a truly civilized society life is not a race for success, the devil take the hindmost.
This is another was of sayint that we need to begin seriously considering ways to make life more personally fulfilling for the bottom half our our society. And I mean more than just universal healthcare or a social safety net.
For how that might be done, see my The Soft Path, in which I propose the idea of New Towns in the Country in which ordinary people are employed part-time and use their free time to build their own houses, cultivate gardens, and pursue other leisure-time activities. Don’t laugh. More than half the American people would like to live this way, including 2/3rd of the African Americans.
We need a new American ideal — a new European, or rather universal human ideal. What is the good life? Luke Lea
-
Since the authors give several examples of scientists who argued for genetically based ethnic inferiority as an explanation for IQ test results, it is not clear to me that this viewpoint is being censored or suppressed. What has happened is that after their work was done, these scientists have been roundly condemned for the manner in which they presented their data, and in some cases have suffered professionally.
This gets to the matter of motivation. Having made a survey of IQ test results and broken them down by race, why exactly is the writer trumpeting the argument from genetics? What conclusion does he want us to draw from his data?
The Lawrence Summers case is certainly a cautionary tale about left-wing political correctness run amok. No one could point to any policies that he had instituted at Harvard to discriminate against women. He was basically guilty of nothing more than careless phrasing. One would think that an experienced Ivy League academician would have known better what constitutes acceptable speech in his chosen milieu, but no one should be driven out of his job over a trivial social faux pas. The liberal penchant for speech codes is hypocritical and idiotic, and reveals the little totalitarian monster in the back of tiny minds.
But the Watson case is a whole ’nother kettle of fish. Had Watson stopped with the assertion that African IQ scores are lower than European scores, he might have had to endure a grilling, but he also might have survived it. What sank him was his remark about “people who have to deal with black employees.” Needless to say, he had no research to back up this part of his argument, and the phrasing was not merely ham-handed, it was redolent of racial prejudice. The authors do us a disservice with this sentence: “Watson later clarified in a statement that he does not believe Africans to be genetically inferior, but this had little impact on the controversy.” If ever there has existed an insincere, pro forma apology, it was this. It had little impact on the controversy because it was a lie: Watson obviously believes Africans to be genetically inferior; the original statement has no other possible meaning. He would have done much better to say that he has moments of dementia where he speaks the thoughts of others as if they are his own. This probably would not have saved his bacon, but it would have been more plausible.
We don’t have to embrace postmodernist relativism (or nihilism) to realize that it is always appropriate to ask of any scholar – whether scientist, philosopher, aesthetician, or literary theorist – “Why exactly are you offering THIS thesis?” Every thinker has an ax to grind, an agenda to pursue. Out of thousands of possible problems to solve, our scholar has taken an interest in precisely this problem. For no good reason? For pure intellectual interest? Dinesh D’Souza got up one morning and, in a country where millions of people who are the wrong color – not just blacks, but most recent immigrants from most parts of the globe – still face discrimination in myriad ways, he found himself fascinated by the problem of REVERSE discrimination. He set out to prove what I, for one, never doubted: that the white taxicab driver who won’t pick up the young black male wearing the established uniform of gangbangers at 2:00 in the morning in the ghetto may not be racially biased at all but moved purely by safety concerns. But he did not stop there: by the end of his article, he was proposing a repeal of all civil rights legislation, such that it would again become legal for restaurant owners to refuse to serve blacks.
As a sidebar, I will note that there may be very dangerous political consequences to the current mania for Darwinian fundamentalism and evolutionary psychology: if people are where they are in life because their behavior is “hardwired,” it makes no sense for government to spend money on programs designed to help the poor and disenfranchised. Most of the evolutionary psychologists I read are political liberals. They would be properly insulted if I told them to abandon their scientific research because it could be mis-used, and the reason I oppose them is solely on the grounds that they are pursuing pure pseudoscience. But they, and all of us, would be naive indeed if we did not foresee how their foolish conclusions will be used by conservative politicians.
The whiff of racism has attached itself to the most notorious of the proponents of genetic explanations for IQ differences for a good reason. The authors of this article are naive to assume that their own studies, which debunk the genetic arguments, will naturally prevail in the arena of scientific free inquiry. Bad science drives out good science when the people are greedy for what the bad science is telling them. Only the left-wing thought police want to control the outcome by means of censorship. We do need to oppose this brand of political correctness. But the contrary belief, that the truth about environmental factors will prevail in the marketplace of ideas, is wildly idealistic. The social sciences – which are genuine sciences – cannot attain to quite the purity of the physical sciences. It really isn’t possible to do social studies in a cultural vacuum. I do not know the answer, but while waiting for it, I won’t waste too much breath defending Shockley, Jensen, and Murray. In fact, if his colleagues had been more alert to how Lysenko was pursuing careerist goals with his politically correct biology – had they been freer to ask what ax HE was grinding – they might have unmasked him sooner.
-
Paul Thompson here:
Jeremy Gray and I wrote a review on this topic for Nature Reviews Neuroscience in 2004, which you can read here
At the end, you will see some ethical guidelines that could be used to help decide which types of IQ research in this field are ethical and worthwhile, including potential work on group differences in IQ.Paul Thompson, UCLA Neurology
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/thompson.html
Results
-
