« Mitt Romney and Faith-Based Politics | Main | A Pro-Choice GOP? »

Stem Cells, Race, and the Future of the Science Wars

20 Nov 2007 10:26 am

On what looks like a great day for scientists and for opponents of embryo-destructive stem cell research (by no means mutually-exclusive categories, believe it or not), Jody Bottum writes:

Abortion skewed the political discussion of [stem cells], pinning the left to a defense of science it doesn’t actually hold. The more natural line is agitation against Frankenfoods and all genetic modification, particularly given the environmentalism to which the campaign against global warming is tying the left.

Narratives about positions on public policy are like enormous steamships: It takes a long time to turn them around. But if the news of stem-cell breakthroughs prove accurate, we may well see over the next few years a gradual reversal in news stories and editorials. Watch for it, now that abortion is out of the equation: Much less hype about all the miracle cures that stem cells will bring us, more suspicion about the cancers and genetic pollution that may result, and just about the same amount of bashing of religious believers—this time for their ignorant support of science.

The stem cell news comes, interestingly, just as Will Saletan bravely attempts a summary of the emerging scientific consensus on racial differences in intelligence, another issue where the left doesn't much care for science has to say. You could see this dovetailing with Jody's point, and presaging a realignment in the Science Wars, away from the Bush-era debates and toward a landscape in which the mass media becomes consistently skeptical about scientific research on issues related to race and genetic engineering. But I'm not so sure. Among real lefties, maybe so, but the people who really pushed the "killing embryos will save your grandparents" narrative forward weren't the types who usually crusade against frankenfood; they were moderate liberals, politicians and pundits alike, who saw an opportunity to tap into the talismanic power of "Science" to drive a wedge into the GOP coalition. And no matter what comes of the stem-cell debate, that talismanic power isn't going anywhere - not in Western modernity, not by a long shot. If you want to see the shape of things to come, look at Saletan's conclusion:

Hereditarians point to phenylketunuria as an example of a genetic but treatable cognitive defect. Change the baby's diet, and you protect its brain. They also tout breast-feeding as an environmental intervention. White women are three times more likely than black women to breast-feed their babies, they observe, so if more black women did it, IQs might go up. But now it turns out that breast-feeding, too, is a genetically regulated factor. As my colleague Emily Bazelon explains, a new study shows that while most babies gain an average of seven IQ points from breast-feeding, some babies gain nothing from it and end up at a four-point disadvantage because they lack a crucial gene.

The study's authors claim it "shows that genes may work via the environment to shape the IQ, helping to close the nature versus nurture debate." That's true if you have the gene. But if you don't, nurture can't help you. And guess what? According to the International Hapmap Project, 2.2 percent of the project's Chinese-Japanese population samples, 5 percent of its European-American samples, and 10 percent of its Nigerian samples lack the gene. The Africans are twice as likely as the Americans, and four times as likely as the Asians, to start life with a four-point IQ deficit out of sheer genetic misfortune.

Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.

No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job.

Some people, right and left, look at science that doesn't dovetail with their philosophical preconceptions and deny the science. (Sometimes they're right to do so, one might add, since scientists have been known to get things wrong from time to time.) But in a society built on the dream of progress, most people, liberals and conservatives alike, look at things Saletan's way: If we don't like what science tells us, well, then science can find a way to fix it.

Comments (96)

Get ready for the age of eugenics, kids. It's coming. I've been saying it for years, and no one wants to believe me. But our society in the next 50 to 100 years is going to be torn apart by eugenics. Our most basic concepts of egalitarianism and human rights are going to be challenged. People, gifted people, are going to find the doors of opportunity closed to them, a door closed by a man in a white lab coat with a smiling face, calmly and pleasantly assuring them that they never had any chance for a worthwhile life at all....

Whenever a conservative writes: "the left doesn't like X", you can be sure he's wrong. For one, the left / liberals / progressives / democrats are not monolithic and for another, the conservative is bound to characterize the issue in a way which makes the opposition look as bad as possible.

This post is a classic example.

Racial Differences in Intelligence. I am not the least bit surprised to discover that this post fails to mention that there is little agreement in the scientific community on what is a race and even less on what is intelligence. And even less agreement that there is any correlation between the two. And even if there is such a thing as race, intelligence and correlation, there appears to be little dispute that variance in intelligence between groups is far far less than variance within a group.

More to the point, who cares? So what if the median Indo-Chinese scores a fraction higher on a particular test than the median Aboriginal Australian?

GM crops: There is a lot of nonsense about GM crops and a small number of legitimate concerns, one of which is cross-pollinization. Farmers who do not use GM crops have a legitimate expectation (and, arguably, a property right) not to have the GM genetic code cross breeding into their own seed. It's also a hell of an uncontrolled experiment.

Stem cell research: Much like abortion, the fact that this is a wedge issue against the republicans is a bonus, not the principal feature. We could, possibly, radically change the course of any number of diseases, by using fertilized eggs that were already slated for destruction. If the destruction of the eggs is such a big issue, why isn't there more lobbying against their creation in the first place? (oh yeah, Republicans like IVF too. Look, snowflake babies!)

I favor destroying the embryos just to uphold the principle that the position that destroying an embryo is the same thing as killing an adult is idiotic. (And by the way, conservatives-- those cloned cells that they are creating for stem cell research are exactly the same as embryonic stem cells; apparently whether something is murder turns on whether you create the embryo first or go directly to creating the stem cells, a really stupid distinction.)

In any event, the right wing is dead wrong on this-- just because there are ways of doing the research without using embryonic cells doesn't negate the need for embryonic cell research; you need to research EVERY possible lead.

Perhaps a small point: you write that there's an "emerging scientific consensus on [genetic] racial differences in intelligence," but that's an overstatement. There is no consensus yet, not even an emerging one.

You can accurately say this: more and more researchers are seriously considering a genetic explanation for at least some of the racial differences in IQ test. Or, perhaps, this: the arguments/evidence is ultimately on their side. But, for the time being, the matter is just way too hotly disputed (on scientific grounds) to speak of an emerging consensus. You might think that it's merely leftist pieties which are preventing this consensus from emerging, but nevertheless, it's yet unemerged.

I write in on the point just because there's a widespread tendency among journalist to wildly overstate the degree to which various scientific hypotheses are actually embraced. So often, you'll see someone write "Scientists now believe X," when the fact is that only a minority of scientists believe X. Often, why this happens is that the area in question is highly controversial, and while X is a minority view, there's no alternative view which commands more assent. Other times, what happens is that the defenders of X have especially good scientific popularizers (e.g., Pinker), and so journalists who only read the popularizing literature get a distorted view of the science.

Being ecologically minded is not the same as being anti-science--the more science you know, the more amazed you'll be that things don't go wrong more often in our bodies and our environment, and the less inclined you'll be to screw with them. That's why I'm a liberal--humans are physically frail but socially resilient.

Biology is a lot like computers--the ignorant are prone to upgrade-itis. Installing whatever random spyware you come across is not the road to system health.

Bravo for Will Saletan for being one of the very, very few to speak up in protest at the canning of James Watson, who is perhaps America's most distinguished man of science. Other prominent defenders of Watson include Richard Dawkins, Pat Buchanan, Edward O. Wilson, and John Derbyshire -- a wonderfully eclectic group, but not a big one. The ferocity of the attack by defenders of the conventional wisdom on Watson indicates how little evidence there is to back up empirical egalitarianism.

As I wrote in 2005:

Through genetic selection and modification, we will be be able to transform human nature, for better . . . or worse.

Some find this exciting. I find it mostly alarming.

The good news: we still have time to figure out what the physical, psychological, and social impacts of these gene-altering technologies might be - by studying naturally-occurring human genetic diversity.

The bad news: we won't fund research into existing human biodiversity - because it's politically incorrect.

Jody Bottum is spot on with the remark that at bottom the embryonic stem cell debate has really been about discrediting religious believers and putting a hedge around the legalization of abortion.

Dilan Esper rather confirms this with his elegant plea for principled continued killing of embryonic stem cells in order to make a "principled" point to presumably religious fanatics.

On I.Q the reality is that, however one defines race or ethnicity, there are very real differences overall in measurable intelligence between native Jews, East Asians, Europeans, and Africans. Murray and Herrnstein nailed the reality of race and I.Q. back in 1994 with the Bell Curvefor which they were excoriated by the "Progressives>."

Is anyone at the Altantic--i.e., Ross and Sullivan--going to man up and engage Crooked Timber's devastating criticisms of this Race and IQ silliness?

Isn't Saletan's conclusion the opposite of brave?

He says we're smart enough to use genetic engineering to "finish the job" and make people "equal". But there is zero reason to believe that genetic engineering will make people more equal.

Genetic engineering for IQ may do a lot of things, but it will not make people 'equal' in ability. Rich people will get it first. And some people will benefit more than others from techniques we don't even know about yet.

In fact, the most interesting possibility is that Hi-IQ genes that people have today are all very bad and limited ways to produce intelligence, and that the people with the most to gain may be those who have had the least recent selective pressure favoring any one type of modification.

I wouldn't build my superdog from an overbred breed, and maybe we won't do it from people like that either. (Meaning the kind of people who write and read blogs like this one.)

But in any case, Saletan's conclusion is a fake call to arms. He probably had to write it so he can tell people "see, I'm on the SIDE of equality", but there is no reason to believe that genetic engineering will lead to greater equality.

Peter-

They were also excoriated by scientists, well, because they practiced bad science.

It's great that Saletan had the courage to write about this issue. It's about time.

But I take issue with the breastfeeding discussion. Breastfeeding does NOT cause higher IQ. I debunked the study at my blog.

Steve,

Not that anyone would care about my voice, but I thought firing Watson over this was disgraceful. On the other hand, I have a (possibly uninformed) opinion that in addition to being a heck of a scientist, Watson is a jerk and a half, a brilliant but mean-spirited ass. So it's hard to come to his defense, in a sense, in that when someone you dislike for other reasons gets (predictably) smacked down for something objectively unfair, human nature tends to lean towards a Nelson-ish "ha ha" laugh from the Simpsons.

Steve, as someone who is both a graduate student and a public school teacher, what should I tell my black students, who comprise about 35% of my classes?

RickM, some scientists of the politically correct variety criticized Murray and Herrnstein; most, who actually read his book found it convincing conceptually and sophisticated and in its statistical analysis. Both authors at the time were on the Harvard faculty.

We all well know from hard experience with very bright people that general intelligence is a real quality. Fortunately, character is a matter principally of individual striving and discipline; further that happiness and success are more a matter of character than intelligence.

Say not a word of this to folk who like Huck Finn's old man blame everything on the capitalists and the guvment.

Bottum is mendacious and, Ross, if you support his quote, so are you.

Of course, stem cell research will drop out of the front pages (if this result holds up and proves useful). But not because lefties want to use it to bash religious Luddites. It's because lefties, and others, want the benefits of stem cell research to treat diseases and the only way to have made that happen was to wage a great national debate to convince the American population. And that, of course, includes criticizing opponents. If this new technique obviates the need for destroying embryos and achieves the same result, then hooray! But then there will be no need to fight for the benefits of curing disease in the grand national arena, will there? We'll all just be able to sit back and let science take its course.

But what worries me is that opponents of stem cell research will use this highly preliminary result to try to quash ongoing research in using embryos, further setting us back and condemning untold numbers of us to debilitating diseases, given the substantial likelihood that the new technique won't work out.

So, what do you say? Keep moving full steam ahead on *both* tracks and if the new technique proves worthwhile, then we can all agree to stop using embryos?

I'll sign up if you will, Ross.

Peter Leavitt wrote:
"RickM, some scientists of the politically correct variety criticized Murray and Herrnstein; most, who actually read his book found it convincing conceptually and sophisticated and in its statistical analysis."
Any evidence for this?

"We all well know from hard experience with very bright people that general intelligence is a real quality."

Peter, check out this post: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

It convincingly shows that g, the factor for general intelligence, is a statistical myth.

I favor destroying the embryos just to uphold the principle that the position that destroying an embryo is the same thing as killing an adult is idiotic.

Wow, every time I think Dilan is a reasonable person who is wrong about a great deal, he says something sort of loathsome and cruel.

If we don't like what science tells us, well, then science can find a way to fix it.

god willing! :-)

I've been saying it for years, and no one wants to believe me. But our society in the next 50 to 100 years is going to be torn apart by eugenics.

? what? it's almost here. perhaps 5-10 years. why would people wait 2 generations or more to grapple with technology that's going to transform our lives in the next decade?

Wow, every time I think Dilan is a reasonable person who is wrong about a great deal, he says something sort of loathsome and cruel.

Sorry, Marquis, but I think that stem cells are to the pro-life movement what ninth month partial birth abortion is to the pro-choice movement. A blastocyst has the same rights as any other 32-celled organism. The fact that, with a lot of luck, it might turn into a human person doesn't change that.

Dilan, then follow your argument to its logical conclusion: human life only has value whenever you (or Peter Singer) say it does. Yes, destroying life "out of principle" is totally reasonable, and mature, too!

Yes, the age of eugenics is coming. Lebensunwertes Leben. Bastards.

Dilan, my point is that if you had any feelings for people who don't agree with you (which your "zero sympathy" posts the other day sort of establish that you don't, I guess) -- then you might be at least inclined to say "oh, good, this might turn out to be something we don't have to fight about" not "hrm, well I sure hope we get to offend some stupid Christers by killing some stupid things they care about." I don't think the Koran is sacred, but I don't go out of my way to flush Korans down toilets just to make the point.

Dilan, my point is that if you had any feelings for people who don't agree with you (which your "zero sympathy" posts the other day sort of establish that you don't, I guess) -- then you might be at least inclined to say "oh, good, this might turn out to be something we don't have to fight about" not "hrm, well I sure hope we get to offend some stupid Christers by killing some stupid things they care about."

Marquis, if I really thought that all that was at stake was that we would use another method to harvest stem cells, I might agree with you.

But the rights of a lot of women-- and I don't just mean the right to a surgical abortion, but the right to an RU486 abortion, to a morning after pill, to an IUD, etc.-- depend on the repudiation of this principle that the blastocyst is the same as a human person.

So I want embryonic stem cell research, regardless of avaiable alternatives, for the same reason that pro-lifers want murder laws that count the murder of a pregnant woman as 2 homicides, i.e., to establish the principle.

Fair enough. But given that determination, and those political ends, and my views, you can understand how it becomes increasingly difficult to view these questions as differences of political opinion, to be settled peaceably, and more as a temporary truce in a "war" where, at heart, you're my enemy. You don't just want to make it possible (but sort of hope it doesn't happen much) about abortion -- you're the real enemy, who wants more and more abortion, so that it becomes a part of the fabric of society in a way that it could never be extracted.


"Yes, the age of eugenics is coming. Lebensunwertes Leben, Bastards."

Exactly, all blithely frosted in the name of presumed lethal liberty for the betterment of humanity.

You don't just want to make it possible (but sort of hope it doesn't happen much) about abortion -- you're the real enemy, who wants more and more abortion, so that it becomes a part of the fabric of society in a way that it could never be extracted.

That's not true. I want less and less abortion, for all sorts of reasons, including the moral debate that surrounds it.

But I also, like Roe v. Wade, want distinctions drawn regarding fetal development. I think there's a good argument for imposing restrictions on ninth month partial birth abortions. I also think that zygotes, 32-cell blastocysts, and other things in the womb without brains or nervous systems or conciousness and which look like microscopic organisms, not human persons, don't have rights. Indeed, I think the argument that they do have rights is a combination of some very silly thinking about the nature of life and a fantasy about the consequences to sex and gender roles of limiting abortion rights.

But let's make this clear. Presumably, as a "life begins at conception" guy, you must think that IUD's are abortafacients, right? So then, is someone who wants to reduce late-term abortions by increasing the availability of IUD's accurately described as someone who "wants more and more abortion"?

I want less abortion, I want more contraception, I want those abortions that do take place to happen as early as possible in the pregnancy, except in special circumstances, and I want abortion legal as an option to those women who need it. But part of that position is that I don't take claims that blastocysts have human rights very seriously. Indeed, I don't take them seriously at all, because I don't think they have any serious intellectual support. (Claims about fetuses in later stages of development, on the other hand, have quite a bit of support.) So if killing some blastocysts enshrines the principle that a woman whose contraception fails can take an RU486 pill, yes, I think that's worth it.

Dilan,

No, the morning after pill isn't the ontological equivalent of a 32-cell embryo. The morning after pill is designed to inhibit ovulation, not implantation. If it does inhibit implantation, it does so rarely, and anyway I think that implantation maybe better viewed as the beginning of life anyway. Most pro-life people are not trying to ban the morning after pill or the IUD. A 32-cell embryo is ontologically different from a 1-cell stage, because the process of development has already begun, there's something already 'there' that you are aborting.

I'm not aware of any serious efforts to ban IUD's on the part of conservatives.

More to the point, what are you trying to achieve by killing embryos for the hell of it? (Although coming from the guy who thought that the Hindus should wipe all those annoying sacred cows of their streets and presumably turn Madras into a sanitized suburban secular utopia, I'm not too surprised.)

Marquis,

Actually, I think it would be refreshing if more people did express our real feelings about the Koran. It's more than a little annoying that people today feel free to criticize every religion except one.

"And by the way, conservatives-- those cloned cells that they are creating for stem cell research are exactly the same as embryonic stem cells; apparently whether something is murder turns on whether you create the embryo first or go directly to creating the stem cells, a really stupid distinction"

Yet they don’t require the destruction of an embryo in order to do the research. So the distinction is one of acquiring research grade stem cells with the destruction of embryo’s, or acquiring research grade stem cells without destruction of embryo’s.

This of coarse is only a “stupid” distinction if you don’t believe the human life of an embryo has moral worth.

Re: why would people wait 2 generations or more to grapple with technology that's going to transform our lives in the next decade?

As I said over on Matt Yglesias' site, genetic technology is biology's version of nuclear fusion: we're always just a decade or so from putting it to big time use.

Re: those cloned cells that they are creating for stem cell research are exactly the same as embryonic stem cells

Since they weren't created by sexual intercourse (or the test tube equivalent) I suspect the Pro-Life movement will not accept that claim.

I hardly know where to begin.

There's really nothing polite to say about Jody Bottum's intensely asinine commentary. "Straw man" is too kind. There was certainly a conscious decision within Democratic circles to use embryonic stem cell research as a wedge issue, but broad support for pursuing potentially revolutionary medical technology has very little to do with partisan politics. No one on the Left wanted to block funding for adult stem cell research. Somehow, this little point has been lost in all the conservative crowing about today's announcement.

The possibilities opened up by deriving multipotent stem cells from adult tissue are nearly boundless. But it's a bridge too far to say "if we don't like what science tells us, well, then science can find a way to fix it." Science can't fix everything. You can't always get the desired results by choosing in advance which avenues of research you wish to follow.

It's far better to say that we should place our trust in scientific observation to understand the world, but we should be cautious about drawing conclusions.

I could poke a number of holes in Saletan's conclusions, but the racial disparities in test scores are real and should not be denied. It's clear that both genetics and environment play a role in human intelligence. Yet the analogies you're making are absurd. No matter how many times Steve Sailer says it, it simply isn't true that political correctness is preventing research into human biodiversity. Human biodiversity is one of the busiest fields in all of science. Jim Watson didn't get canned for performing research. He got canned, rightly or wrongly, for making crude and insulting comments, only some of which had any relation to actual genetic research. You'd be hard pressed to find an article in Nature defending the thesis "People who have to deal with black employees find (racial equality) not true."

Drawing broad, racially tinged, semi-scientific conclusions from genetic research in order to excuse or deny racial prejudice is not exactly a noble and enlightened cause.

I'm going to guess Mr. Saletan isn't a scientist, so was easy to bamboozle with baloney. Looking it up he's a liberal Republican columnist. I think I might dislike liberal Republicans more than actual liberals. It sometimes means "I'm for abortion and I look down on poor people, that's what you call balance."

He seems to say little or nothing about the fact that the idea of "blacks" as a race is flawed or largely fallacious. I think race exists, but Africa is a highly diverse population. Were the Guineans sent here as slaves the same race as the Congolese? Maybe maybe not. In addition to that pre-natal factors may matter more than is accepted.

His sources for it being so solid are largely people already convinced of the idea.

James Watson deserves no defense from any conservative Christian. He's a eugenicist atheist who basically advocates aborting the genetically disabled in the womb. It's just unfortunate that that was never seen as nearly so controversial as the race thing.

Actually the Saletan types probably are for abortion _because_ they look down on poor people. The more poor black babies you can kill in the womb, the less of them around to trouble the Saletans of the world. Until the mid-1980s, Republicans were more likely to be pro-choice than Democrats. It was, after all, another 'liberal Republican', Governor Rockefeller, who signed the country's first abortion law.

'Race' is a somewhat meaningless concept anyway because African populations are highly diverse. West Africans apparently diverged from white Europeans more recently than a certain group of East African ethnicities diverged from the rest of humanity. Which is ironic since it means that Jesse Jackson may have less genetically in common with Barack Obama than with George Bush....

More to the point, what are you trying to achieve by killing embryos for the hell of it?

I think I answered that above. And by the way, when you say that pro-lifers aren't going after IUD's, if Roe is overturned and state abortion bans go into effect, won't some of them apply to IUD's because they define abortion as including the destruction of a zygote?

just for reality's sake--there is no valid test of intelligence. iq tests are so badly flawed as to be completely useless. in addition, as we define it 'race' means nothing. what does "white" mean? that i'm from anglo-saxon stock? that i "look" white?

my mom's a teacher, with a master's degree in assessment. she's told me a number of times that the iq tests that placed me in the top percentile of americans really don't mean anything -- they mean that my folks worked hard to teach me what was valued by our society and nothing else.

intelligence is being able to deal with the world around you -- and considering the disadvantages minorities have to deal with every day they do pretty well. you might not like what drug dealers do with their lives, but they're smart enough to sell drugs in an environment where everyone's out to get them. i'm sure most of them wouldn't do well on iq tests.

does that make them stupid?

iq tests =! accurate measure of intelligence.

I favor destroying the embryos just to uphold the principle that the position that destroying an embryo is the same thing as killing an adult is idiotic.

It doesn't have to be the same thing in order to still be wrong. Being cruel to animals is not the same thing as being cruel to people, but we still punish the former, just not as severely.

No one on the Left wanted to block funding for adult stem cell research. Somehow, this little point has been lost in all the conservative crowing about today's announcement.

Speaking of straw men. Obviously nobody wanted to block funding - but there was a lot of downplaying of the stark differences in the efficacy of adult vs. embryonic stem cells. ES cells were routinely pushed by the media (aided by some in the scientific community and many Democratic politicians) as the great therapeutic hope, while various downsides to them (such as not having enough eggs, and the fact that there was zero evidence that they could be used for treatments) and the upsides to using adult-derived stem cells (they are already used in a variety of treatments, there are plenty of them available, and they are easier to convert into useful, if more limited ranges, of cells) were downplayed.

Moreover, the pro-lifers made the point that we can find other ways (that don't require destroying embryos) to produce stem cells that are useful for research and therapy, only to be derided by liberals as being obscurantist, anti-science, and cruel for denying millions the promised cures.

Re:
"We all well know from hard experience with very bright people that general intelligence is a real quality."

Peter, check out this post: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

"It convincingly shows that g, the factor for general intelligence, is a statistical myth."

His analysis showed that the data are not sufficient to either rule in or rule out an underlying common factor to explain the positive correlations in different measures of intelligence. It emphatically did not prove there is no underlying common factor, however.

Saletan says,

Don't tell me those Nigerian babies aren't cognitively disadvantaged. Don't tell me it isn't genetic. Don't tell me it's God's will. And in the age of genetic modification, don't tell me we can't do anything about it.

No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job.

He has a confused notion of what "created equal" means. He's implicitly conflating the notion of ontological or moral equality, which derives from the types of beings that we are, with an equality of particular characteristics. A person with an IQ of 70 and an IQ of 140 are "created equal" in the sense that they are both human beings, with equal moral and legal rights. Likewise Stephen Hawking and Tom Brady or Derek Jeter. On Saletan's understanding we should tinker with our genes until everyone has essentially equal physical or mental characteristics & abilities. That is obviously an impossible technical standard, since there will always be statistical distributions, and some characteristics are mutually exclusive.

But it also raises the question of how one determines what the norm is. Aside from the issue of which IQ level one should target (110? 120? 150?) Saletan is assuming that a higher IQ is automatically better, but that is not obviously an advantage in many areas. To use but one example, it is frequently the case that outstanding students in college do poorly when they enter a graduate research lab, while students with less stellar GPAs and GRE scores excel. Another would be politics - eggheads tend to do poorly in the political arena.

just for reality's sake--there is no valid test of intelligence. iq tests are so badly flawed as to be completely useless. in addition, as we define it 'race' means nothing. what does "white" mean? that i'm from anglo-saxon stock? that i "look" white?

james, u should look at the evidence urself and not rely on ur mother. it isn't difficult to find studies that address the exact issues that u have with iq testing. and regarding race: genetic testing can tell u ur self identified race w/ a 99.8% accuracy. there are genetic markers that ppl from different continents simply don't have in common. these markers seem to divide ppl into groups that correspond w/ continental divides and popular conceptions of race.

If we don't like what science tells us, well, then science can find a way to fix it.

god willing! :-)

There's a tremendous amount of hubris and callousness about the potential for ruining people's lives built into that statement. The scientific community had better be careful - it is setting itself up for a bitter backlash when the promised advances don't appear, or when the inevitable downsides become more apparent.

I'm with the Marquis - I think Watson's ability as a scientist is overrated. He's obviously talented, but he's a classic case of winning a Nobel early in one's career and never being able to live up to the early hype. My understanding is that he did a reasonable job as head of CSHL, but that by the time he left his irascible personality had alienated a lot of people. And I don't think he did a very good job when he was heading up the human genome project.

There was a PC overreaction to his comments, but they were crudely put and unnecessary. Sailer goes too far in painting him as a martyr.

assuming there's a 4 point IQ gap b/w one group and another - in the real world, how often will this matter? we all know bright people who for one reason or another do not thrive, and others who struggled in school yet succeed.

beyond that, Mike S is exactly right. equality has nothing to do with ability. it's a political and moral stance that holds all citizens have the right to do certain things, and that no one may enjoy special rights due to the happenstance of your family. it's not conditioned on how well you dot your Is and cross your Ts.

none of which is to say this area doesn't merit study, just that no moral or political conclusions should necessarily follow.

Jim W-

Ok you got me. It didn't prove that there is absolutely-never-was-never-will-be-impossible-nonexistent general factor for intelligence, g. But, on the other hand, there is no evidence in support of that factor.

To put it another way, theres as much evidence for g as there is for the flying spaghetti monster.

Steve, as someone who is both a graduate student and a public school teacher, what should I tell my black students, who comprise about 35% of my classes?

(1) That the number of them in your class constitute too small a sample for these results to predict the performance of that particular group.

That black underrepresentation in certain fields is not necessarily the result of racial discrimination, and if they believe they personally are above average individuals, they shouldn't let themselves be scared off.

Rickm,

I don't think that's a fair way to characterize the issue. There are plausible ideas for what a general factor could relate to, such as the ability to retain many items in short-term or working memory. Or, it could relate to the level of interconnectivity between different regions of cortex.

For an analogy, if I were to find a correlation between people's arm strength and their leg strength, then my postulating that there might be a general "strength factor" that could "explain" this correlation would not be as ridiculous as postulating a flying spaghetti monster.

More to the point, who cares? So what if the median Indo-Chinese scores a fraction higher on a particular test than the median Aboriginal Australian?

Those fighting the lawsuit against the NYFD's written exam for being "discriminatory" care very much if self-identified "african americans" are a standard deviation lower than self-identified american whites on a wide variety of tests. It would imply that their tests aren't disciriminatory, they're just showing an unwelcome result.

The assumption that inequality of result must reflect inequality of opportunity underlies a lot of social policy these days. If that assumption can be scientifically proven to be unfounded, a lot of affirmative action programs involving quotas - whoops, make that "numerical goals" - no, make it "reflecting the applicant pool" - will be radically changed or eliminated.

It is quite clear that more than a few of the criticisms of Saletan's articles posted here were written by people who failed to even read the articles in question before denouncing them. This is exactly the sort of anti-scientific, visceral reaction we have come to expect on such topics.

James Hare -- who claims to be a genius but apparently missed the day at school where capital letters were discussed -- takes a post-modern approach and claims ignorance of the definition of just about anything. But if he had actually read the articles, not only would he have found that most of his questions were directly addressed, he would have also discovered that Saletan cites studies which controlled for exactly the sorts of environmental factors Hare blames for the IQ gap.

The assumption that inequality of result must reflect inequality of opportunity underlies a lot of social policy these days.

This idea as the basis for affirmative action makes no sense to me. Suppose it is found that the difference in IQ is not due to genetics but is due to prenatal nutrition, and yet it is irreversible after birth. What difference would it make that the difference in result was due to an inequality of opportunity (ie, opportunity to get proper prenatal nutrition) versus an innate genetic difference?

Arguments for and against affirmative action should be made on the basis of their effect on individuals and society, not on trying to retroactively achieve some weird kind of justice for people.

Ok racial-hierarchiers, this post effectively demolished Saletan's article in Slate:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/541.html

Read it. Ben-I'm quite sure DID read Saletan's piece. Saletan cites Lynn and Rushton as his primary sources. The relevant scientific community views these people as cranks doing shoddy research. All of crshalizi's posts on race and IQ are worth reading.

I think its pretty clear that those claiming that all criticism of The Bell Curve ideas et al stem from political correctness are wrong. There are some very valid and coherent scientific criticisms of the methodology of those like Lynn and Rushton.


My question for all of those who believe that there is a statistically significant disparity in IQ between blacks and whites AND believe that the IQ tests used to show this disparity correlate to a general intelligence factor, is, why are you so eager to believe this when there is much debate and research among the scientific community?

For the left, its pretty obvious why they find the idea of innate genetic differences in intelligence with regards to race unpalatable--the left assumes equality across races.

For the right, I am trying to find a decent reason why someone would be so quick to believe that there is a hierarchy of races regarding IQ. Moreover, I cannot find a decent reason why Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat support disseminating the research of people like Lynn and Rushton. Why do you WANT to believe that white people are smarter than black people?

Rickm said:
Ok racial-hierarchiers, this post effectively demolished Saletan's article in Slate:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/541.html

I followed the link and found it essentially content-free. The conclusion that the essay is incorrect is assumed, and the rest of the post consists of questioning Saletan's motives. Very disappointing.

Ralph,
It contains two links that show Ruston and Lynn to be cranks.

And then there is this:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
(G is a statistical myth)

and
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
re: the heritability and malleability of IQ.

There's content for ya.

Obviously nobody wanted to block funding - but there was a lot of downplaying of the stark differences in the efficacy of adult vs. embryonic stem cells.

And among conservative groups, there was a lot of downplaying of the long-range possibilities for embryonic stem cell therapy, and a massive disinformation campaign to obscure the fairly stark differences between totipotent stem cells and "adult stem cells" with more limited potentiality. That most of the claims made about the therapeutic potential of adult stem cells may now turn out to be true doesn't really excuse all the dishonest chain e-mails and blog posts.

I hope we can all agree that this is a positive development. But let's not use this as evidence that we can block avenues of research and science will always find a way around the problem that satisfies the objections of political interest groups.

Of course,

I would not expect Douthat, Sullivan, or Saletan to have the courage of their convictions and address the criticism of their pro-race hierarchy ideas made by shalizi, Thomas Sowell, et al.

"Why do you WANT to believe that white people are smarter than black people?"

That IS the crux of the matter, isn't it? Obviously, I'd hate to see any prior constraint on researchers that prevents the publication of research data or prevents geneticists from asking and pursuing questions about the nature of inheritance. But there isn't. Controversies tend to arise when biologists like Watson use the research as a veneer for making crude comments, or when non-biologists latch onto a single questionable study and use it to proclaim innate differences between the "races."

Given that there is exactly zero genetic evidence to support the division of humanity into three or four distinct races, one does have to wonder about the motives.

I don't think Saletan is a racist. I think he's trying to be provocative and contrarian. He doesn't deserve some of the nasty comments he's receiving. But he is, at best, playing Devil's Advocate here. There is nothing even roughly approximating a scientific consensus on the nature and extent of genetic variation in human cognitive ability.

Rickm,

I have no real dog in this fight one way or another, and I suspect few other conservatives do, either. We should let the evidence guide us, not emotion. But what I do want to see is honest inquiry free of the sort of PC posturing and moralizing that these sorts of questions always generate (e.g., witness the backlash against Larry Summers at Harvard). And I will say that while I have no background in cognitive studies, the notion that evolutionary differences among the races would have such profound impacts on almost every aspect of our bodies except for our cognitive functioning seems dubious, at best.

Your implied charge that white conservatives are hot to prove that such differences exist out of some sort of latent racism is belied by the fact that the various studies consistently show that whites are, at best, middle of the road when it comes to mean IQ. That supposed racial supremacists would want to prove such a thing seems odd, to say the least.

Ben-

Maybe I wasn't clear. I wrote:
"My question for all of those who believe that there is a statistically significant disparity in IQ between blacks and whites AND believe that the IQ tests used to show this disparity correlate to a general intelligence factor, is, why are you so eager to believe this when there is much debate and research among the scientific community?"

Nevermind. I was clear. No one is doubting that whites, on average, do better than blacks, on average, on IQ tests. Don't shift the goalposts.

What the PC left, impartial observers (like Cato), and scientists ARE disputing is the idea that IQ tests results (which are extremely malleable) correspond to A GENETIC COMPONENT TO REAL INTELLIGENCE. That's the point. I'm having difficulty trying to see how you missed it.


For the left, its pretty obvious why they find the idea of innate genetic differences in intelligence with regards to race unpalatable--the left assumes equality across races.

For the right, I am trying to find a decent reason why someone would be so quick to believe that there is a hierarchy of races regarding IQ.

I'm on the left politically, and I find the idea that there are innate genetic differences just as palatable as the idea that there aren't. From the limited reading I've done on the subject, I agree that there doesn't seem to be a scientific consensus yet.

The links that Rickm put up do look interesting. I haven't read the one about the heritability and malleability of IQ yet. The guy does seem to understand statistics, which is refreshing.

For what its worth, many of the political correctness accusations are probably due to the hyperventilating tone and poorly thought out arguments of some of the commentators (see james hare, above).

Francis's point in one of the first posts above seems to be that the problem with conservatives is that they all make gross, unfair generalizations about liberals. Huh. How narrowminded of them.

Rickm lied:

No one is doubting that whites, on average, do better than blacks, on average, on IQ tests. Don't shift the goalposts.

The authors of "The Bell Curve" took a lot of heat for saying just that. The vast bulk of the book was spent establishing "that whites, on average, do better than blacks, on average, on IQ tests" and exploring the consequences. They spent maybe half of their last chapter speculating about genetics.

Just the consequences of the observed difference alone (e.g. that it is unreasonable to expect the racial makeup of Harvard's class of 2010 or the gender makeup of Harvard's mathematics faculty to match that of the US population as a whole) are sufficiently radical that they have been denied and obfuscated with great energy.

Ralph-
If you could provide a SHRED of evidence that that is the case, I'd love to see it. Criticisms of the Bell Curve were based on its argument that the disparity in IQ was tied to genes, not environment, and that innate and genetic-related intelligence was the primary determinant of where one would end up in society.

Rickm,

As I explained (and yes, I was pretty clear, also), I just want the truth to be discovered. Actually, I would be quite happy to learn that intelligence is evenly distributed across the population regardless of genetic background -- it would certainly make things easier from a sociological standpoint. What I object to is the idea that finding the evidence for an intelligence hierarchy compelling and credible somehow demonstrates a malicious, anti-scientific intent. Scientific debates rage all the time on all sorts of issues. Does it make someone a bad person because they believe one side over the other in the argument over, say, the exact cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs? If there is anti-hierarchy evidence out there, fine. What I object to is the purely visceral aspect of the anti-hierarchy argument.

Ben-
"What I object to is the idea that finding the evidence for an intelligence hierarchy compelling and credible somehow demonstrates a malicious, anti-scientific intent."

qua this idea? really?

I think cherry-picking evidence, siding with the minority in a scientific debate, siding with disreputable people like Lynn and Rushton, being ready, willing, and able to disseminate a (admittedly) harmful idea without sufficient scientific backing, all demonstrate a willingness to believe in the inherent genetic disparity in intelligence between whites and blacks. This is a far cry from being brought to that conclusion by the steady pull of the scientific method. It seems few, if any, people are doing the latter and siding with the race-hierarchists.


Why is the PC-liberal reaction against Saletan, Sullivan, and Douthat the target of your ire, when the crappy research and dissemination of this tripe immune?

siding with the minority in a scientific debate
I do that all the time, though usually in regards to things like the proper way to measure the fractal dimension of a crack surface, the validity of Taguchi methods, and whether "string theory" is even science at all.

Also, how did you determine which side is the "minority," and is it a minority of scientists who have deep knowledge of the field, scientists who have some knowledge of the field, or all scientists in the world, including botanists, metallurgists and astrophysicists?

Ralph,
When I put an 'and' in that sentence, that means all of the things I wrote before are intend to support the conclusion that Sullivan, Douthat, and Saletan are expressing a willingness to believe in a hierarchy of races. I'm asking why.

"Why do you WANT to believe that white people are smarter than black people?"

These are the types of comments that people on the political left use to stifle free speech and scientific inquiry, by implying that anyone interested enough in this topic to have read some research must be a "racist," and being a "racist" is the most evil thing one can possibly be, with perhaps the exception of being a serial killer.

So people with a curiosity of the world around them are "racist." People who wonder why the advanced class is full of Asians and the slow class full of blacks, is a "racist."

Yet it's people on the left who always make race a topic. It's the left that's pushing for affirmative action, the left that's trying to route out the racists everywhere. The only time the left doesn't believe in race is when actual scientific discussion comes up, and then they say there's "no such thing as race."

Rickm,

Science is about facts, not popularity. When we start deciding scientific debates by polls, it will be a sad day, indeed. Besides, I don't think the "minority" to which you refer is nearly as small or as scientifically disreputable as you assert. To the extent that they are "disreputable," much of that stems from the visceral animus directed at their questions and theories. The same thing has happened to those eminent (and brave) scientists who have dared question the orthodoxy on anthropological climate change. Rather than sticking to debating the facts, the PC alarmists would rather question their motives.

I find it revealing that you insist on making this exclusively a white/black issue. We're talking about the entire human population here. As I said, it seems very odd to me that supposed white supremacists would back a theory which holds that Asians and Jews are, on average, more intelligent than whites. I think your locution is telling -- you see this debate as fundamentally about sociological egalitarianism rather than about biological/anthropological truth. I don't claim to know what the truth is in this debate, but the evidence on the pro-hierarchy side is, at the very least, credible. I just wish people would ditch the effluence of emotion and stick to debating the facts, rather than working backwards from an assumed answer.

Ben,
you might have a point if there was an absence of cogent criticism of their methodology. There isn't.

Read this: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

Read this:
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html

It seems to me, and many others, that the science is methodologically flawed.

Or this, which contains Thomas Sowell's criticisms:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/william-saletan.html

The science in favor of the racial hierarchists is deeply flawed. You keeping brining it back to the point that I don't like the conclusion that there is a intelligence as related to genetics, disparity between races. I don't. Fortunately, I have science on my side.

In addition, I have raised concerns about why conservatives--in spite of the very obvious and serious flaws in the science supporting a genetic-intelligence hierarchy between races--WANT to believe in this hierarchy.

You keep reverting to the position that all critism of Saletan and Douthat are not "sticking to the facts". Please.

If you could provide a SHRED of evidence that that is the case, I'd love to see it. Criticisms of the Bell Curve were based on its argument that the disparity in IQ was tied to genes, not environment, and that innate and genetic-related intelligence was the primary determinant of where one would end up in society.

Sorry, but I can't be bothered to find a link to something to convince of what I know is true by having actually read the book.

And as for your claim that while asserting a genetic basis for population differences is controversial, the existence of the differences themselves is not ... tell that to Larry Summers.


No one's yet mentioned Bottum's implied opposition to science on global warming, so I while.

For anyone who hopes to see a pro-science right, the anti-science orthodoxy on this point is a much bigger problem than anything to do with stem cells.

Ralph-
I find it odd that you were informed of criticisms of the Bell Curve from reading the book. This is even more odd considering that the authors only let favorable reviews review the book prior to publication. Everyone else had to wait until after it was published.

Half Sigma-
If you are impling that I implied that "anyone interested enough in this topic to have read some research must be a "racist," then I can only conclude that you are being willfully obtuse.

Rickm,

I have read the posts you linked to, and while I find some of the information there credible, it does not seem to settle the debate. The other side has credible information, too.

But my larger point still stands. In your last post, you reiterated your assertion that conservatives "WANT to believe in this hierarchy." As I have stated, my personal preference is that the hierarchy theory be disproved, and I would wager most conservatives would say the same thing. So once again, you are taking a position based on emotion and working backwards to make assertions not grounded in fact.

Ben-
No I'm not. I'm saying that, to this observer, the science seems dubious. I'm also saying that, Sullivan and Douthat (the former has been assiduous in disseminating this information) seem eager to believe in the hierarchy of races. Why do I say this? Well, the evidence for it is shaky, and there are real, valid criticisms of the methodology and the assumptions. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the evidence either in favor or against a hierarchy of races, is a wash. We can't conclude.

Then I must ask, why are some so eager to believe in it? For those of on the left, we readily admit we don't want to believe in a hierarchy of races because it shatters our basic assumption about how the world works. Fortunately, we have scientists who make detailed, scientific arguments in support of our beliefs. Do you think I want to do the legwork that some of these statisticians do? Hell no!

So, given that the left finds a hierarchy of races unpalatable because it undermines our assumption of how the world works, does the opposite apply to the right? Does the right want to believe--assuming the cold, hard, evidence is a wash--in a hierarchy of races? Is it part and parcel of their worldview that--on average--asians are smarter than whites, and whites are smarter than blacks? Sullivan, Douthat, and Saletan cannot present themselves solely as disseminators of truth--nor can one deem all criticism as stemming from PC leftism--because, as Ben you agree, and as I kind of concede, the evidence is a wash.