Has it come to this?

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC.

Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University speculated that while the performance of men and women in science was, on average equal, there were more men at the extremes. There are both more male idiots and more male geniuses sums up his thesis.

Since Harvard was in the business of hiring geniuses this could explain why the science faculty at Harvard was lopsidedly male.

In the ensuing outcry Summers was forced to resign.

James Watson, the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the double helix recently stated his belief that people from sub-Saharan Africa were on average less intelligent than people who traced their ancestry to Europe. Europeans were in turn, on average, less intelligent than people whose family trees originated in North Asia.

Watson's English book tour was cancelled and he was sacked from his job as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

I do not want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the views expressed by Summers and Watson.

I do want to ask the following question.

If people who express unorthodox and, let's face it, distasteful, views are subject to such harsh penalties HOW MUCH FAITH CAN WE PLACE ON WHAT COMES FROM ACADEME?

We distrust the Murdock media because, the token Philip Adams aside, we suspect that those who do not tow the Murdock party line will suffer career damage.

Do we now have to treat what emanates from academe with similar suspicion?

Has the "academic media" become a clone, albeit with a different agenda, of the Murdock media?

The Summers and Watson affairs demonstrate yet again the need for people to be able to express their views without fear of sanction. Anything less undermines trust.

I happen to think the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

But in view of the Summers and Watson affairs how can I be certain I'm getting the full story?

i have long thought your posts were prejudiced and naive. it turns out you couldn't help it, poor lad- you've been believing what you're told by academics. next, you'll tell me you've discovered some pollies are not totally reliable. where will it end? the horror! (btw, isn't it murdoch?)

Well DEMOS,

If you don't recognise irony then you don't.

I'm simply pointing out how the censorship of political correctness can be as damaging to credibility as any other type of censorship.

I stand corrected. It should be "Murdoch" nor "Murdock."

STEVEN....

and of course.. origin of life by EVOLUTION is absolutely true, and all scientists who rely on funding and grants.. who espouse this scientific orthodoxy are doing so out of the purity of their objective hearts :)

HAHAH de HAHHA.. rolling around the floor..kicking my legs up.. waving my arms around.. with a wild and cynical grin on my self righteous face :)

Demos might think ur biased.. I think ur a breath of fresh air :)
and I'm going advise the 'finance committee' to start budgeting for you 0_-

Who needs universities, academics, or research? ...We don't need to make new discoveries and create new knowledge. So what if in science and technology, many inventions are the result of the creative ideas of university professors and their advanced students - for example, progress in space travel, electronic computers, laser-beam surgery, atomic energy - just to name a few. All have depended heavily on the expertise of university faculty members. Then there's archaeologists who explore the ruins of ancient cities, historians who reveal events of the past, and psychologists who develop new ways of treating mental disorders - they're all on university staffs. Symphonies may be composed by music professors, and insights into political events are offered by political science professors...

Then of course certain developing countries like Asia, Africa, and South America - don't need immediate help of universities to solve
pressing problems. For example air and water pollution, drug use by teenagers, heavy motor car traffic, mental illness, inadequate housing, and food shortage.

Should we trust academics? -Of course not. Afterall we know it all. We'll eventually even be able to cure cancer.

boaz, I won't go to far into a debate about creationism v evolution right now, but I'll say simply that most people, when presented with the idea of creationism which isn't based on scientific principles at all, begin rolling around with laughter at the idea that people honestly believe the earth's just 6,000 years old. Whatever you feel about evolutionary theory, at least it's an attempt to explain origins based on what's actually around us, instead of resorting to the simplistic 'god did it' explanation.

stevenlmeyer... you say you don't want to discuss the merits of the claims made by this erstwhile professor, but you also complain that he's being unfairly censored.

You can't discuss the fairness of the censorship without scrutinising his claims and how much of a background he has in the actual matter he's discussing.
That isn't actually his specialisation, you'll find most of the claims he has made have been debunked.

Put simply, he's a sloppy scientist, and if you're going to make such insulting radical claims, you damn well need to get your facts lined up. He hasn't.

Cont'd.

You simply can't try to make this argument without discussing the merits of this man's argument, and they're patently absurd.

The truth of the matter is, the reason why scientific opinion has been devalued has been because of two things:

Premature publicity for studies that have not been subject to adequate peer review. Essentially, this means that some scientist puts up a study that isn't verified by the rest of the scientific community, and the media jumps on it because it's an interesting topic.

People then assume that it's a legitimate study, thus downgrading the opinion of the scientific establishment.

The second reason, is because people with an ideological wheelbarrow to push are doing their damnedest to misrepresent and challenge scientific theory.

Creationists being the foremost among them. The vast majority of geneticists and people with an advanced understanding of the building blocks of human life agree with evolution to an extent - that doesn't mean they don't believe in a god as well, it simply means that they find the idea that the earth was created only about 6,000 years ago as patently absurd.

Yet fundamentalist christians don't want to believe that. It baffles me, to be honest, because it's so stupid. These beliefs don't have to be mutually exclusive. We don't need fools coming up with ideas like the vegetarian T-rex at the US creation museum (this mightn't sound tolerant and PC, but I'm afraid that place is a blight on mankind's intellectual progress).

As I understand it, the aramaic word for day actually means a period of time. Thus, the time could be interpreted in a variety of methods, and I don't see why you can't believe evolution was part of god's plan.

And the moment creationists start pushing for their belief to be taught in schools in Australia, I'll be demanding that the Flying Spaghetti Monster be given just as much credence. After all, Pastafarians deserve just as much respect:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter

stevenlmeyer: "THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC"

Bulldust, Steven. The crux of this matter is that both Summers and Watson made speculative, controversially political statements that were not the results of scientific research. As respected academics, they have a duty to restrict their public utterances as academics to those that are supported by evidence or research.

Neither Summers' speculation about gender nor Watson's about race has any credible basis in published data. Scientists need to be very careful when making politically controversial statements, particularly when they are outside their fields of expertise.

You are correct Foxy.

Universities have been a major source of scientific innovation. The BASIC research that made possible microchips, polio vaccines and fuel cells, to name but three, was all done in university laboratories.

It was university academics who first alerted the world to the dangers of climate change.

But another important role of university researchers is to act as the HONEST BROKERS. For example, it is unrealistic to expect drug companies to tell us the whole story about the efficacy of the treatments they peddle. For that sort of information we need to rely on independent researchers doing the hard yards.

Similarly, when it comes to issues like climate change, we expect independent scientists to confirm the results of research.

That is why it is so important that academic researchers maintain their credibility. In some cases this is well recognised. For example today the best medical journals require researchers to disclose any links, financial or otherwise, they may have with drug companies. In addition full disclosure of all trial results, including unfavourable ones, is required in assessing the efficacy and safety of a drug. The system is not perfect but it is an order of magnitude better than it was, say, 5 years ago.

The best way to destroy credibility is to punish those who express contrary views. That is precisely what the scientific community has done in the case of Messrs Summers and Watson.

If you disagree with Summers' speculation about the gender distribution of scientific genius the correct way is to demonstrate its falsity, if it is false. Hounding him out of his job is exactly the wrong thing to do.

But, you know what Foxy?

IN THE END THE TRUTH WILL OUT. It always does. Someone will do the research and we'll know whether Summers' or Watson's speculations have any basis in fact.

TRTL, CJ MORGAN,

Here's how it works in the world of science.

Scientists are required to back up their statements with evidence. There is nothing to stop scientists making speculative statements but they do have to give reasons why they believe there may be some substance to their speculations.

Once the evidence has been presented critics are free to rebut it if they can.

This process applies no matter how repugnant some people may find the thesis presented.

Of course in reality there aren't enough hours in the day to rebut every crank. Mostly this does not matter. Boaz may rabbit on about evolution but he does not have the profile that will convince anyone other than his fellow true believers. There is also no point in engaging Boaz and his ilk in debate because, as we in the reality based community understand, most devout Muslims and a sizeable minority of devout Christians will not believe evolution no matter what evidence is presented.

But Watson is a high-profile figure. He has a track record of excellent science and was an outstanding administrator at Cold Spring Harbor. Because of his popular books he has a following in the general public. People pay attention to Watson's pronouncements.

He has made a number of statements which, if correct, have grave implications. He should be asked to present his evidence. His critics may then rebut him if they can.

It is precisely because Watson is such a high profile figure and because this is such a touchy subject that I think it imperative that the proper procedures be followed. At the moment all the scientific community has done is create a martyr to political correctness.

I don't want to say more because I have not yet read Watson's book. I have it on order but it hasn't arrived yet.

As I wrote in my previous post, in the end TRUTH WILL OUT. Eventually we'll know whether there is any substance to Summers' and Watson's speculations

Dear Steven,

Well argued... bravo!

stevenlmeyer: "Here's how it works in the world of science.

Scientists are required to back up their statements with evidence. There is nothing to stop scientists making speculative statements but they do have to give reasons why they believe there may be some substance to their speculations."

As a former academic scientist, I know perfectly well the way the world of science works. Where Summers and Watson both erred was in making speculative statements that were politically controversial and outside their own specialisations. As senior administrators they were rightly pilloried for it.

They didn't present scientific theses - they made politically stupid speculations (Summers to a closed economics conference and Watson in a newspaper interview) that both should have known would be the subject of controversy if publicly disseminated.

Science may be value free, but the world in which it operates certainly isn't.

CJ Morgan – “Science may be value free, but the world in which it operates certainly isn't.” I have to agree with this! I can hardly see any reason as to why anybody would go to any length to prove why Africans are less intelligent or women are less creative! Even if it was true what will it achieve? It would make many people though out the world feel sub standard!

If the scientific research was a means to an ends which may benefit mankind I would support it but scientific research to prove “we are better then them” or “They are stupid compared to us” is very ill-conceived and will only create negativity and achieve nothing

EasyTimes

Let's have a reality check.

We are developing the technologies that will enable us to tie collections of genes to specific characteristics such as intelligence. To put it another way, we're developing the ability to distinguish "smart genomes" from "dull genomes."

We're going to continue along this path for two reasons. One is intellectual curiosity. There are scientists who want to know how it all hangs together.

The other reason is profit. Multo dollaro. The first company that can offer an in utero test to determine whether the foetus will grow up smart or dim will make a fortune.

The idea of aborting a foetus because a genome test says it's likely to grow up dim may be distasteful but, so long as a woman has an absolute right to an abortion, how would you stop it?

In any case, we already test in utero for, inter alia, Down's syndrome and advise women to abort a Down's foetus. Is this so different?

Later on this sort of knowledge may enable us to develop drugs to make us smarter. Performance enhancing drugs for the brain.

Even better, once we know how body chemistry and smarts interact we may be able to develop specialised training techniques that amplify an individual's strengths and compensate for his or her weaknesses. We may move to the era of personalised education instead of the "one size fits nobody" system we have now.

Now how are you going to stop this sort of research EasyTimes?

In the course of developing these capabilities we MAY discover that different population groups have different ranges of abilities. Note "population groups" NOT races. The populations of East and West Africa, for example, seem to form two quite distinct groups.

So how would we suppress this knowledge EasyTimes?

If that's the way it is then that's the way it is.

We'll have to find a way of living with it.

Stevenlmeyer – I am not against scientific research which leads too a bettering of civilisation but I cant support scientific research which is trying to prove a hypnotises that a group of people are lesser then others! Sure culturally it may be obvious that some groups are more successful then others but it does not need to be rubbed into peoples faces that they are less.

I don’t have a problem with individual being shown to be smarter then others but I do think that its not in the interests of human civilisation as a whole to prove that some people from particular back grounds are less intelligent then others.

Even if there prognostication is true it will merely cause a feeling of worthlessness in those who are singled out.

TurnRightThenLeft

You might roll around laughing when it comes to creation but their are plenty of scientist a lot smarter than me and dare I say you that roll around laughing at the holes in the evolutionary theory. I have spoken to a number of geologist who will tell you that they have to pretend to believe in evolution to get passes. It is sad when people have to pretend to believe in a lie to get a pass. It is this sort of nonsense that puts science in a bad light.

EasyTimes, but you're assuming that if some research is done that categorically shows that, say, white Europeans on average are genetically less well developed in the area of abstract reasoning abilities (the sort measured by IQ tests) than Chinese, it somehow makes white Europeans "inferior". The reality is that there really is no objective and sensible way of comparing two human beings, or even two groups of human beings and saying "well that one is clearly better than the other one". Einstein was, no doubt, a mathematical and scientific genius - but would you say he was a better person than, say, Gandhi, or Don Bradman, or Mother Teresa?
I honestly don't see any reason why the idea that males are more likely to be geniuses than women should be controversial. After all, women are more likely to be better empathisers - and who says that genius is more worthwhile than empathy? And even Watson's is purely a claim about particular intellectual ability. If you think this is an implication that whites are superior to blacks, you're basically implying that if his suggestion turns out to be factual then the world would be a better place if everyone was white. Well, I don't know about you, but I don't believe that for a moment.
Why "intelligence" is so often reduced to a some single linear scale and held up on a pedestal above all other abilities and attributes that make human beings interesting and worthwhile I've never understood. I've said it before in another thread, but I'd happily give up at least 10 or 15 IQ points to improve other aspects of my own personality.

runner, I didn't say that a majority of scientists don't believe in a creator deity, I don't know what the stats are.

But I'd bet pounds to pennies that for the handful that believe the earth is just 6,000 years old, you'll have thousands rolling around laughing at the self imposed ignorance this requires.

TRTL

Your handful might not be such a small number. Those who have written 'scientific' textbooks over the last 100 years or so must be highly
embarrassed at having to revise their theory time and time again At it wont be the last time. The account in Genesis can't be scientifically proven as it takes a step of faith to believe. The theory of evolution will never be proven and takes a far bigger step of blind faith to believe. Even Albert Einstein (a non believer) recognised that an uncreated earth is impossible.

You are right wizofoz IQ test are merely one facet of intelligence Einstein had an IQ of 139 while Marlin Munroe had an IQ of 160! I think IQ is just your ability to learn/grasp concepts. It does not measure creativity.

Its just my 2 cents I don’t support something which will only produce a negative outcome. There are no positives from it.

Proving that one group of people have higher or lower IQ is like proving one group of people are more attractive. What’s the point?

The facts are people are going to feel belittled by it and they will be belittled for no good reason.

If somebody can point out the good which would come out of for example women being scienticly proven to be smarter then men or people from Mongolia being proven to be smarter then people from Germany I will change my mind but till then I cant see any reason too support it and will only lead to people being crestfallen

runner: "the account in genesis can't be proved. It requires a leap of faith to believe"

There's your self imposed ignorance. That's essentially what faith is.
I don't necessarily mean ignorance in a negative sense, but faith is giving up on rational thought, so you can't argue against it.
You can't actually argue for it either, at least, not using an intelligent argument... but people try anyway.

I've not said anywhere that there hasn't been a creator deity. I'm rejecting that anything outside a minority crank section of the scientific establishment have rejected everything we've learnt about dating and elementary science such as dinosaurs or even civilisations that we know date back further than 6,000 years.
It's the fact that people blissfully try to believe this 6,000 year creationist story when there is so much weight against it, citing your 'faith' as the sole reason.
Unfortunately, that argument can be used just as effectively to argue in favour of anything from mars being made of chocolate, to the flying spaghetti monster. All we've got is science and when you reject that, we're effectively regressing back to the dark ages.

I urge you to visit the link I posted earlier, then place your faith in the FSM. May his noodly appendages strengthen your faith.

I concur with the posters who say the research is hardly going to advance mankind and intellectualism isn't everything, but by the same token, we don't know what kind of benefits genetic research can bring.

The main problem with these scientific claims is that they are without foundation. stevenlmeyer, the actions you speak of - the follow up research by the scientific faculty hasn't been necessary, because although this scientist is respected in one field, this is entirely outside his area of expertise.

It's a crank claim and deserves to be ridiculed as such. It's not worthy of a follow up.

Of course, there's stacks of research occurring right now into the genetic sources and distribution of 'intelligence'. However, Steven and other contributors seem unaware that such research is conducted under the auspices of university ethics committees, whose role is to consider not only the design and conduct of the research project, but also its ethical implications.

Steven's scenario in his most recent post would make for interesting science fiction, but it bears only slightly more semblance to reality than runner's creation myths.

Would I be correct in deducing that Steven's background is not in science, and that his speculative claims (and his claims about speculation by scientists) reflect this?

FOXY,

Thank you for your kind words. Your post was so short I missed it the first time around.

WIZOFAUS

I agree entirely with your post.

CJ MORGAN and TRTL

The idea that creative scientists confine themselves to a sort of "silo of expertise" is CLAPTRAP.

The mark of many creative scientists is that they are "polymaths." Erwin Schrodinger, for example, was a remarkable physicist who wrote a book on the nature of life that is still quoted 60 years on. Richard Feynman not only made important discoveries in disparate areas of physics but contributed to information theory and his 1959 talk to the American Physical Society laid out the vision for nanotechnology.

If you really were an academic scientist CJ MORGAN you would know all this.

Furthermore, in Watson's cases, neither of you know just what is his "area of expertise." Given his "Passion for DNA", the title of one of his books, I imagine he has devoted much to studying the topics on which he spoke.

The sense I'm getting CJ MORGAN and TRTL is that you both think Summers' and Watson's speculation are entirely without foundation. In fact, in both cases, there is some evidence supporting both their speculations.

In Watson's case, given what we have learned in the past decade about the distribution of alleles in different population groups and the speed at which favourable alleles can spread within isolated populations, the terms of the debate have actually changed. Those who assert the "null hypothesis" of no differences in cognitive ability between population groups now have to explain what MAGIC kept the evolution of the brains of population groups isolated from each other for 3,000 generations in synch.

What was it folks? Intelligent design maybe?

As an article in New Scientist referring to the speed at which evolution operates put it, "Blink and you'll miss it." (New Scientist, 9 July 2005)

CJ MORGAN

I trained as a physicist and worked as one for many years though not in an academic environment. I no longer work as a scientist but I have a passion for science. Not only have I kept up with developments, I'm still in touch with working scientists including population geneticists.

Now that I am approaching retirement I am planning a post-retirement career as a freelance science writer.

I am well aware of the workings of university ethics committees. I understand how carefully scientists have to word the goals of their research when applying for research funds.

You claim to have been an academic scientist. I wonder if you belong to that ilk of scientist who lets his ideology get I the way of his understanding of nature. You know the sort I mean? Like those who conducted a campaign of vilification against E. O. Wilson after the publication of his 1975 book on Sociobiology?

Have you in fact kept up with recent research in population genetics? If you have a subscription to Science here's something to help you update your understanding:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1720

Quote:

The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.

Newsflash CJ MORGAN

Nature does not care about our preferences or ideological predilections. Nature is what nature is and we have to learn to live with whatever we discover.

Steven, nice link, very interesting. However, population genetics is not the same as quantitative genetics. But there is a bit of smoke and mirrors going on here. I would certainly not be surprised if you find a lot of genetic haplotypes being selected for in European and Middle Eastern populations, considering several rounds of expansion and selection events going on in those areas. For example, the Roman expansions and regularly losing large percentages of their populations to disease and conflicts.

Everyone of even tenuous European ancestry alive today has more than one common ancestor less than 1000 years ago. In fact it is extremely likely that everyone of European ancestry alive today is actually related to the royal family of England.

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/newspaperarticle.htm

The authors do not discount the idea that this "positive selection" is artifactual, and in fact do not actually discuss any of the quantitative effects of this haplotype.

What many neurobiologists are coming to realise is that "intelligence" as we perceive it is the product of a genotype x environment interaction and is more related to the number of connections in the brain as well as how those connections are organised and "trained".

A great recent example:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv-reviews/my-brilliant-brain/2007/11/08/1194329395750.html

Brain size is not a causal factor for intelligence, that much is clear. In fact it is only very roughly correlated and has so many exceptions that quantitatively it doesn't have much meaning.

When they sort out what does what, I think you'll find that like any multifactorial trait, and what CJ has pointed out previously, the genetic variability is just as great within populations as between them.

Quantitative tests for any trait are only as good as the assay used (eg the type of IQ test used). It is hardly surprising therefore that IQ tests tend to favour people from similar educational/developmental backgrounds to the creators of the tests. But once many factors are controlled, like the pattern recognition IQ tests many societal differences fade greatly, and if there is a slight difference between groups it would be gravely irresponsible to attribute that to genetics rather than develepmental effects.

STEVENLMEYER: "The sense I'm getting CJ MORGAN and TRTL is that you both think Summers' and Watson's speculation are entirely without foundation."

Now where exactly did I say such a thing, or even hint at it? What I did say was that Summers and Watson both stupidly speculated in public about unproven, politically controversial topics. That it was politically stupid is demonstrated by the fact that they both have lost their administrative positions and damaged their reputations as a result.

I stand corrected on STEVENLMEYER's scientific training, although it's apparent that he has a similar problem to his scientific betters - he may well have extensive scientific knowledge but he displays very little understanding of people and politics. He started out the thread by claiming that

"THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC"

using as his evidence that fact that two old has-beens have been moved on from their cushy administrative jobs for displaying the political nous of gnats. The issue has nothing to do with academic freedom - at least with respect to research - but everything to do with irresponsible and socially divisive speculation by people who should know better.

To cap it off, STEVENLMEYER cites real evidence (of the kind that he implies doesn't exist because of 'political correctness') in order to indicate some evidentiary basis for the erstwhile professors' silly comments. I think that as a human population geneticist, STEVENLMEYER might make a passable physicist - or, as seems more likely, a competent writer of B-grade sci-fi in his retirement.

BUGSY

I am definitely not claiming that the link between genes and intelligence is a simple one. It seems clear that in most cases, not merely intelligence, there is a complex interaction between genotype and environment.

See also:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/james-watson-black-intelligence-and-new-research-by-fryer-and-levitt/

To add to the complexity we now discover that, contrary to all received doctrine of only a decade ago, the life experiences of our grandparents can affect us. Google epigenetics.

See also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml

If you google "ghost in your genes" you may find a link to a site that has a video of the BBC program that aired last year. It's excellent.

So yes, it’s a complex question. And yes the pathologies that afflict the African-American population today MAY have something to do with the fact that their grandparents and great-grandparents were subjected to the stress of slavery. It seems that each generation cannot just make a fresh start.

However, epigenetics aside, we cannot deny that our genetic endowment does place limits on what we may or may not achieve. Even with OPTIMAL NURTURE some people will out-perform others in any given field.

Paradoxically, the better the average level of nurture in a country the more important inherent differences become. In a country like Australia, for example, differences in achievement probably have more to do with inherent variations than in, say, the UK let alone in Zimbabwe or Sudan.

We also can no longer deny that, on average, genomes do differ between population groups. For thousands of generation there just was not much gene flow between say West Africa and China. We know that evolution operates over that time frame. So what magic force kept the evolution of the human brain in West Africa in synch with brain evolution in China?

So people in China MAY actually have better cognitive abilities on average than people from West Africa. Give both populations optimal nurture and the Chinese MAY on average outperform the West Africans in tasks requiring analytical skills.

The New York Times does seem to be preparing its liberal readership for that possibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=1&bl=&ei=5087&en=19674717bccca396&ex=1194930000&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

CJ MORGAN wrote:

Now where exactly did I say such a thing, [that Summers' and Watson's speculations are without foundation] or even hint at it?

I infer you therefore agree that there is some evidence to support their speculations. You just think they should not have said it. And if they do say it they should be hounded out of their jobs.

Well at least I now know where you stand CJ MORGAN.

Right alongside the late unlamented Senator Joe McCarthy.

For those who readers who do not subscribe to McCarthyism a few points.

Summers raised an important issue. If I were a university president I'd want to know whether gender imbalances at my institution reflected the available talent pool or were caused by something more sinister. His speculations were pertinent. Only McCarthyists or their appeasers could think he should be hounded from office for voicing them.

Watson's speculations also raise weighty issues. Thanks to the mother of all resources booms sub-Saharan Africa is doing a little better now albeit off a low base. Nonetheless I am hardly being controversial when I state that sub-Saharan Africa's economic performance has been diabolical when compared to, say, Asia. Many Asian countries were actually poorer than all but the poorest sub-Saharan African countries 40 years ago. Today most Asian nations are vastly wealthier than almost any sub-Saharan African country.

Why did it turn out that way?

Theories and speculations abound but no one is sure. There are all the politically correct theories – eg it’s a result of neo-colonialism or some such. And then there are politically incorrect speculations such as Watson's. It's very much an open question and it's important to find out.

My guess is that it will turn out to be a combination of factors. For example it is possible that the burden of tropical disease in sub-Saharan Africa plays a role

STEVENLMEYER: "I infer you therefore agree that there is some evidence to support their speculations. You just think they should not have said it. And if they do say it they should be hounded out of their jobs."

Yes, there is some evidence that might support their speculations. But that's not the point - it's not their research or evidence, and they were both sacked from administrative rather than research jobs for bringing their employers into disrepute (Summers' little gaffe reportedly cost Harvard $50M). Nothing remotely McCarthyist here - just a couple of old has-beens putting their feet in it and confirming that they should have retired earlier.

Besides which, I thought STEVENLMEYER'S point was not the veracity or otherwise of the speculations, but rather that scientific research is being stifled, and "...we now have to treat what emanates from academe with ...suspicion". Why else would he write

"I do not want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the views expressed by Summers and Watson"?

Now it seems that STEVENLMEYER's really keen on discussing the content of their speculative gaffes, to the extent of citing evidence from research that is supposedly being suppressed by some kind of "McCarthyist" conspiracy. One assumes that STEVENLMEYER is reasonably confident in the academic evidence that he cites to support speculation that he now apparently wants to discuss, so one then wonders what exacty it is that he's on about.

CJ MORGAN wrote:

"one then wonders what exacty it is that he's [stevenlmeyer's]on about."

He's on about McCarthyism in academe and the way that undermines credibility. And you're making my case for me. You wrote:

"they were both sacked ... for bringing their employers into disrepute"

So EVIDENCE BASED SPECULATIONS somehow bring their employers "into disrepute!"

If that's not McCarthyism I wonder what is.

Summers' speculations cost Harvard $50 mn?

The analogy with the Murdoch media seems to be closer that I thought. THEY WILL BOTH DISREGARD THE FACTS FOR MONEY.

Yes, mostly you can do the research. What you cannot do is draw reasonable inferences about what the research means. At least, you cannot do it in public.

Most of the public is not interested in the frequency of the occurrence of alleles in different population groups. They wouldn't even know what it means.

But in the US they would be interested to know whether the affirmative action industry was denying them jobs or places at universities based on JUNK SCIENCE.

Now the POSSIBILITY emerges that the affirmative action industry is based on false premises.

In the US the stakes are enormous. Multi-million dollar anti-discrimination lawsuits have been based on the supposition that hiring insufficient numbers of Blacks or women or Hispanics constitutes prima facie evidence of racism or sexism.

Many more billions of dollars have gone towards programs to raise the test scores of Black and Hispanic children. See for example:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/12/MNH8T5LTC.DTL

Jobs and livelihoods, not to mention the ability of the self-righteous left to excoriate the general public for being "racist," are at stake.

But, on the POSITIVE SIDE, once you understand the dynamics of what's going on you may be able to remedy some of the pathologies that afflict our societies. You certainly cannot do it based on junk science.

Yes, the truth does matter. It should always trump political expediency. If you think otherwise you're no better than George Bush.

I feel I must add a rider to my last post.

I hope with all my heart that Watson's speculation turns out to be wrong. Because I'm at a loss to know what we do if he's right. In some ways it's the ULTIMATE NIGHTMARE.

There is only one scenario I can imagine that is worse than Watson being right. That is that he turns out to be right and we all pretend otherwise.

Like I said, STEVENLMEYER should write SCIENCE FICTION.

Now that I think of it, he already does :)

I have the feeling that when it comes to differences in intelligence between population groups, mounting evidence is about to break the dam wall of taboos. Previously I posted a link to a NY Times article that conceded there may be racial differences in intelligence.

The NY Times is hardly a hotbed of racist reactionaries.

Now comes an article in Slate, another liberal organ.

See:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

Quote:

>>Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.">>

>>I wish these assurances were true.* They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.>>

* Believe me, so do I!

>>One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This is true in the broadest sense: ….But in the narrower sense of TESTING ABILITIES THAT PAY OFF IN THE MODERN WORLD, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. >>

(Emphasis added)

I think we may have to learn to live and cope with inequality between population groups.

I generally don't mind what you have to say Steven, because it's about science. But this has got to be one the nastiest statements I have heard from you:
"I think we may have to learn to live and cope with inequality between population groups."

I cannot accept this, as a scientist or a human being.

And while we are on the subject, you mentioned a "magic force" or some such earlier (I presume as a way of belittling real scientists who don't see things your way). It's not magic Steven, it's called "stabilising selection" and has a lot to do with stabilising traits in large populations. Allopatry can change some cosmetic differences in humans, but "intelligence" is one that generally well stabilised. "IQ" tests as a rough tool may discriminate between highly divergent groups, but the average difference is so low between racial groups that any extrapolation cannot be applied to any individual (the signal to noise is very high). Human beings are and should be treated as individuals.

Bugsy,

In the end the world is what the world is. It has no reason to conform to our wishes.

For about 3,000 generations different human population groups existed more or less in isolation from each other. Gene flows even between East and West Africans let alone between, say, Northern Europeans and South Asians, was minimal.

The difference branches of humanity faced vastly different selective pressures. As a result, for example, Tibetans living high up in the Himalayas have a different blood chemistry to sea level dwellers.

Sometimes the differences in selective pressures follow a feedback loop. Europeans started domesticating cattle. This gave rise to a new source of food, cows' milk. People who were able to exploit this new source had an advantage over people who are lactose intolerant. They were more likely to survive to adulthood and have children than their lactose intolerant peers. Today Northern Europeans have the lowest rate of lactose intolerance of all population groups.

Absent gene flow between populations there is no reason for parallel evolution to occur. Given no gene flow and different selective pressures there is no stabilising selection. There is no reason to suppose our brains evolved in parallel anymore than our blood chemistry.

In fact there are indications that, on average, the brains of different population groups are a bit different.

Did I make a nasty statement?

Yes I did.

But don’t shoot the messenger.

On one thing I agree strongly Bugsy.

HUMAN BEINGS ARE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS INDIVIDUALS

Steven, I think you are mixing up your concepts a bit here. "Parallel evolution" occurs in separate species. Human beings are not even close to being separate species.

Lactose intolerance is an ancestral trait, meaning that most mammals, including humans, develop lactose intolerance after their juvenile stages around the same time that they generally wean onto adult food. It is actually a loss of
People in Northern European populations have much greater occurence of the mutation that confers it, however you will find that the same mutation is pretty well identical in all populations, albeit at different frequency and most likely originated in non-Northern Europeans (or has arisen independently many times).

"Intelligence" is a trait that is under stabilising selection, there is no selection for "dumbness" or against "smartness" in any population. In fact, if you dug a little deeper into the literature that you cited and back to the original IQ testers, you will find that while genetics is not discounted, nutrition is the best supported and major factor in any group scores, not genetics. In fact, the genetic component is only hypothesised, but nutrition has some very hard data behind it.

Bugsy,

I have never maintained anything other than that intelligence arises from a complex interaction between nature and nurture. Yes, I know that nutrition is a major factor in intelligence. In fact it now appears that the nutrition of your GRANDPARENTS may affect your intelligence because of epi-genetic effects.

(Google "ghost in your genes.")

None of this is in dispute.

But there is no well constructed study that shows ZERO effect of genome. The argument is entirely about the extent to which heritability accounts for the variability of intelligence with 40% being the bottom of the range.

There is no selection for dullness or dumbness. But some population groups may have come under increased selective pressure for smartness – for example because of the invention of agriculture or writing. Given the absence of gene flow that would cause a divergence in brain evolution.

In a sense Bugsy we are both speculating about the way the science will turn out. You have one view. I have another. In about a decade or less we'll know who was right.

Actually Steven, you are speculating, I am working on actual data. Nutrition may have epigenetic effects on certain traits (but probably not "intelligence"), but it also has DIRECT measurable and very large effects on your intelligence, right now.

Nutritional status of pregnant women is the major factor for the development of the child, both in the womb and post-natal development. Nutritional status of the child is of paramount importance at every stage of development. This has been well characterised. What hasn't been well characterised are any of the other factors that may have on intelligence, including cultural. To do this you would have to remove nutrition as a variable, which is quite difficult to do with people living under traditional cultures and specific regions.

If you think that genetics is a major factor for population differences, then why do Ashkenazi Jews in Israel score lower on IQ tests than those living in Europe?

Let's see which way it turns out Bugsy

There's no point in arguing now