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.