The Link Between Race and Intelligence: Investigating the Investigators

The most recent issue of Nature, one of the world’s top science journals, features two editorials that answer the question, should scientists study the relationship between race and IQ? Representing the ‘no’ side of the debate is Open University (UK) neuroscientist Steven Rose and batting for the ‘yes’ side are Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams, both from the Department of Human Development at Cornell University.

k

Both sides present compelling arguments, which are supported by interesting facts and anecdotes from the storied history of the study of race and intelligence. But after reading both commentaries, the scientist in me arrived at the conclusion that the question, as it stands, is ill-posed in the sense that it is far too open-ended to admit answers with any significant meaning. Instead, I found myself asking whether scientists should be encouraged to study the relationship between race and IQ. And as I asked myself that question, to my surprise, I found myself responding over and over again with a resounding no. Here’s why.

a

Like both sets of authors, I am all for academic freedom, and I recognize the importance of allowing scientific inquiry to venture wherever necessary in order to uncover scientific truths. But some research, by its very nature, tends to obscure and obstruct the search for truth and this area is a good example.

i

Firstly, as Rose points out, the question of whether there exist innate differences in cognitive ability between different racial groupings is not well-founded for a myriad of reasons. For one, IQ is an extremely pedantic measure of intelligence and offers little to no information about creative or emotional intelligence among other manifestations of intellect. And even in spite of its narrow focus, the test remains incredibly subjective and is not immune to the cultural baggage brought forth by its creators. One interesting point mentioned by Rose, is the fact that during the 1930’s and 40’s, scientists in the US and Britain systematically ‘adjusted’ the questions in order to close the gap between male and female scores. Apparently, at that time, women were consistently outscoring men, which could only have meant that there was a deficiency in the test itself.

j

Second, how does one begin to define race within a scientific framework? As both sets of authors acknowledge, race is a social construct and is an inherently unscientific system of delineation, whose legacy bears the remnants of an era when even the most sublime of scientific minds didn’t even know about blue jeans, much less the helical variety.

a

And once we’ve overcome that hurdle, one must contend with the footprint of racism and colonialism that will inevitably colour the way in which data get interpreted. In spite of this murky picture, there exists a wealth of good scientific research tackling the subject and the overwhelming majority of those who’ve studied it reject the hypothesis that differences in IQ test performance between the races are caused by genetics or any other innate factor. I think it’s safe to say that the jury is in on this one.

m

In arguing against the censure of those who cling to the belief that some races (meaning Blacks) are genetically less endowed with cognitive prowess, Ceci and Williams pursue a rather curious line of reasoning. Not only do they argue that consumers of scientific research should refrain from lobbying to have scientist who expound politically incorrect views punished, but they claim that we should avoid ‘subjective’ speculation as to their motives for conducting their research in the first place. Both tactics are dismissed as attempts to ‘politicize’ science, with the idea being that this somehow taints and ultimately impedes scientific inquiry.

e

Even if the authors weren’t trying to uphold the right to academic freedom by denouncing a form of free speech, this argument would still be nonsense. What Ceci and Williams fail to recognize is that science is already politicized. Furthermore, the conclusions that result are inextricably subject to the biases and experiences of the researcher. This notion that science is somehow above politics is completely erroneous, a fact to which any American trying to get grants for stem cell research can attest.

s

I would argue that we are obligated to question the motives of those who study race and intelligence. My suspicion is that many of those who endorse the theory that genetic differences account for racial IQ disparities secretly harbour views about race that have no basis in science whatsoever. Others, like Nobel laureate James Watson, are less secretive about their beliefs. There’s a reason why these same scientists don’t study the links between height and intelligence or eye colour and intelligence, although both traits say much more about ones genetic makeup than race does.

p

A reasoned investigation into a researcher’s motives can be useful as long it does not preclude a substantive discussion attacking the scientific merits of the study and its conclusions. After all, we can’t simply ban research on racial differences altogether. Social scientist often study race in order to diagnose societal inequalities with a view toward addressing them in the most effective way possible. Similarly, medical doctors regularly study the links between racial groups and diseases in order to ascertain whether a patient may have a predisposition to a certain condition. Examining the motives behind this type of research can be useful in determining which studies could be beneficial and therefore are deserving of research funding.

h

Interestingly enough, the so-called free-speech advocates in the scientific community as well as the broader academic community don’t seem to have a problem when intelligent design advocates have their manuscripts summarily dismissed by journals or are laughed out of the room at conferences. By the same token, no one would dare argue that a Holocaust revisionist should be given equal time at the podium. The reasons for this are quite clear. We recognize, in addition to the fact that both schools of thought have been thoroughly debunked, pseudo-intellectual pursuits such as these are rooted in ideology rather than an honest and scientific interrogation of the data and therefore they add no meaningful insight to the discourse. Moreover, they can distract from more fruitful investigations and, in the case of Holocaust revisionism, may serve to legitimize views that are extremely harmful to groups that are already marginalized as well as to society as a whole.

d

So the short answer is no, scientists should not be encouraged to study the relationship between race and IQ. At least not in the sense to which the article refers and certainly not unconditionally as Ceci and Williams seem to suggest. If such research is perpetuated with impunity then, not only will members of racialized groups be adversely affected, but science itself will ultimately suffer a heavy cost.

!

No: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457786a.html

yes: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html

AlexsJenkins