Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[Roger Ramjets]

That said, simply put there are real genetic differences between various populations of humans...

I'm just saying that questions about race and genetics aren't always irrational.

Yes, you are right. I have come to realize that my dismissal of the possibility of race affecting intelligence was premature. I and my lab partner are currently doing a study which attempts to correlate intelligence and other personal information with genetic markers, to see if any racial groupings can be identified.

We have discovered that there are actually five distinct racial groups, which are somewhat different from categories formerly posited. These are:- Black, White, Brown, Grey, and Ginger. Here are some interesting facts which have emerged from the data:-

1. There is a marked difference between Blacks and Whites. Whites (or 'Blondes' as they are colloquially known) are significantly dumber on average. This aligns strongly with anecdotal evidence.

2. Greys have a greater ability to recall obscure facts than other races. Their median age is also higher, suggesting that the Grey gene contributes to longer lifespan. Further research in this area may lead to advances in anti-aging medicine.

3. Black, Browns, and particularly Grays tend to be more successful in business, indicating that our measures of intelligence are relevant to real-world cognitive abilities. An interesting observation is that they tend to choose colors matching their group identity, with business suits being almost universally black, brown or gray. This may indicate a subconscious acknowledgement of their superior status, or it may actually boost their intelligence, we are not sure which. Of course, correlation does not equal causation...

4. Reliable information on Gingers is scarce, as widespread discrimination against them has tainted the data. IQ tests show slightly lower intelligence, but this may be due to cultural bias rather than innate ability. It may also be that personality traits are a confounding factor (it is an indisputable fact that Gingers have fiery tempers).

5. The correlation between genetics and hair color is much stronger and more distinct than other attributes such as skin color, which is a clear indication that we are on the right track. However, we discovered that many people dye their hair a different color, making it look like they belong to another race. So far we haven't managed to determine any evolutionary advantage for this behavior, but it does make it harder to determine a person's race by observation alone.

The upshot of this finding is that getting test subjects to self-report their race is more accurate than using physical evidence obtained with photometric instruments. This has profound implications for how we should be applying the scientific method.

6. Perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge became apparent only when we noticed another seemingly unrelated factor, and found to our surprise that it correlated with the data on a wider scale. Not just the color, but also the length of a person's hair seems to be related to success (which we have already proved is a sure sign of higher intelligence). Furthermore, we find that hair length strongly correlates to a genetic marker that has previously been considered irrelevant.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens appears to consist of two roughly equally sized subspecies populations - those with short hair, and those with long hair. The vast majority of Short Hairs have a single Y chromosome, whilst most of the Long Hairs do not have this mutation. The two subspecies interbreed freely, but they maintain distinctly different appearances and take on different roles in society. We have also found interesting morphological differences in test subjects which we have examined, and are excited about the possibility of more intimate research in this area.

 

[psionl0]

You are right, of course. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It may be wasteful and counterproductive most of the time, but that doesn't mean we should shoot all blind squirrels - we just shouldn't be letting them breed indiscriminately.

Stuffed shirt establishments (including those run by bean counters) seldom produce true advances in knowledge. In fact, they are often an impediment to advances in knowledge. Historically, some of the most significant discoveries came from people who had a free hand in their research. This is one of the reasons for tenured positions in universities.

Yes, you are right. I have come to realize that my dismissal of the possibility of race affecting intelligence was premature. I and my lab partner are currently doing a study which attempts to correlate intelligence and other personal information with genetic markers, to see if any racial groupings can be identified.

We have discovered that there are actually five distinct racial groups, which are somewhat different from categories formerly posited. These are:- Black, White, Brown, Grey, and Ginger. Here are some interesting facts which have emerged from the data:-
...
(yadda yadda)
...

Try getting a piece of propaganda like that published in a genuine peer-reviewed scientific journal and see how far you get.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Unfortunately, this discussion has been laden with overtones of "political correctness."
It is an obvious biological fact that human populations developed differing features millennia ago when they were in isolation from each other. We have such obvious features like hair and eye color, skin color, bone density, limb length, height, facial features and much more.
It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles.
It is also a reality that the majority of these population groups have been significantly mixed through migrations and conquests in prehistoric and historic times, making the study of these features difficult.
Nevertheless, seeking useful scientific information about these differences is not an unreasonable pursuit, including the search for any variations in cognitive function and ability.
So, what's the problem?

 

[Delvo]

I wonder where intelligence and medical issues overlap (except among those too mentally hindered to take their medicine without supervision).

There are lots of differences in behavior between one person and another that can cause differences in their health: diet, exercise, non-medicinal drug use, lifestyle stress, safe/unsafe driving, safety features for the home & vehicle, frequency of visits to doctors, violent behavior, risk-taking such as "extreme" sports... in most cases I don't know which of those are and aren't correlated with intelligence, but as long as they're all behaviors/choices, they're all candidates that could be.

And I'm wondering what race issues and intelligence issues overlap as well.

The ones I had in mind weren't the medical ones, but the standard socio-economic stuff, like education, income, savings, crime rates (both as the victim and as the perpetrator), drug use, single parenthood, children's school records. Practically every measurable quality-of-life indicator is tied to intelligence testing results, in fact more tightly tied to that than to anything else. They're also often pretty unevenly distributed between different races even in the same country.

 

[marplots]

Unfortunately, this discussion has been laden with overtones of "political correctness."
It is an obvious biological fact that human populations developed differing features millennia ago when they were in isolation from each other. We have such obvious features like hair and eye color, skin color, bone density, limb length, height, facial features and much more.
It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles.
It is also a reality that the majority of these population groups have been significantly mixed through migrations and conquests in prehistoric and historic times, making the study of these features difficult.
Nevertheless, seeking useful scientific information about these differences is not an unreasonable pursuit, including the search for any variations in cognitive function and ability.
So, what's the problem?

That's the problem.

 

[Ferguson]

I agree, but you need to weigh up the potential benefits of researching a topic against the possible harm it may cause.

No. Research is about discovery. Researching atoms led to nuclear bombs, that doesn't mean it should be banned.

We know that a 'scientific' study of witches won't get us anywhere, but it might cause a resurgence of belief in witchcraft. Perhaps you think that's not very likely, but have you considered what effect it might have in say - Uganda?

Nonsense. Scientific studies would only confirm that witchcraft is fake (unless, somehow, it isn't). Dodgy/fake studies will have dodgy/fake conclusions, but the topic of research is irrelevant.

Similarly, we know that research purporting to find a correlation between race and intelligence is based on unscientific notions - but what if white supremacists used it to spread their hate and influence government policy?

I'm not saying that all such studies should be banned, but not strongly criticizing the results of dodgy research will make it look like the scientific community approves, and of course the 'news' media will pick up on it because controversy sells (plus there are a few racist 'journalists' out there).

If research is to continue in this field, it needs to be conducted in a proper manner. Perhaps we could start by deprecating usage of the the word 'race' in studies that are actually about something else.

Yes, dodgy and misleading studies should always be called out. The topic is irrelevant.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That's the problem.

Please explain.

 

[jj]

No. Good research should never be banned.,

But it should be honest, not "Bell Curve"ish.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Unfortunately, this discussion has been laden with overtones of "political correctness."
It is an obvious biological fact that human populations developed differing features millennia ago when they were in isolation from each other. We have such obvious features like hair and eye color, skin color, bone density, limb length, height, facial features and much more.
It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles.
It is also a reality that the majority of these population groups have been significantly mixed through migrations and conquests in prehistoric and historic times, making the study of these features difficult.
Nevertheless, seeking useful scientific information about these differences is not an unreasonable pursuit, including the search for any variations in cognitive function and ability.
So, what's the problem?

All such categories, as race, that seek to cut out non-discrete "entities" at their non-existent joints are social constructs. The only reason to do so is for good utility while being mindful of the shortcomings of the categories created. If we are going to attempt to define new categories we would want to have good intentions for beneficial utility to all involved.

 

[marplots]

Please explain.

I highlighted the "useful scientific information" part as the problem because we can't even pin down the subject here. Race is too nebulous, IQ is too nebulous and there's no underlying theory to generate hypotheses.

Science isn't mere fact collecting, at least it shouldn't be. It's an exploration of ideas. Those ideas don't have to be useful, but we expect them to either increase our understanding of the world or check other results so we can become more confident we are on the right track.

The general question, "does intelligence vary by race" doesn't seem to go anywhere. Let's say someone comes up with a working definition of race and intelligence. They then find a correlation between the two things they've defined. Does that say anything useful about the world?

Understanding the genetic components of intelligence (providing we have a working definition) would be useful. But why tack on race? It's as useless as a statistical measure of how hair color or finger length or blood type correlates with IQ. What's the point?

In this sense, research is banned all the time. It's a "soft ban" because it doesn't get funding. Want to work on the Bible code in a scientific manner? Go ahead. Just don't expect anyone to pony up the money unless you can make a case for it being useful somehow.

What exactly would be the use of knowing how race and IQ are related? Why introduce race when the better question is about genes in general (and their expression) instead?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I highlighted the "useful scientific information" part as the problem because we can't even pin down the subject here. Race is too nebulous, IQ is too nebulous and there's no underlying theory to generate hypotheses.

Continuing to beat the word "race" to death is useless. Reread my post. There is a rich history of the scientific pursuit of "nebulous" stuff. That's how our knowledge gains definition and clarity.

Science isn't mere fact collecting, at least it shouldn't be. It's an exploration of ideas. Those ideas don't have to be useful, but we expect them to either increase our understanding of the world or check other results so we can become more confident we are on the right track.

Scientific facts become "useful" and generate ideas when they are revealed. For example, the knowledge that Australian natives have some special cognitive skills and tracing that to some specific complex of genes may very well be a value.

The general question, "does intelligence vary by race" doesn't seem to go anywhere. Let's say someone comes up with a working definition of race and intelligence. They then find a correlation between the two things they've defined. Does that say anything useful about the world?

You certainly do love the word "race." Did we studied the genome of some earthworm or gnat only when we were assured that the knowledge was useful?

Understanding the genetic components of intelligence (providing we have a working definition) would be useful. But why tack on race? It's as useless as a statistical measure of how hair color or finger length or blood type correlates with IQ. What's the point?

Again "race"? What is your problem? We are talking about studying differences in population groups that have a history of mutual isolation. All knowledge is potentially useful. What are you afraid of?

In this sense, research is banned all the time. It's a "soft ban" because it doesn't get funding. Want to work on the Bible code in a scientific manner? Go ahead. Just don't expect anyone to pony up the money unless you can make a case for it being useful somehow.

What exactly would be the use of knowing how race and IQ are related? Why introduce race when the better question is about genes in general (and their expression) instead?

Frankly your objections reek of naïve political correctness. If someone is interested in studying variations in cognitive ability among human populations, you need not contribute a single cent and you can choose to maintain total ignorance of any possible findings.
You have not made a single valid objection to the pursuit of enhancing our understanding of human populations and the nature of their differences.

 

[Perpetual Student]

All such categories, as race, that seek to cut out non-discrete "entities" at their non-existent joints are social constructs. The only reason to do so is for good utility while being mindful of the shortcomings of the categories created. If we are going to attempt to define new categories we would want to have good intentions for beneficial utility to all involved.

I suggest you reread my post. The concept of "race" is irrelevant.

 

[Jhau]

I don't think that research into it should be banned, as I don't believe that any research should be banned unless it is unethical (such as experimenting on humans without permission and so on). I suppose that some might say that research on correlation between race and IQ is unethical but I would disagree (depending, of course, on how the research is carried out).

However, I do think that such research is largely futile. Whilst it is possible that average IQ scores might vary between large groups, or races of people, such research would face some significant problems, the foremost of which is, what is a race?

For example, do you call African-Americans a race? If so, just how valid a definition could that be, given that there are African-Americans who are largely African in heritage, and others who have both an African and European heritage, and yet others who have African and Caribbean heritage, and yet others whose heritage is even more of a genetic mix. The same applies to people from other places. It would seem that for such a study to have any real validity, you would have to be very careful about whom you surveyed, otherwise the results would be meaningless. The same goes for people from other backgrounds, as in many cases there have been so much intermingling between groups that in trying to narrowly define people you would end up excluding most of your possible research subjects.

In any case, if I remember correctly, a fair bit of IQ comes from upbringing, rather than from race/genetics. There are exceptions, of course, but in general if parents take an interest in their child's education, they get them excited about learning, they help them with reading, they talk to them about the world around them and so on, then that child will in all likelihood have a higher IQ than a child who may be otherwise very, very similar but who has been raised by parents who really don't care about education and who have taken little or no interest in fostering their child's love of reading or learning.

I know that anecdotes do not equal evidence, but look at the academic success rates of private schools vs public schools. Certainly, private schools can be more selective in regard to whom they admit to their schools, but they don't only admit children with high IQs. Nonetheless, children from private schools tend to generally do better on university entrance tests than children from public schools (at least in Australia, and with some exceptions, of course). That's not because all children who go to private schools have higher IQs than students in state schools - it's because the children in private schools have had the advantage of greater individual attention, better facilities and so on and those things have assisted them to learn and thus to score more highly on IQ tests.

That's my $0.02c, for what it's worth.

 

[marplots]

Continuing to beat the word "race" to death is useless. Reread my post. There is a rich history of the scientific pursuit of "nebulous" stuff. That's how our knowledge gains definition and clarity.

OK. I reread it. Here it is for reference:

Unfortunately, this discussion has been laden with overtones of "political correctness."
It is an obvious biological fact that human populations developed differing features millennia ago when they were in isolation from each other. We have such obvious features like hair and eye color, skin color, bone density, limb length, height, facial features and much more.
It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles.
It is also a reality that the majority of these population groups have been significantly mixed through migrations and conquests in prehistoric and historic times, making the study of these features difficult.
Nevertheless, seeking useful scientific information about these differences is not an unreasonable pursuit, including the search for any variations in cognitive function and ability.
So, what's the problem?

You say, "It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles." And now you think I shouldn't use the word? My objection stands if you would like to test IQ against some other attributes you listed in your post: limb length, hair and eye color, or bone density. Are you suggesting that studying the relationship between IQ and bone density is useful scientifically?

Scientific facts become "useful" and generate ideas when they are revealed. For example, the knowledge that Australian natives have some special cognitive skills and tracing that to some specific complex of genes may very well be a value.

Then we should do that. The difference is you notice some cognitive difference and match that to a genome. It isn't about phenotype at all. I would also endorse a study between those with other identifiable mental abilities and genomes. But notice we don't need hair color or bone density as an identifier. That's what I meant - "crockles" add a confounding factor for no reason.

You certainly do love the word "race." Did we studied the genome of some earthworm or gnat only when we were assured that the knowledge was useful?

It's in the thread title, why not use it? If we are talking about testing humans to find a link between genes and intelligence, no problem. And yes, we did study those animals you mention anticipating the knowledge would be useful. Are you suggesting that scientists simply spin the big wheel of "what should we do today" whenever they find some free time? Of course research is directed with the hope it will be useful in some fashion.

Again "race"? What is your problem? We are talking about studying differences in population groups that have a history of mutual isolation. All knowledge is potentially useful. What are you afraid of?

Rabid lions. I am afraid of rabid lions. To say that "all knowledge is potentially useful" is fine, but we aren't gods - we are limited in what we can research and rank things on how useful they are likely to be. Is the knowledge contained in a misprinted 1935 Yellow Pages useful? I might want to find out if there is or isn't the proverbial teapot orbiting Saturn, but is that something we want to spend time and resources on? Hardly, there's no point.

You say "differences in population groups" as if you have a discrete categorization in mind, as if it were a useful way to divide humans up to then look at genomes. Is it? Wouldn't it be better to first rank people based on intelligence and then see what their genes say? Unless you front load the question by saying there's something to find based on "crockles," you've just added in a confounding factor to the detriment of your experiment.

Frankly your objections reek of naïve political correctness. If someone is interested in studying variations in cognitive ability among human populations, you need not contribute a single cent and you can choose to maintain total ignorance of any possible findings.
You have not made a single valid objection to the pursuit of enhancing our understanding of human populations and the nature of their differences.

Studying variation is fine. You're just doing it backwards. You want to start with your idea of subpopulations when you've defined those subpopulations on variations to start with.

Here's what you need at a minimum. Given a measurement of bone density, or hair color, or eye color, can you tell me what subpopulation the sample comes from? If not, why would you put that in your experiment as relevant to anything at all?

The way to do the experiment is to first find variation in intelligence regardless of other factors, and then start looking for correlations. To do that, you have to nail down what you mean by intelligence and how you intend to test it. But you don't start with race or subpopulations or crockles, doing it that way is guaranteed to put the emphasis where you don't want it. Unless there is some other agenda in play?

None of this is being politically correct. It's being scientifically correct.

 

[Diogenes]

...

So should we ban scientists and academics from doing research that has the potential to offend a lot of people? To me, the answer is always a big "NO".

...

We do already "ban" research on grounds of ethical concerns. You already have lots of hoops to jump through if your research involved vertebrates, much less humans.

Human cloning experiments are banned, right?

 

[Dinwar]

Please explain.

Boiled down: Some people find the concept of differences between races offensive, regardless of their validity, and refuse to differentiate between objectively identified differences and flat-out racism. See the comparison between race/intelligence research and witch hunts, or Roger Ramjets' attempt to mock the research, or lomiller dismissing me as a racist.

No one's offered any scientifically valid argument against this research. They can't; there isn't one. It's a fact that there are legitimate biological differences between different groups of humans--a fact that has been established in this thread. People seeem perfectly happy to accept that different genetic disorders are more prevalent in different races, or that different medications impact different races differently, or that some beneficial traits are common in some groups and absent in others, etc. People are even apparently willing to accept, at least ad arguendum, that some gropus have Neanderthal genes in their DNA while others do not. But for some reason that remains undefined, as soon as you say "Hey, there's talk about intelligence having a genetic component; I wonder if there's variation between races there too" you're a racist. Note that apparently this is true even if you use purely biological criteria for differentiating between groups of humans (which resutls in a VERY different view of human groups than racists in the USA, at least, have) and have no opinion about which groups are more intelligent than others. Being willing to accept that different groups of humans might have different mean intelligences, and that this difference might be something we can test for, is, in and of itself, seen as proof of racism.

We do already "ban" research on grounds of ethical concerns.

This is true. It's also misleading, and called either equivocation or bait-and-switch. We ban research on grounds of ethical concerns when those concerns are directed towards the research methodologies themselves. What I mean is, the area in which ethical concerns are valid is in how the researchers treate their test subjects--how they physically treat them, how they treat confidential data, etc. The social impacts of the study are irrelevant; studies of nuclear power, the economics of drug use and distribution, chaos theory as applied to financial markets, computerized stock trading, and many others prove that. (Note that some of these have had real-world impacts that have ranged from annoying to devistating, and yet research is still permitted.) No one is saying that any unethical activities would occur in any research comparing IQ with race; they are saying that ASKING THAT QUESTION is inherently unethical, due to vague concerns about racists using the research as fuel (which, by the way, implies that the people who wish to ban the research agree with the racists--if they thought there'd be no differences, or that blacks are more intelligent than whites, there'd be no way racists could use it to support their nonsensical prejudices). This is an entirely different concept from typical ethical concerns in research.

 

[marplots]

No one's offered any scientifically valid argument against this research. They can't; there isn't one.

I'll dispute it. Here's my scientifically valid argument.
1) When doing comparison research, you have to clearly define what you are comparing. Otherwise, you cannot know if variation in the definition is causing variation in the output.
2) There is no clearly defined standard that answers the referent "race."
3) This is different than a statistical norming since the inter-person variability swamps the categorical variability.
4) Basing a comparative study on race will not yield valid or useful results.

It's a fact that there are legitimate biological differences between different groups of humans--a fact that has been established in this thread.

Yes, but only when those biological differences are used to define the groups, or when there is some biological marker. This is not the usual definition of race. Ancestry, or genome would be the proper term.

People seem perfectly happy to accept that different genetic disorders are more prevalent in different races, or that different medications impact different races differently, or that some beneficial traits are common in some groups and absent in others, etc.

This is only partially true and misleading. What we mean to say is that people with this genetic variation suffer these consequences - no matter what racial identification we apply to them. To say that those most prone to carry the sickle cell allele are of African descent is different than saying black people are prone to sickle cell anemia. The emphasis is, and should be, on circumstance, not race: "Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly among people whose ancestors lived in tropical and sub-tropical sub-saharan regions where malaria is or was common."

People are even apparently willing to accept, at least ad arguendum, that some gropus have Neanderthal genes in their DNA while others do not. But for some reason that remains undefined, as soon as you say "Hey, there's talk about intelligence having a genetic component; I wonder if there's variation between races there too" you're a racist.

Those are two different ideas. The first is that intelligence has a genetic component. The second is that race is a useful discriminator. You are only being racist if you believe, without justification, that "race" as a category clearly defines some sub-population with a relevant variation in genes. How exactly is that assumption justified if not on prejudice?

Note that apparently this is true even if you use purely biological criteria for differentiating between groups of humans (which resutls in a VERY different view of human groups than racists in the USA, at least, have) and have no opinion about which groups are more intelligent than others.

Here I disagree because I think basing studies on purely biological grounds is exactly the right formula. If there is a clear separation of races based on biological grounds, then race would be a useful way to proceed, in the same way that gender is a useful way to do a study.

Being willing to accept that different groups of humans might have different mean intelligences, and that this difference might be something we can test for, is, in and of itself, seen as proof of racism.

Not necessarily. It's only when you form groups in an unscientific, non-biological way that problems arise. It would be the same if you decided to test IQ based on whether someone has an appealing voice, or whether you find them attractive. The grouping is too arbitrary to give your results meaning or usefulness.

What would you say to a study that tried to ferret out different evolutionary paths for fossils found facing south compared with those found on their backs and those with limbs missing? You'd rightly say the grouping isn't significant and is too arbitrary to matter. And you'd point out there might be too much overlap. You'd want a more rational basis for comparison. If I were to suggest such a study, you'd be right in challenging my assumption that orientation of fossils as discovered is a useful discriminator.

 

[Diogenes]

B....It's also misleading, and called either equivocation or bait-and-switch. We ban research on grounds of ethical concerns when those concerns are directed towards the research methodologies themselves. What I mean is, the area in which ethical concerns are valid is in how the researchers treate their test subjects--how they physically treat them, how they treat confidential data, etc.......This is an entirely different concept from typical ethical concerns in research.

How is research with blastocysts methodologically problematic with respect to the test subjects? If you're autoclaving your cells after your experiment and they can never grow into humans why is there an ethical issue that's so radically different that IQ and race where it is clearly a "social implications" of human cloning work rather than the specific research in-and-of-itself?

Are there further ethical issues with stem cell research that warrants limiting funding and outright bans in the past (wrt federal funding)? How is that not a political ban rather than a criticism of ethical research methodology? (not to mention gun-releated research other than in passing)

Other examples with sickle cell and Neanderthals appear to lack real homology with IQ and race in my opinion. If you can find "smarty pants" genes and follow their distribution in different populations then I could see how it would be similar.

While I'm not "for a ban" I don't see how IQ is a particularly valid meristic trait. Looking for a better measure could be useful especially if it can be measured without the potential confounders inherent in designing and administering tests...some kind of fMRI profiling, perhaps that can be found to correspond to however "intelligence" can be denotatively described.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Boiled down: Some people find the concept of differences between races offensive, regardless of their validity, and refuse to differentiate between objectively identified differences and flat-out racism. See the comparison between race/intelligence research and witch hunts, or Roger Ramjets' attempt to mock the research, or lomiller dismissing me as a racist.

No one's offered any scientifically valid argument against this research. They can't; there isn't one. It's a fact that there are legitimate biological differences between different groups of humans--a fact that has been established in this thread. People seeem perfectly happy to accept that different genetic disorders are more prevalent in different races, or that different medications impact different races differently, or that some beneficial traits are common in some groups and absent in others, etc. People are even apparently willing to accept, at least ad arguendum, that some gropus have Neanderthal genes in their DNA while others do not. But for some reason that remains undefined, as soon as you say "Hey, there's talk about intelligence having a genetic component; I wonder if there's variation between races there too" you're a racist. Note that apparently this is true even if you use purely biological criteria for differentiating between groups of humans (which resutls in a VERY different view of human groups than racists in the USA, at least, have) and have no opinion about which groups are more intelligent than others. Being willing to accept that different groups of humans might have different mean intelligences, and that this difference might be something we can test for, is, in and of itself, seen as proof of racism.
...
...

I see more than "mean intelligence" as a target for study -- although that might be useful. It is quite possible that some groups in isolation developed some special cognitive abilities to deal with a unique local environment. Understanding any such genetic based features would be quite interesting and potentially useful.
I note that there is a dishonest use of the word "race" by some here. It is conceded that this word is laden with negative social connotations and scientific ambiguity. Unfortunately, the OP used this word in raising the question. I have attempted to elevate the discussion by simply referring to population groups with features developed while in isolation. We know these differences still exist and are quite apparent. A visitor from 55 Cancri would quite readily comprehend the differences among an African bushman, a Swede and native of China. It is not relevant to any scientific discussion what word we use to label such groups.
How could studying the underlying genetic basis of any of these differences not be interesting scientifically?

 

[Dinwar]

1) When doing comparison research, you have to clearly define what you are comparing. Otherwise, you cannot know if variation in the definition is causing variation in the output.
2) There is no clearly defined standard that answers the referent "race."

The highlighted words do not havethe same definition.

This objection is easily worked around: the researchers can define the groups they are dividing people into for their study. So long as the division is based on an objective and applicable criteria, it's valid. For example, someone could study how sub-Saharan groups differn from groups containing Neanderthal DNA in terms of various intelligence tests. This would, for the most part, neatly divide the groups into people with dark skin, and people with light skin. Once we have a number of such studies, based on a variety of genetic markers, a meta-analysis could show if there are any large-scale trends.

There's absolutely no need to establish a universal criteria for race prior to studying how different groups differ in any respect. Defining them for the individual study is a common practice, and there's no reason to reject that practice here. In fact, doing such research is one way to define the more subtle groups of humans (meaning, those without obvious morphological genetic markers and those who have obvious morphological differences, but where those differences are extremely minor from a genetic perspective).

Yes, but only when those biological differences are used to define the groups, or when there is some biological marker. This is not the usual definition of race.

Skin color, which is the usual definition of race (in the USA, at least), is indicative of certain genetic traits. It's a useful biological marker--we've already established that it's useful in medicine.

What we mean to say is that people with this genetic variation suffer these consequences - no matter what racial identification we apply to them.

Actualy, no. What's said is "People of Race X have Trait Y at higher rates than people of Race Z." My characterization is accurate.

Those are two different ideas. The first is that intelligence has a genetic component. The second is that race is a useful discriminator.

Agreed. The first is one I'm highly dubious we can test, to be honest. My objection to this ban is not based on me thinking it's going to find useful results.

You are only being racist if you believe, without justification, that "race" as a category clearly defines some sub-population with a relevant variation in genes.

Considering I've been accused of being a racist, this isn't a widely held view.

Here I disagree because I think basing studies on purely biological grounds is exactly the right formula.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I'm all for testing for intelligence differences among biologically identifiable groups of humans--I think its' the best possible way to destroy the idea that one race is inherently superior to another. However, dispite me making my disagreement with social concpets of race clear, people still accuse me of racism.

Not necessarily.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the statement. I'm saying that others in this thread agree with it. I thought I was pretty clearly disagreeing with that stance, but I'll try to be more clear in the future.

What would you say to a study that tried to ferret out different evolutionary paths for fossils found facing south compared with those found on their backs and those with limbs missing?

I'd say that this isn't a question we can answer morphologically, and that the primary driver is stream flow (Shipman has a fantastic book on taphonomy that outlines this). There may be a genetic component to such differentiation (such as soft-tissue thermoregulator structures, a lack of sweat glands in one group, weak joints due to a mutation--there are a lot of options), but paleontology does not answer such questions. And this would be a subspeceis issue, which is almost always something paleontology cannot address (we're lucky if we can discuss individual species in some cases).

What I WOULDN'T say is "This research should be banned, beacuse Creationists might misuse it." That's the equivalent of what the OP is advocating. Someone wants to waste their time on such a study, they can have fun.