This is what I argued for last winter: you must link phenotypes to genes and alleles in order to make this case. If you want to prove this argument, you have to a) identify the genes responsible for intelligence; b) show that the alleles of these genes actually vary across the human population; and, c) show that certain races are more or less likely to have certain alleles. And because the consequences are so serious, the standard of proof must be particularly high for this question. Since we haven't even done (a) yet, it's irresponsible to even begin discussing the hypothesis as if it were true.

Thank you, Mr. Saletan, for making the effort to examine and understand this. Unfortunately, too many apparently perceive it as kowtowing to political correctness, rather than understanding that science never, ever gives "truth." Science is not a collection of "facts," but a process for approaching the unreachable truth. Every series of experiments brings us closer (though certain experiments may mislead us and pull us back). But we never actually get there; new discoveries may always change what we think we know.

Every good scientist recognizes this asymptote and approaches it with humility, which is why it is frustrating for us when journalists with no scientific training seize on our findings as if they are some sort of divine revelation. It doesn't help that this strategy sells more papers, virtual or otherwise. Mr. Saletan isn't as guilty of this as many, but he overstated the case here.

I reiterate, though, my original point from back in December: consulting actual scientists, in person, could have averted this entire unpleasant situation. At the time, Mr. Saletan replied to me that the authors of the papers had their say in the scientific articles themselves. That's true, but the intended audience for those articles is a narrow field of experts already well-versed in the topic. That allowed him to miss that some of the authors had questionable credentials, funding sources and motives that any scientist in the field could have told him about in a phone conversation.

As I've thought about this over the last few months (and I have--it was terribly upsetting for me, both as a scientist and a teacher), I wondered if there might not be a better answer. I do believe Mr. Saletan's intentions are and have been good, and that he's an intelligent guy, though at moments in the heat of that debate I had doubts. I thought, what if we scientists could put together a crash course in biology for journalists? I thought, what would such a course look like, and how would it be run? And I had some answers, but most involved, like, two years of classes, and I know that's just not practical.

Then I thought: that isn't what's needed. Coursework can't get across the PROCESS of science; even undergrad science majors don't get that...until they work in a lab. And THAT, see, is what we need.

Three months full time--or perhaps 1-2 days a week, for a year--in a lab, working with actual scientists. That is how a smart guy could begin to understand both the workings of the science machine and the culture of scientists. He'd also pick up a good deal of molecular biology, apprentice-style, which is far better than classroom learning.

So I searched the web. There are already some limited fellowships for such endeavors: see for example <link> And other ways to do it too...I know many labs would welcome such a volunteer (though they couldn't pay). Mr. Saletan, would journalists be interested in this kind of thing? What would it take?

Biologista:

I reiterate, though, my original point from back in December: consulting actual scientists, in person, could have averted this entire unpleasant situation. At the time, Mr. Saletan replied to me that the authors of the papers had their say in the scientific articles themselves. That's true, but the intended audience for those articles is a narrow field of experts already well-versed in the topic. That allowed him to miss that some of the authors had questionable credentials, funding sources and motives that any scientist in the field could have told him about in a phone conversation.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. This was not a matter of factual education, credentials, motives, or funding sources. Both the parsing of racial data and the unscientific political attacks on the hereditarians distracted from the core error, which was the framing of the question. Go back and look at the denunciations of Watson that I started the series with. They came from Francis Collins and the Federation of American Scientists. They were purely factual, scientific assertions. They were also factually wrong. But more important, they accepted and perpetuated the racial framing of the question -- as did I, in rebutting them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point you make in your first paragraph. I wish I'd seen it that way a lot sooner. But the false denials from scientists that there was anything scientific behind Watson's remarks didn't help. It's just not true that race is genetically uninformative. Of course it is, since race is an extreme extension of family. What's true is that race, in this context, is less informative than genetics, more harmful, and more unjust. It's a relic. And it's very dangerous to keep using a definition of equality that can't withstand findings of genetically influenced differences among group averages. We need to get beyond that so we can treat people as individuals without misrepresenting data.

Having said all that, I very much appreciate your post. I did enter this topic with constructive as well as truthful intentions, and I'll try to keep following them, which includes rethinking anything I've written that doesn't serve them.

Biologista said:

If you want to prove this argument, you have to a) identify the genes responsible for intelligence; b) show that the alleles of these genes actually vary across the human population; and, c) show that certain races are more or less likely to have certain alleles. And because the consequences are so serious, the standard of proof must be particularly high for this question. Since we haven't even done (a) yet, it's irresponsible to even begin discussing the hypothesis as if it were true.

My dear Dr. Biologista, you like the esteemed Dr. Francis Collins, obviously did not do your homework on this topic before incorrectly spouting off about what is not known. Otherwise you both would have been aware that three papers were published during the past few years (all prior to last November's Watson-Race-IQ uproar) confirming that a haplotype that includes the derived T-allele of SNP rs8191992 in the CHRM2 gene is associated with about a 3 to 4 point higher IQ score. Data on the racial group allele frequencies for this SNP are available at the bottom of this webpage-

<link>

So we can see that the racial group frequencies of the higher IQ-associated T-allele are:

Africans/Blacks = ~ 0.15

Europeans/Whites = ~ 0.45

Japanese/Chinese/East Asians = ~ 0.90

These data are all remarkably consistent with what the Galtonian (Jensen/Rushton/Lynn/Watson) theory would predict; i.e. the relative rankings of the average level of intelligence of the tree major racial groups correlate well with their respective rankings in IQ-associated gene allele frequency. Of course just one gene does not mean too much, but additional IQ-associated gene alleles will undoubtedly be discovered in the next year or two.

Biologista:

Here is the link:

Zimbabwe

Haiti

Detroit

All failed states. You might also want to look at the abandoned research of Dr. Bruce Lahn at the U of Chicago when he tried to explore the evolution of brain development. Or you might want to continue your obfuscating gibberish.