Mr. Saletan makes many good points in his analysis of the James Watson brouhaha. Indeed, Watson posits an idea that is scientific, in the rigorous, Karl Popper, sense of the word: it is a claim that is testable and falsifiable. It is similar to the comments for which Larry Summers was run out of office: there MAY be biological reasons why there are fewer women in science. He didn't say that was the explanation, he simply said that it is a hypothesis that might explain an observed phenomenon, and therefore should be scrutinized with data derived from appropriately designed experiments.

There is one place, however, where Wilson's (and Saletan's) assumptions, however, may be faulty, and that is to assume that persons who share the same skin color or who originate from a (vaguely) similar geographic area necessarily have similar genetic compositions. As the great geneticist and anthropologist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sofrza has convincingly demonstrated with tons of empirically derived data, the concept of RACE, as it is commonly construed, is pretty close to meaningless, from a biological point of view. Cavalli-Sforza's work has demonstrated large degrees of genetic variability even within relatively small, geographically limited populations, which renders the idea of race, especially the idea of race based on skin color, essentially worthless.

In our color-based society, we tend to attribute a lot of qualities to skin color (or hair texture, or other easily visible traits), and it is pretty unlikely that the genes from all of these traits could possibly be inherited together with the traits for skin color, etc. It is also likely that qualities such as intelligence, athletic ability, propensity to high blood pressure, and so forth, are really what we would call "multi-locus traits," that is phenotypic qualities that result from the interaction of many genes. When there are many genes involved, it is less likely that all of them can be inherited together (often because they located on different parts of the chromosome or on different chromosomes altogether.)

It's time that we recognize that all people who have black skin, and all people whose ancestors came from Africa (all of us, in all probability) are NOT genetically similar enough to be lumped together as one race. Is it possible that a group of people who have spent thousands of years in relative genetic isolation fare worse on an intelligence test than a group of people who have spent thousands of years in a different, genetically isolated, area? Yes, and perhaps that is a hypothesis worth examining. (If it is feasible, novel and sufficiently relevant.) Is it likely that ALL people with dark skin (Africans, Maori, Australian aborigines, and many more) share the same genetic material that determines intelligence? Maybe, but it's really, really unlikely, given what we know about human migration patterns and evolution.

Let's stop talking about a biologic concept of race!

i've been trying to say this but did not have the scientific knowledge to word it as well as you. and noone seems to have been grasping my point when i was trying to explain that the term "race" means NOTHING. i hope people read this and "get" it. it seems like such a common sense easy concept to understand. i realize how people may not have ever thought about race in those terms. but i don't see how when faced with easily digestible facts, they can't accept it. let's see if this post actually makes any impact....

I'm not buying this. And the concept of race being "pretty close to meaningless" is a long way from meaningless. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that variations within races are much, much greater than variations between races. But that doesn't mean that races don't exist. As Harvard pyschologist Steven Pinker has said, races are nothing more than large extended families. We don't expect all families to have identical traits, so we shouldn't expect all races to, either.

To use a very simple example, sickle-cell anemia is common in African populations and, if I may be permiited to say it, "blacks". It is almost unheard of in whites.

Sickle-cell anemia has nothing to do with skin colour, yet if you are a doctor and you are presented with a patient complaining of diffuse pain, you are right to consider sickle-cell anemia if he is black and an idiot to consider it if he is white. So, the concept of race is used in the real world on a daily basis and has genuine practical value.

So, if the gene for sickle-cell anemia is an example of one genetic difference that seems to be particular to blacks, why can't there be others?

Rather than engage in wishful thinking, consult the scientific literature. Hundreds of studies verify the validity of race as a marker. One such study picked randomly: "We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

Epicuria,

Interesting finding regarding genetic markers. I don't say this to be argumentative, but I'm both confused and skeptical. A couple of things seem implausible:

"Hispanic" is a category of people, from Mexicans to Chileans, that includes a lot of genetic heritage from diverse locations: pre-Columbian Americans, Western Europeans, and West Africans. Genetic markers shouldn't identify "Hispanic" as a race, unless you've selected a badly unrepresentative sample for your "Hispanics."

"African American" is also a category of people that shouldn't show up as a genetic cluster completely distinct from "whites." Simply and politely put, a lot of African Americans have European ancestors; the proportion of white Americans with recent African ancestors is somewhat lower, but still significant. It's not uncommon in the South to have family trees with both "black" and "white" branches, based on self-identification. Not to say there wouldn't tend to be some genetic differences between the populations, but near-perfect correspondence just seems very unlikely.

Hey, the study found what it found, but I just need some more explanation because those findings just don't make sense to me. There are also a few reasons that such a study would be of limited utility in supporting the concept of "race."

"African Americans" are not representative of "blacks." African Americans tend to be descended from people who were kidnapped from just a few locations in Western Africa. My understanding is that there's more genetic diversity among sub-Saharan Africans than among the rest of humanity. Treating "African Americans" as genetically representative of "blacks" is like treating Icelanders as genetically representative of "whites," So findings relating to "African Americans" are not going to be particularly useful in defining blacks as a race.

And of course, what do these microsatellite markers mean in terms of racial identification? So they found clusters corresponding to self-identified racial groups. Geneticists have also found genetic clusters corresponding to groups within "races" and groups that cross "racial" boundaries (IIRC, Norwegians and Ethiopians both tend to fall within a Semetic cluster). Any substantive reason to describe some genetic clusters and not others as defining race, other than they happen to correspond to social conventions?

mnemon:

As Harvard pyschologist Steven Pinker has said, races are nothing more than large extended families. We don't expect all families to have identical traits, so we shouldn't expect all races to, either.

To use a very simple example, sickle-cell anemia is common in African populations and, if I may be permiited to say it, "blacks". It is almost unheard of in whites.

Large extended families, perhaps, but a lot of actual, traceable families cross "racial" lines.

And as far as I know, sickle-cell anemia is common in other populations, including some "white" populations. Not as common, but common enough that it would be negligent for a doctor to not consider it in a patient who is exhibiting the symptoms.

For the benefit of the Luddites who think (or pretend to think, for PC reasons) that "race is a social construct" invalidated by a low level of interbreeding, and that homo sapiens is a large warm-bodied mammal whch has evaded subspeciation, here's a primer:

<link>

And here is a comprehensive refutation of all the delusions, half- and quarter-truths, marxoid blank-slate egalitarian mythology and liberal squid ink surrounding the Watson controversy:

<link>

There is now a risible disconnect in the USA between what most geneticists and psychometricians know to be overwhelmingly probable, and on which assumptions they work, and what the sheeple can be told according to the gatekeepers of the New Prudery. The reality of Spearman's "g" as intelligence measured accurately by IQ tests, its correlations with physical assayings of the brain's functioning and structure, and the persistence of average gaps in scores according to race, and the likelihood of heredity accounting for most of the gaps-- all are givens.

The USA, as it sinks into its maelstron of mutual "multicultural" racial suspicion, is finally having to confront these facts now that a scientist of historical stature has ventilated them. But no such inhibitions restrain the researchers of Japan, China, Russia, Israel and India-- the rising world economic powers which are pressing on, unshackled by superstitions about Nazis lurking round every corner.

Just one more way-- potentially the most serious-- in which America has dumbed itself down and will lose the economic race as its stock becomes more dysgenic. For if a giant such as Watson has to be silenced and hounded into tacit complicity with falsehood, what bright young minds will apply themselves to the proper study of Mankind?

Correct. As I noted elsewhere.

Every remark made by a scientist is not necessarily scientific.

Watson's remark was nothing more than idle speculation.

Applying even rigidly defined data to an amorphous population

creates a meaningless, easily biased result. Watson's bias is obvious.

Very simplistic.

You seem to envision a genetic identifier for intelligence

and another one for race. Well when you do, and can demonstrate

that the black "race" lacks "intelligence" then I'll buy.

Unfortunately, from the evidence, it seems you'll turn out to be black!

Sorry, didn't mean to get personal. It's just you guys are so easy!

It's a long way from determining common "markers" to demonstrating that these particular genes have normative social meaning.

Here's a perfect example of how race is mis-represented. The gene for sickle-cell anemia is only found in a small percentage of the African heritage population. Specifically, it is limited to equatorial heritage populations, as a protection against malaria. Thus drawing any conclusions about black patients' sickle cell vulnerability based on their race is more likely than not to be wasteful and wrong.

It is my position as well that race is not a scientific concept. We all belong to one species according to the definition that we are able to produce fertile off spring. The point that dak12 has made is quite accurate: skin color does not equate to genetic endowment. If I am not mistaken most of the intellegence testing that Watson refers to has been done for African Americans, whose genetic make up has been blended with that of WASP's by 'virtue' of the behavior of slave owners.

Watson's comments have to do with Africa. There, as many historians have pointed out, the problem of political instability and lack of economic progress stems from the disruption of tribal societies by European colocialism.

So the fact that an aging scientist has made these claims about race does not mean that the claims themselves constitute science. In my opinion it is appropriate that Watson has now gone into retirement. He may have, together with Crick, discovered the structure of DNA, but he is not an accomplished genteticist. www.davidhillstrom.com.

You're wrong. Sickle-cell is found in all populations where malaria was prevalent, which includes Whites in places such as Italy and even Asians and in parts of India.