I would say that it does, because we do not know how these genes manifest themselves. I have read, for instance, that black children suffer more from sleep apnea, which affects IQ. If this is so, then a genetic predisposition to apnea would appear as a genetic predisposition to a lower IQ; however, apnea can be treated by to raise the effective IQ of that individual. Much like the damage caused by PKU can be fixed by treatment, even though it's a fully genetic cause.

<link>

<link>

<link>

Another thing to consider is the effects of epigenetics (about which I know very little). My understanding is that there can be effects upon the parent's (particular the mother's) DNA, which can be inheirited. The adult children of war survivors, for instance, have lower levels of some hormones than normal. I could easily see how that, in turn, could affect their own children prenatally; thus carrying the effects of a bad environment experienced by a grandparent onto the future--for who knows how long? Certainly the grandparents of todays people lived during discriminatory times.

<link>

<link>

Yet another factor to consider is that even middle and upper class blacks don't live in the same areas as whites and asians; and those areas may have greater amounts of pollutants or violence (which causes stress, and possibly affects IQ). This is not, of course, genetic; but could masquerade as such, and so needs consideration.

<link>

So, if there are racial differences, perhaps those differences are either fixable (ala apnea); or perhaps they are the results of genes we all have interacting with the particular environment blacks experience. Can anyone deny that it's harder and more stressful to be black, even today? I think the study where white mothers/black fathers produced more intelligent babies than black mothers/white fathers definitely points to a prenatal environment for part of the differences.

At any rate we need to know what is going on and why before we can come up with fair and ethical solutions to the problems of society. So it needs to be studied with clear eyes. And we need every citizen to be the best possible they can be, whatever their genetics or race; so we are bound to improve the environments and treat the medical problems of everyone..

PS. I agree with a previous poster who said that it's very odd to group all African blacks together; as they are a highly diverse group genetically. Another reason to think that perhaps things are more environmental than genetic in my opinion.

Even with your examples, I still think information about racial IQ differences (if it's accurate) hurts society more than it helps. Even if you ignore their possible IQ links, sleep apnea, environmental pollutants, and stress should all be treated for the sake of general health and longevity. People are already racist enough as it is, without having some kind of false scientific validation for it.

Why should treating something like apnea have anything to do with race? If both black and white people suffer from apnea, then how does race play a role in this? Shouldn't we just treat everybody with apena and be done with it?

The problem I have with studies like this is not necessarily the conclusion that a certain group of people are smarter than another group, it's that grouping people based on a phenotype (dark skin) that is somewhat related to a genotype ('African' genes) is a pretty arbitrary way of looking at human beings. Using your example, if a greater percentage of blacks suffer from apnea which in turn has made them less intelligent, what does that mean for the non-apnea suffering, intelligent blacks? Why group people together along these lines when grouping apnea sufferers and non-apnea sufferers (regardless of race) is far more useful?

Oh, absolutely we ought to treat all people with apnea; and clean up the environment for everyone. However, science often proceeds by noting that something is common to one group, correlating it with something else common to that group and going on from there. To deny a grouping, in this case race, a place in the research; could slow it down, to everyone's detriment. Science works best when it is allowed to make as many types of connections as possible, and then to test them.

Besides, if we don't allow people to test this hypothesis into the ground; then we cede the field to them by default. If only people expecting a certain result, and likely therefore to bias the results their way, test a hypothesis; then the science done will be more likely to be twisted.