Back to Post-publication discussions

Is Research on the Genetics of Race / IQ Gaps “Mythically Taboo?”

Submission status
Accepted

Submission Editor
Noah Carl

Authors
Bryan J. Pesta
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Joseph Bronski

Title
Is Research on the Genetics of Race / IQ Gaps “Mythically Taboo?”

Abstract

Jackson and Winston (“JW;” 2021) recently argued that no real taboos exist regarding the study of potential genetic links between race and IQ test scores. Instead, the authors essentially claimed that researchers in this area have protested too much. JW offered several arguments that presumably supported their claims, which we rebut here first. Empirically, however, we wondered just how “relatively taboo” this topic might be among Americans in general. Via Prolific.com, we surveyed 507 representative Americans on this issue. Our survey comprised 33 “taboo topics” (e.g., whether pedophilia is harmful), wherein each participant subjectively rated “tabooness” on five-point Likert scales. We found that the potential genetic basis of race / IQ gaps was the tabooest item in our survey. In fact, this topic was rated “more taboo” than were items regarding incest and even pedophilia. Further, the rank-ordering of “tabooness” was highly stable across the various demographic groups we looked at in our survey. At least among a (relatively large) representative sample of American adults, research on the genetics of race / IQ gaps is very strongly taboo. We conclude by discussing how our survey results further dampen JW’s claim that the taboo is real rather than mythical.

Keywords
intelligence, race and intelligence, genetics, Taboos, Mythical Taboos

Supplemental materials link
https://osf.io/6ag8x

Pdf

Paper

Reviewers ( 0 / 0 / 2 )
Reviewer 1: Accept
Reviewer 2: Accept

Wed 12 Jul 2023 20:23

Reviewer

How do I access the Supplementary Materials file?

You might wish to mention the reaction of the Ontario government to J. Philippe Rushton, particularly after his presentation of a paper to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in January 1989. The Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, called Rushton's paper "academically unacceptable and morally offensive." That same year the Ontario Provincial Police launched an investigation into Rushton's work (Gray, 1991, pp. 25, 83).

Reference

Gray, J.P. (1991). The Race Science of J. Philippe Rushton. Professors, Protesters, and the Press. MA thesis, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University.  The race science of J. Philippe Rushton : professors, protesters and the press / by James Philip Gray. (sfu.ca)

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #2

Author | Admin
Replying to Thu 13 Jul 2023 18:05

How do I access the Supplementary Materials file?

You might wish to mention the reaction of the Ontario government to J. Philippe Rushton, particularly after his presentation of a paper to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in January 1989. The Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, called Rushton's paper "academically unacceptable and morally offensive." That same year the Ontario Provincial Police launched an investigation into Rushton's work (Gray, 1991, pp. 25, 83).

Reference

Gray, J.P. (1991). The Race Science of J. Philippe Rushton. Professors, Protesters, and the Press. MA thesis, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University.  The race science of J. Philippe Rushton : professors, protesters and the press / by James Philip Gray. (sfu.ca)

It's linked above, but I see it is missing from the paper.

https://osf.io/6ag8x

Reviewer

I read through the paper and I have nothing major to comment on. It is well-argued and provides fairly undeniable empirical data to support its argument. I checked whether some citations were not in the bibliography, and the first ~12 or so citations that I checked were properly cited.

I only request a higher definition version of Figure 2. 

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #3

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #4

Author | Admin
Replying to Reviewer 1

I read through the paper and I have nothing major to comment on. It is well-argued and provides fairly undeniable empirical data to support its argument. I checked whether some citations were not in the bibliography, and the first ~12 or so citations that I checked were properly cited.

I only request a higher definition version of Figure 2. 

The figure has been updated.

Reviewer

I have no major issues with this paper. It would be nice to mention the OPP investigation of Philippe Rushton, as well as the recent "unpublication" of one of this published articles (see: Evo and Proud: Cleansing the scientific literature ... again)

 

 

Replying to Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Replying to Thu 13 Jul 2023 18:05

How do I access the Supplementary Materials file?

You might wish to mention the reaction of the Ontario government to J. Philippe Rushton, particularly after his presentation of a paper to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in January 1989. The Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, called Rushton's paper "academically unacceptable and morally offensive." That same year the Ontario Provincial Police launched an investigation into Rushton's work (Gray, 1991, pp. 25, 83).

Reference

Gray, J.P. (1991). The Race Science of J. Philippe Rushton. Professors, Protesters, and the Press. MA thesis, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University.  The race science of J. Philippe Rushton : professors, protesters and the press / by James Philip Gray. (sfu.ca)

It's linked above, but I see it is missing from the paper.

https://osf.io/6ag8x

 

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #5

Reviewer

I'm puzzled. What has been changed in the latest update?

Again, I have no major issues with this paper, but I'd like to see a mention of the OPP investigation. At the time, it was widely denounced as ideological persecution, even by mainstream commentators and politicians. It was also the one event that attracted the most public sympathy for Phil Rushton.

Replying to Forum Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #5

 

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #6

Author | Admin
Okay, I added a paragraph on Rushton.
Reviewer

Still no mention of the investigation of Rushton by the Ontario Provincial Police. Does a police investigation fall outside the purview of this paper?

With regard to the new paragraph:

- the word is "melanization" (and not "melenation").

- it's hyperbole to say his paper was "perfectly legitimate." It was simply legitimate.

- "Despite passing away in 2012 ... Elsevier" - dangling participle.

Replying to Joseph Bronski

Okay, I added a paragraph on Rushton.

 

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #7

Author | Admin

I added the investigation and changed the grammar.

Reviewer

Why do you say there were "calls for an investigation"? He was investigated, and the order for the investigation came from the highest level:

"On March 1989 the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario ordered a police investigation of Rushton to check if his writings violated the federal criminal code of Canada, in particular paragraph 2, which read in part: “Everyone who …willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is … liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. Six months later the police concluded that Rushton was “…falling noticeably short of expected professional standards”, but had not committed a federal offence. The Attorney-General of Ontario then announced at a press conference in November 1989, that Rushton’s theories were “loony but not criminal”

Nyborg, H. (2011). The greatest collective scientific fraud of the 20th century: The demolition of differential psychology and eugenics. Mankind Quarterly51(3), 241.

 

Your wording gives the impression that no legal procedures were actually taken.

 

Replying to Joseph Bronski

I added the investigation and changed the grammar.

 

Bot

Authors have updated the submission to version #8

Author | Admin

I changed the wording.

Author | Admin

I changed the wording.

Reviewer

” During his life, Rushton was harassed with name-calling and calls from the Attorney-General of Ontario for an “investigation” by the Ontario Provincial Police for hate speech, and was investigated, but he was never charged"

The wording is still strange, particularly the scare quotes. This was a real investigation where the police went to his home and questioned him at length. Why not just write:

"During his life, Rushton was harassed with name-calling and worse. In 1989, the Attorney-General of Ontario ordered a police investigation of Rushton for hate speech, but after six months the police concluded that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution." 

 

Replying to Joseph Bronski

I changed the wording.