It’s not just as simple James Watson‟s comments in the Sunday Times Magazine on October 14th rightly provoked an incensed reaction from the media. But was it for the right reasons? The press are quick to pounce on anything race related and from it extrapolate racist intentions. This is often with good reason, but sometimes the jump to righteously indignant conclusions is made too quickly to actually consider the problems at hand.
you end up with the Nazis, too little and the clamour for progress driven by the relentless world marketplace will turn up the pressure. The world of science is consistently faced with this “Catch 22”. We should not be closed to the possibility that genetics plays its part in intelligence. However, the question of nurture versus nature is an old one for the very reason that it is just so hard to quantify. Even if various races were shown to have higher trends of intelligence than others, what would it mean for the world.
The media spotlight immediately fell on Watson‟s link between race and intelligence. Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, the journalist who wrote the article, quoted Watson as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really". In doing so, Watson committed a faux pax not unique among high profile scientists. His fault was not in positing a scientific theory, it was in speaking his mind in a casual, demeaning manner in the context of a subject which transcends the boundaries of his expertise.
At some point, a line must be drawn in the sand, and a balance must be struck. In a brute universe, where the twin wrecking balls of knowledge and power crumble the battlements of heaven, and morality is cut free on the tide of human judgement, we must create our own limitations. If true humanitarian benefits can be seen for finding a link between race and intelligence then let us progress with all speed, but we must be wary of the consequences. If the advances can bring cohesion and happiness, then fine. If they divide, what use to humanity is that?
Richard Dawkins, another famous but controversial scientist has attracted similar criticism for his book „The God Delusion,‟ where he casually dabbles in theology in his refutation of all things supernatural. It is not his discussion of scientific matter which is inappropriate, rather his leisurely stroll across someone else‟s field of learning. If Watson could have laid down proof for the lower intelligence of the peoples of Africa, if he had avoided generality by not basing his case upon a huge umbrella term in the word African, and if he was a world expert in social politics as well as genetics, then his statement may have been more acceptable. But that‟s a few big „ifs.‟ The question of whether the link between race and intelligence is something worthy of study is a different one, and forms just one of the plethora of ethical questions that scientists now face as they inexorably roll back the clouds of ignorance. At what price knowledge? At what price truth? Too much and
David Story
8
as Black and White The issue of whether there is a causal relationship between race and intelligence has been the subject of debate from as early as the 16th century. Contemporary studies have focussed upon the significance, or lack thereof, of differences in results of intelligence tests and other measures of cognitive ability between members of different ethnic groups. These studies are often plagued with difficulties such as establishing racial groups and choosing the type and setting of test, as well as in standardising test data for economic and cultural variations in participants.
Depending upon how intelligence is measured, differences can be observed between racial groups. Robert Serpell tested Zambian and English children and found that the English children performed better at a drawing task whereas the Zambians were better at a task involving wire shaping. It has, however, been shown through controlled studies that this test construction cannot wholly account for the IQ gap (Neisser et al. 1996). The true test for whether or not IQ is linked to race is whether a gene or group of genes can be identified which are indicative of high intelligence. Thus far this has not been achieved, and may never be, if some estimates that 40% of the genome contributes to intelligence are true. It is less controversial and more widely accepted that proficiency in sports such as running may be genetic and more prevalent in certain races than others. The May 2000 issue of Scientific American contained an article which stated "...scientists have identified physical attributes that are more common to West Africans and East Africans than to Europeans, ones that might provide an edge in sprint and endurance exercises". Thinking about the winners of the men‟s 100m this seems perfectly reasonable. There is no scientific reason why intelligence could not have evolved in a similar way to the “running gene” and become more prevalent in certain geographical areas, this is after all how the different races came about. If higher intelligence was advantageous in, say, East Asia in collecting food then we can reasonably assume it would have spread through the population. On the same note, if the ability to run fast was advantageous in East Africa in order to survive then we can again reasonably presume it would spread through the population, perhaps at the expense of some other trait. The problem we face is that intelligence cannot be reduced to a single number and is almost definitely a very complex system of gene interactions alongside strong environmental factors such as education, nutrition and culture. Only in the unlikely event that these factors can be removed from our data can it be scientifically evaluated whether any difference exists.
Herrnstein and Murray, in The Bell Curve, attempt to organise a worldwide table of average IQ based on race. This table places Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians at the top of the table followed by whites, Arabs, Native Americans, sub-Saharan Africans and Aboriginal Australians. This list is, however, controversial and its methods and assumptions have been widely criticised. This data came from British professor Richard Lynn and his meta-analysis of the results of many studies carried out worldwide. Lynn strongly believes in a link between race and intelligence and even calls for a rethink on eugenics, and controlled immigration based upon IQ. His 2002 article, “Skin color and intelligence in African-Americans”, concludes that there is a positive correlation between lightness of skin colour in African-Americans and IQ. This he understands as a result of a greater proportion of white ancestry in these individuals.
9
Luke Shepherd
10