A moderator here recently locked a thread that wondered if we should avoid investigating certain sensitive issues. Here was the mod’s reasoning (which I find unsupportable): “Any proposed connection between race and IQ is not a scientific theory since there is no way to test or refute it. No experiment that could actually be carried out can do that. Since this thread has gone off the rails on the subject, I am going to close it.”
I get it that the SDMB is probably most anxious not to become a pulpit for “racist” notions. For those of us convinced that average differences in genes among populations are a major driver for average phenotypes and average outcomes differences, the charge of “racist” frequently so derails a conversation that no actual discussion ensues. For those so uncomfortable with a particular position they do not want any discussion to even appear, I suggest a better approach than a pretense that “any proposed connection between race and IQ is not a scientific theory.” How in the world is it not a “scientific theory” (even if it were not testable, which it is)?
Suppose I advanced a theory that average genetic differences are the reason self-identified US blacks, on average, are more amenable to natriuretic agents for control of hypertension than are self-identified whites. I theorize that historic diversion of the source population drives this difference; a large proportion of sub-saharan blacks in the interior of africa had limited access to salt, and so developed better salt-retaining genes.
I then suggest the following study to help parse out a genetic v an environmental influence for the observed difference: Create cohorts among the self-identified black populations that reflect varying degrees of response to natriuretics. Normalize for socio-economic status to minimize cultural differences such as dietary choices. Examine the genetic ancestry of each individual to approximate what degree of non-african ancestry each has, (and where african, more precise determination of african sub-populations). I suggest that, if it turns out natriuretics are more effective among the hypertensive cohorts with the least admixture of genes from non-african populations, my theory has gained added weight since it is more likely that genes, and not environmental influences, have driven the disparate outcomes.
Now the point I am making is that my theory is testable. A given research point may not lead to an conclusive result. But separating out genes as a driver for observed outcomes for a given postulate is neither inappropriate nor particularly difficult. If what I wanted to study was whether or not average genetic differences drive average SAT outcomes, I could propose an exactly parallel study to answer the question, “Does admixture of non-sub-saharan population ancestry improve the average SAT score of self-identified US blacks?” If it turns out that black test-takers with a higher percentage of non-sub-saharan genes outperform black test-takers whose geneset is derived almost exclusively from sub-saharan ancestry, I add credence to the genetically-based average outcome theory.
And this sort of study, I think, is extremely likely NOT to happen. We do not want to know this. We do not want to spend money studying the topic. I believe such an aversion is defensible on grounds other than a complaint the basic postulate is “unscientific” or “untestable.” It is VERY scientific to postulate that genes determine outcomes, and a better objection is raised on grounds that studying such a theory is unpalatable; not that it is “pseudo-scientific” or “untestable.”
We test for gene-based racial differences all the time, and we nearly universally find that those average genetic differences exist and do drive average differences among races. Going forward, as genomics occupies an increasingly important decision-point for approaches to medical therapy, we are going to find that race-based average differences not only exist, but are the rule and not the exception.
That we leave alone studying neurological outcomes between races is a choice around what is prudent, and not what is testable. Labels of “pseudo-science” for any effort to study these differences are a marketing ploy from those who want to promote a tacit universal acceptance of creationist-style egalitarianism with respect to average brain differences among races.