MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Ok, by brute force then.

Race and IQ
Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina
Richard S. Cooper
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine

During the last hundred years, the debate over the meaning
of race has retained a highly consistent core, despite evo-
lution of the technical details. Non-Europeans, and in
particular, Africans, are assigned the role of deviants and
outcasts, whose claim on our common humanity remains in
doubt. Each time the technical facade of these racialist
arguments is destroyed, the latest jargon and half-truths
from the margins of science are used to rebuild them
around the same core belief in Black inferiority. Because
race is in part a genetic concept, the advent of molecular
DNA technology has opened an important new chapter in
this story. Unfortunately, the article by D. Rowe (2005, this
issue) begins from mistaken premises and merely restates
the racialist view using the terminology of molecular ge-
netics. No technology— even the awe-inspiring tools now
available to DNA science— can overcome the handicap of
fundamental conceptual errors. Race is not a concept that
emerged from within modern genetics; rather, it was im-
posed by history, and its meaning is inseparable from that
cultural origin. By ignoring its cultural meaning the reduc-
tionist narrative about race fails— both in the narrow
terms of science and as a contribution to the broader social
discourse.
Rowe (2005, this issue) has revisited the contro-
versy surrounding racial differences in IQ, arguing
that molecular genetics has now created an oppor-
tunity to test the most basic unanswered questions. Much
has been staked on the potential of DNA science to solve
complex problems in biology, and the molecular revolution
has without a doubt brought a sea change to many disci-
plines. As one might expect with any new technology,
however, there is the associated risk that the hype will
outrun the reality (Cooper & Psaty, 2003). To date, how-
ever, change in biology is being driven primarily by op-
portunities inherent in the technology, not by fundamental
insights into the nature of the world around us. Revisiting
old problems with new methods can be very fruitful if the
obstacle has been the inability to generate the necessary
data. But not every problem is a nail, even if it looks that
way to a person with a hammer, and it is unrealistic to
expect that the “race problem” can be solved with data
from a genotyping machine. Although a new approach to
the examination of racial inequality is surely needed, Rowe
asked the wrong questions of molecular genetics and in
effect encouraged the continuation of a discredited research
agenda by other means (Chase, 1977; Hearnshaw, 1981;
Hernstein & Murray, 1994). A fresh new look at the Black–
White gap in educational achievement will require a deeper
understanding of its social origins and a break from the
assumptions underlying the hierarchical theory of continen-
tal race. In addition to its technical and scientific flaws, the
article by Rowe fails on both those counts.
The technical errors contained in Rowe’s (2005) arti-
cle include both misuse of broad scientific concepts and
incorrect or biased misinterpretation of specific scientific
data. The author’s broad argument assumes that a quantity
definable as “intelligence” exists (in contradistinction to the
view that multiple types of cognitive functioning can be
identified that are valued and manifested differently, con-
ditional on the setting and the observer), that intelligence
can be measured with “IQ tests,” that demographic groups
known as “continental races” divide humans into discrete
categories on the basis of important concordant variation in
genetically determined traits, that molecular genetics can
(or will) make it possible to define the architecture of
complex traits in terms of “genes for X or Y” (i.e., “genes
for intelligence”), and that significant variation in polymor-
phisms in those genes overlap with the traditional demo-
graphic categories, such as those promulgated by the U.S.
government. I argue instead that the joint product of all of
those assumptions yields something of vanishingly small
scientific value. In this rejoinder I confine my comments to
specific instances of disagreement related to genetics as
applied to the concept of race and do not engage the issues
surrounding structural equation models, psychometrics, or
the social context of racial definitions. I assume that most
readers of American Psychologist are sufficiently familiar
with those latter issues to formulate their own views.
A major technical focus of Rowe’s (2005) article is on
admixture analysis. Although the technology exists to es-
timate the overall contribution of continental (i.e., “racial”)
origin to some U.S. subpopulations, given the large geo-
graphic contrasts of the ancestral populations, the meaning
I thank Lena Hatchett and Joan Kennelly for helpful comments on a draft
of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Richard S. Cooper, Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiol-
ogy, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South
First Avenue, Maywood, IL 60153. E-mail: rcooper@lumc.edu
71January 2005

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I think you're a little confused about the term 'genetic marker'. The issue is correlation between genes for skin color and genes for anything else. What's ignorant is assuming that our genetics dictates anything completely. Every trait we posses has a portion that we were born with, and a portion that we develop as we grow. You can be born with the capacity to eventually be a pro weight lifter, never touch a weight, and end up a complete weakling. You can be born with the propensity to be very scrawny, spend all your time lifting weights, and end up like Arnold. Furthermore, even the few traits that have been shown to correlate with skin color do so tenuously. And there are a rediculous number of exceptions to each of the correlations.
The bottom line, as is explained in the article above, is that the pursuit of a correlation between our idea of race and our idea of intelligence is inherently flawed and cannot, at any measure, be construed as science. In fact, the pursuit of such a correlation is merely a practice is making socially inflammatory remarks. Nothing good can come of it, even if we had the ability to study it correctly.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I don't care what any doctor says. We accept the fact different breeds of dogs and mutts have certain characteristics. Why not different races?

Here's a blatantly obvious one: Professional Athletes. The fact that there's a huge and growing number of black athletes probably means that they excel genetically in physical activity. So it's not all inferiority as this doctor suggests, it is what it is in whatever the case may be. That's the problem with Coopers paper... he already had a biased stance on the matter before picking-up a pen.

What I find funny is that people have become more accepting of evolutionism except when it might be offensive to a group. Then all of the sudden the "all men are created equal" ******* shows up to the table.

But the doctor does have a point in that it's too hard to prove despite personal experience, etc. And that's why this debate will continue just like it will always continue with homosexuality.