http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/

FYI: I had read the only book on the zebra killings but the only available short summary was the piece from frontpagemag. The following year, I bought networks news clippings (for $200!) and used a 2 minute clip. The tv coverage at the time was startling and corresponded with the controversial handout.

If anyone ever needs a news video from 1968 onward, check out

http://www.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu

Abstracts are free and videotaped copies of each segment are $12.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Bean

Since you threw my name in with Michael Levin (who has written on race and genetics), I am puzzled at my inclusion.

Looking back over what I wrote, I’m puzzled by it, too. I have no idea what I was thinking, or how I came to put your name on that list. Googling you turns up the controversy over you assigning an article about “The Zebra Killings,” but I don’t recall ever hearing about that controversy before today.

So I can’t provide any explanation. My best guess is that I accidentally copied and pasted your name when I intended to copy and paste some other professor’s name.

In any case, I apologize to you without reservation. I was utterly wrong to suggest that you’ve ever taught or published “a racist version of genetics,” and I’m deeply sorry for having written that.

I will edit my previous comment to warn readers that the comment about you is erroneous.

(Regarding Tuomas’ link, a more intelligent and interesting article about that “scandal” is this article about “mobbing” in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The bit regarding Professor Bean begins about two-thirds down the page; you can also find it with a text search for “Bean.”)

It’s easy to think of American professors from the humanities who have taught a racist version of genetics, and who have been criticized for it. However, being criticized is not the same as “not being free.” Professors like Michael Levin, Jonathan Bean and Edward Miller can teach and publish without fear of being fired; the only punishment they face is harsh criticism.”

Hmm… Considering Jonathan Beans’ response (welcome to CD, I appreciate your comment), and having googled him for good measure I found no evidence that he is involved in “racist version of genetics”.

However, I did find this scandal, and I might remind you (paraphrasing slighty) that being accused of being a “purveyor of racist propaganda” is not the same as being involved in “racist genetics”.

“Go to any economics, political science, or sociology department and find researchers who are free to describe phenomona in terms of genetic variance across populations….
It’s easy to think of American professors from the humanities who have taught a racist version of genetics, and who have been criticized for it. However, being criticized is not the same as “not being free.” Professors like Michael Levin, Jonathan Bean and Edward Miller can teach and publish without fear of being fired; the only punishment they face is harsh criticism.”

Since you threw my name in with Michael Levin (who has written on race and genetics), I am puzzled at my inclusion. I have never lectured or propagated a “racist version of genetics.” Indeed, one of those who inspires me with his career and courage is Frederick Douglass who directly challenged the widespread racist theory of polygenism. Douglass advocated monogenism — that we are all one race (or, as he put it, “God Almighty Made But One Race”). Douglass will be included among similar figures in my forthcoming “Freedom, Race and the State: The Individualist Tradition.”

What on earth any of this has to do with genetics or racial inferiority is beyond me. In fact, I have frequently argued that racial classifications are arbitrary, often to the point of absurdity, and ought to be done away with. As for science, I leave that to the scientists. I don’t believe there is any genetic difference between the “races” but I am not qualified to opine on the subject. Regardless, I hold to the individualist tradition which protects us from group-based stereotyping and the coercive power of government engineering us by race — for malign or supposedly “benign” purposes.

Jonathan Bean

Not so much If I drop a ball from a rooftop it doesn’t matter if I’m rich or poor, whether I’m depressed, an alcoholic, have heart disease, whether I’m being discriminated against, etc. what the science will tell me about the falling ball is easily constrained within the physical realm and is completely apart from social influences.

Social sciences on the other hand look at issues that play out in the social sphere, but the problem is that all of the factors that influence social outcomes are not constrained within the boundaries of social actions. Physical constraints intrude into the arena and they are not systematically accounted for.

At the risk of aping Brutus here, I think Thomas Kuhns would disagree. As far as I can tell, both social scientists and physical scientist interpret things from within their paradigms, and the choice to adopt and defend a paradigm is subject to the same dynamics either way. Yes, presumably objects fall uniformly. But oddly Newton saw the object differently than other people, and Einstein saw it differently than Newton, and future scientists will (or do?) see it differently than Einstein.

There can be no “systematic accounting for” things, whether in physical sciences, social sciences, or otherwise, until you understand the entire system. And as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems suggest, some weaknesses of apparently consistent systems can only be appreciated from beyond the systems being analyzed. In other words, there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

All that said, I think there is merit in incorporating and integrating the learning of different fields. I can’t help but suspect that if we could finally determine that mental illness, sexual orientation and body size are irreducibly the result of genetics, a whole lot of blaming and modification “therapy” might be avoided. I just don’t find anything suspicious about the fact that not every discovery that could be made has been made.

But maybe I’m just naive. I’d be intrigued to learn whether geneticists footnote their research with discussions about how their findings might be expanded and better understood from the perspective of chemistry. And whether chemists speculate about how their findings might better be understood from the perspective of physics. And, if not, whether that suggests a kind of taboo among scientists about the work of other scientists.

Finally, if Toumas can’t take a subtle hint from his English-speaking colleagues who don’t want to call attention to the fact that he keeps misspelling his own name, I don’t know what more we can do. Sorry ‘bout that. I’m a lousy speller anyway, but my wordprocessor doesn’t recognize Tuomas name whether I spell it correctly or not.

Not so much. If I drop a ball from a rooftop it doesn’t matter if I’m rich or poor, whether I’m depressed, an alcoholic, have heart disease, whether I’m being discriminated against, etc. what the science will tell me about the falling ball is easily constrained within the physical realm and is completely apart from social influences.

Social sciences on the other hand look at issues that play out in the social sphere, but the problem is that all of the factors that influence social outcomes are not constrained within the boundaries of social actions. Physical constrainst intrude into the arena and they are not systematically accounted for.

I guess a social scientist could simply run a regression comparing the prevalence of this or that gene in various social groups (African Americans, Caucasians, Native Americans, etc.) with the prevalence of this or that social variable (alcoholism) in the group.

It doesn’t have to be that scattershot, rather the social scientist who is studying Finnish suicide rates should also keep an eye out for medical literature that looks at the same issue. Alternatively, they can include co-authors. There they may find that the Finns have a higher frequency of the 5-HTT gene, which helps to control serotonin, a mood affecting brain chemical compared to the frequency of that gene found in another population or a series of populations.

Let the genetic scientists do their thing but then take the knowledge that they develop and factor it into the analysis of the social issue that is under study.

What this does is it paints a more accurate portrayal of reality. For instance, keeping with the Finnish suicide issue, absent the genetic information, the social scientist is likely to conclude that there is a problem within the society because of the high suicide rate and that measures must be taken to remedy the situation. They’ll point to job stress, lack of communication with partners, amount of sunlight received per day, etc. Therefore societal resources will be deployed to increase staffing at suicide hotlines, more stress leave from employment will be funded, etc and the effectiveness of these measures won’t be all that is hoped for. Now, if the population genetics was factored into the equation the social scientist may conclude that when the genetic distribution is controlled for that the suicide rate within Finland is near the rates seen in other countries, therefore the resources that would have been devoted to environmental remediation of the suicide problem aren’t wasted. Now the decision-makers can decide whether they’re happy directing the resources to the programs while realizing that the marginal gains will be lower than expected. Alternatively, they may deem it more appropriate to devote those resources to lowering the pharmaceutical costs of relevant drugs, or directing the money to medical research, or creating an outreach program which directs suicidal patients to a physician rather than a counsellor at a help-line.

I think you offer an interesting range of alternative explanations, but if #4 didn’t have a ring of truth to it you would see discussion within papers pointing out the areas that weren’t studied in the paper because of such and such constraints. Specifically, the practice of researchers pointing out how their work can be extended or its limitations. None of that happens though.

3) The studies have not been performed because people are busy with other studies, because genetics is sufficiently complicated to discourage social scientists from using those variables and geneticists are busy studying the link between genes and disease, because people who offer grants in social science research want to study variables they can manipulate, and variables that are hard to change (genes, gravity, time) don’t attract a lot of funding, because studying genetics is more expensive than studying skin color or self-identified racial groupings, etc.

4) The studies have not been performed because of taboo.

I still find insufficient reason to select answer 4.

Regression analysis quantifies how much of a phenomena is explained by (correlates with) the explanatory variables, with the remainder being “unexplained.” I share Toumas’s understanding that, for purposes of regression analysis, “discrimination” means “unexplained.” For example, once we control for education, experience, hazards, etc., we find that women still earn less than men, and we do not know what else accounts for it. The burden of providing additional explanatory variables then falls to other social scientists. If Toumas knows of any other way to measure discrimination, I’d like to hear it.

[edit: What is with the English-speakers, and O coming before U? -Tuomas]

And it’s my understanding that genetic expression is a complex and evolving field. Admittedly, I guess a social scientist could simply run a regression comparing the prevalence of this or that gene in various social groups (African Americans, Caucasians, Native Americans, etc.) with the prevalence of this or that social variable (alcoholism) in the group. Admittedly, I am not aware of any such studies. What conclusions can we draw from that?

1) I don’t know where to look for such results.

2) The studies were performed, but the genetic variable did not prove to be useful. (For purposes of enhancing the reliability of a regression analysis -“corrected R squared” – the scientist wants to reduce the variance, which generally means eliminating any explanatory variable the a T statistic =

Social science can get away with this, because it has never been one of the “hard” sciences, but the problem is that it turns into social policy and public opinion (via “studies find that…”).

For example, the fact that African, Muslim immigrants in Europe do not enter high education in the same numbers (the differnce is staggering) tends to be explained as a de facto evidence of discrimination towards the said group. Social science isn’t saying “unexplained”, it is presenting a bogus explanation.

There is no doubt that these environmental factors are present and play a part, but their significance is overstated if another variable is kept out of the equation.

Why? Most social scientists evaluating the significance of different environmental factors use some sort of multivariate analysis. If someone performs a standard multivariate analysis considering factors “A” “B” “C” but not “D,” the result won’t necessarily be that A B and C are overstated. The result could also be that A B and C will wind up with about the same level of significance that they would have had if D were included, but the “unexplained” category will be larger than it would have been if “D” had been accounted for.

Note that I never made the argument that scientists aren’t doing this work, I pointed out that social scientists don’t use the data that we know. Take your example and see if any sociologists look at the rates of arrest, dysfunction, job loss, etc for different population groups and partially attribute any disparity to the genetic basis for alcohol tolerance. What you’ll most likely see is that the disparity is attributed entirely to environmental factors such as family tradition, peer pressure, poverty, racism, etc. There is no doubt that these environmental factors are present and play a part, but their significance is overstated if another variable is kept out of the equation. The overstatement of significance often leads to bad social policy which tries to use the wrong tools to fix a problem whose scope is misunderstood.

Johnny and Suzy are reading below grade level. Johnny was reading well, but is growing farsighted. Susy has perfect vision, but has never had any formal education. Some people specialize in changing Johnny’s situation; some specialize in changing Suzy’s. Few people developed an expertise in both. Maybe it’s taboo.

Is anyone researching how the genetic variances between racial groups influence alcohol tolerance? I asked Google. It said that in 2003 the American Journal of Psychiatry reported on differences between the alcohol tolerance of African Americans, Asians, Caucasians of Jewish descent, Caucasians not of Jewish descent, South Africans of mixed ancestry, and Native American Mission Indians of mixed but no known African ancestry, and linked these differences to “two alcohol dehydrogenase genes (ADH2 and ADH3 on chromosome 4) and one aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2 on chromosome 12)….” See http://www.ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/1/41. The study cites at least 37 other studies. No taboos here.

True, I didn’t see any studies published in the American Journal of Sociology or whatever. Similarly, I didn’t find any studies of the origins of the French Revolution in the American Journal of Neurology. Maybe is all taboo.

But I wouldn’t rule out other possible explanations.

This is like asking me to show you a citation from economics, pol. sci, sociology which states that their purvue does not include appeals to religious miracles as a means of explaining social phenomona.

It’s not at all the same. There’s a huge difference between negative and positive statements, but your comparison pretends there’s no difference.

It would be unreasonable to ask for a citation for a negative claim, such as in the example you give above, because textbooks don’t say what a field “doesn’t include”; they say what a field does include.

But the claim I asked you to provide some evidence for wasn’t a negative claim; it was a positive claim. You wrote:

What social scientists do is they investigate social phenomona. The key premise underlying all of their investigations is that all phenomona are explained by strictly environmental factors.

That’s a positive claim. If that’s “the key premise,” then it should be easy to come up with evidence for it; just as it is easy to show that one important premise of economics is that people attempt to maximize their self-interest or satisfaction.

But I don’t think it really is a key premise.

1) I’ve never read it before. But I was an econ major. So you’re saying it’s “the key premise” and yet they never tell anyone about it?

2) Economists, sociologists, etc., are not all stupid people. Yet they’d pretty much have to be idiots to believe “all phenomena are explained by X,” for any value of “X” that’s not God.

3) Your “it’s a key premise of the field, not because I can show it is, but because I s ay it is” style of argument, if accepted, gives you unlimited ability to create strawmen.

And yes, by and large you can’t find “political scientists who seek to explain political power etc via reference to genetic differences.” Nor can you find many biologists who seek to explain adaption via reference to intelligent design. However, just because a crackpot theory – be it The Bell Curve or intelligent design – is not taken seriously by scholars doesn’t in and of itself prove that there’s anything wrong with the field in question.

Gotta go – more later, perhaps.

Nice tactical move there This is like asking me to show you a citation from economics, pol. sci, sociology which states that their purvue does not include appeals to religious miracles as a means of explaining social phenomona. Therefore, because there is no need to state the obvious those who point out that these disciplines don’t delve into that realm you would hold as being in error and instead assert, without proof, that those disciplines in fact do factor in religious miracles in their models of to explain phenomona.

If you’re so sure that any of these disciplines do include population group genetic variance as a means of explaining social phenomona then please show me to be in error by providing me a citation of these disciplines understanding the social realm via genetic variance. Find me sociologists who say that social disparity is partially explained by a group’s environmental constraints and also by the mean value of the group’s temperment, intelligence, toleration of alcohol, etc as determined by the group’s genetic distribution when compared to control groups. Or economists who abandon the rational economic man postulate and are explaining economic decision making models for disparate groups that are parsed by population genetics and experimentally derived behavioral data. Or political scientists who seek to explain political power, political stability, etc via reference to genetic differences. It doesn’t happen.

Do you have any links to mainstream sources backing up your claims about the HGDP?

See this New York Times reference (note: Wade makes some errors in his account by implying that the project limped on when in fact it was killed and then relaunched as another project almost a decade later):

The program is an effort to accomplish the goals of the Human Genome Diversity Project, an initiative that was proposed by population geneticists in 1991.

That project ran into a political furor that prevented it from receiving substantial government support. It was denounced by some cultural anthropologists, who said that looking for genetic differences among populations was tantamount to racism. And advocates for indigenous peoples portrayed it as a “vampire project” for extracting valuable medical information from the blood of endangered tribes while giving nothing in return.

The proponents viewed their plan as complementing the Human Genome Project, then getting under way, because it would show how the sequence of DNA units in the human genome varied from one population to another.

Here is another source:

The whole project is fraught with ethical issues, said Harry. Similar issues killed a similar venture, the Human Genome Diversity Project, 10 years ago.

Could you please try to do the same by not insulting me with dodges and redefinitions.

TangoMan, I made one mistake which I implicitly admitted to when you (correctly) pointed it out – I mixed up this debate with one on another website, and so said “evo-psych” instead of “genetics.” Clearly, I should have made it more explicit that I was acknowledging my error. Sorry about that.

However, I’m not convinced that my error makes any difference to the substantive questions at issue in our disagreement. Both genetics and evo-psych are widely taught and researched at the university level, without any punishment of professors, and both are incompatible with “blank slatism.” Therefore, your claim – that “Professors are dismissed, suspended, attacked, protested against, defunded or fear for their reputations if they violate the idea of Blank Slatism” – is proved to be nonsense by the prevalence of genetics and by the prevalence of evo-psych in university teaching and research.

As for the rest, I think you’re the one who is trying to bail out a sinking case through dodging and weaving. Let’s review, since you seem to have forgotten it, the passage of yours that I refuted:

Consider the meme battle between Blank Slatism and Genetics. Here the battlefield is mainly within the confines of the University and what we see is quite unlike the openness afforded to the voodoo of Intelligent Design, where enough rope is given while knowing the ID will hang itself, but here we see a dramtic defensive mechanism is invoked. Professors are dismissed, suspended, attacked, protested against, defunded or fear for their reputations if they violate the idea of Blank Slatism and seek to set up genetics against the Standard Social Sciences Model. Why even eminent scientists like Dr. David Botstein fear the professional consequences:

Go to any university, research center, no one — NO ONE — will talk to you about this. Why? Simple. Because of the fear that there will be a racial correlation.

Now you write the following:

I wrote: about a racial correlation to the genetics of violence.

You redefined: “connection between genetics and violence” and omitted reference to race.

I’m looking for anywhere in that passage where you said that the issue was “about a racial correlation to the genetics of violence.” But you never said it. The one and only mention of race is the quote from Dr. Botstein, but Dr. Botstein wasn’t complaining that no one is studying a racial correlation; he said that no one is studying the violence/genetics connection for fear of a racial correlation.

My response to Botstein – which is that he is incorrect, because evidence clearly shows that the possible violence/genetics connection is a topic of active research – was a perfectly on-topic rebuttal to Botstein’s statement.

You continue:

I wrote: “find researchers who are free to describe phenomona in terms of genetic variance across populations.”

You redefined: “don’t have much training in genetics; aren’t qualified to teach it”

I admit that I didn’t realize you were referring to research exclusive of teaching. But I don’t think it makes any difference to my response, so your objection here isn’t substantive. Let me reprhase my earlier response:

I don’t find it a problem that polisci teachers don’t research genetics, any more than it’s a problem that biology teachers don’t (by and large) research game theory.

It’s easy to think of American professors from the humanities who have published racist versions of genetics and sociology, and who have been criticized for it. However, being criticized is not the same as “not being free.” Professors like Michael Levin, Jonathan Bean [Note: The inclusion of Jonathan Bean on this list was wrong; Professor Bean has not "published racist versions of genetics and sociology." I apologize to Professor Bean for my error. --Amp] and Edward Miller can teach and publish without fear of being fired; the only punishment they face is harsh criticism.

Whether you’re discussing publishing research or teaching, you’re still mistaken.

The key premise underlying all of their investigations is that all phenomona are explained by strictly environmental factors.

Show me a citation of a standard, popular textbook from one of those fields explicitly stating this “key premise,” please.

If you can’t find the premise explicitly stated, then I’d say it doesn’t exist at all. Because the premise is certainly not implicit in the social sciences. Social sciences do not have to claim to explain “all” phenomena to justify themselves; they merely have to claim that their approach has sufficient explanatory power to be worth researching and teaching.

Considering that I’ve been witness to the witchhunts which killed the Human Genome Diversity Project which was very sound science that was planning on extending the work of the Human Genome Project I beg to differ with your pollyannish views on this topic.

Do you have any links to mainstream sources backing up your claims about the HGDP?

As for “we’ll see what happens,” surely you can’t expect me to find such rank speculation persuasive.

Sorry, there was no preview available.

[No problem, closed. -Tuomas] 

When I respond to you I do so with respect even though I may be disagreeing with you. Could you please try to do the same by not insulting me with dodges and redefinitions. For instance:

I wrote: "Blank Slate vs. Population Genetics"

You redefined: "There is no general fear of teaching evo-psych"

I wrote: about a racial correlation to the genetics of violence.

You redefined: "connection between genetics and violence" and omitted reference to race.

I wrote: "Nice substitution of evo-psych. for genetics there."

You strawmanned: "widespread fear of teaching genetics?"

Why not either own up to the mischaracterization or defend it? Further, the context of my comments makes clear that I'm referring to the subset of genetics which looks to group differences for insight into real life consequences, and only a fool would conclude that there is a fear of teaching genetics.

I wrote: "find researchers who are free to describe phenomona in terms of genetic variance across populations."

You redefined: "don’t have much training in genetics; aren’t qualified to teach it"

I'm writing about research and you're reframing it as standing before a class of PolSci students and teaching a seminar on the fine points of genetics.

What social scientists do is they investigate social phenomona. The key premise underlying all of their investigations is that all phenomona are explained by strictly environmental factors. This, while most of us who aren't buried in an English department somewhere realize that there is genetic variance between individual people and that genetics is a very important behavioral determinant, and that there are substantial genetic differences between population groups. The very valid question of how much variance in social phenomona can be explained by group genetic variance is the natural consequence that is derived from the stated premises. To not even address the question does a disservice to the goal of more fully understanding the phenomona under study, if for no other reason than to simply eliminate genetic variance as a causal factor. The entire enterprise of social science is built upon a purposely skewed vision of reality.

And even if the science isn’t sound, all that person will face is the “crucification” of being criticized.

Considering that I've been witness to the witchhunts which killed the Human Genome Diversity Project which was very sound science that was planning on extending the work of the Human Genome Project I beg to differ with your pollyannish views on this topic. Further, we'll see what happens to a research program that is proposed to look into the pathogenic nature of homosexuality. My prediction is that it will never see the light of day for fear that a bacteria may be involved. Think of the situation that concerning Helicobacter Pylori.

So, after this entire diversion with you, all of my points still stand, despite the strawmen you've thrown into the mix. 

and

In this case the classical liberal values environment is no longer conducive to a battle of ideas

Erroneously indeed!

Personally I don't think that classical liberals are the culprits here, I think humanist Marxists (neo-Lysenkoists) have simply so loudly protested against everything that violates their dogma, and they do have power, especially in some European countries.

Basically, I think you're sort of conflating classical liberal values with modern liberalism, that is a chimera of various dogmatic memes, and has nit-picked (or, rather, selectively picked) the "All men are created equal" from Declaration of Independence (the US one). But you already knew that, I suspect.

Ampersand:
In contrast, your example is from Britain, where there’s never been as strong a free speech tradition as in the U.S.

The problem with many laws European countries (that can reduce Freedom of Speech) is that the laws themselves are somewhat outdated, vague and not really used that much (exceptions would be: Holocaust denial, race and criticism of Islam, lately). But the existence of these highly subjective, selectively enforced laws theoretically give Governments far too much power.

I agree that it’s not much taught in those departments, but that’s most likely due to the fact that most of the professors there don’t have much training in genetics; aren’t qualified to teach it; and don’t agree with the views you’d like them to teach.

I don’t find it a problem that polisci teachers don’t teach genetics, any more than it’s a problem that biology teachers don’t teach game theory.

Me neither. But biology teachers do teach game theory, btw. I've attended a voluntary* (university)course on evolutionary biology where game theory factored in the teachings heavily (the whole course wasn't, as one might expect, popular among Christians and Leftists).

Brutus: The virus comparison is a good one. Like a good virus, a good meme must contain an imperative to spread itself, not have too negative consequences on the host, and be resistant to anti-virus programs like reason. All the major, succesfully spread religions contain all those characteristics.

*: Of course all are voluntary, but this isn't required for graduation).