Superior: The Return of Race Science

The title of this review is similar to the title of my review of Zoë Lescaze's book  Paleoart: Visions of the Prehistoric Past , and that isn't a coincidence. Both books are about scientific topics--the effort to reconstruct the appearance of prehistoric animals, and the effort to understand the differences between human races or populations--but both are written by authors with no scientific background in these areas. In Lescaze's book the author's lack of expertise wasn't a fatal flaw, but in Saini's book, it is.Both Lescaze's book and this one place a heavy emphasis on the early histories of their fields, but the two books handle these respective histories very differently. As is the case in many areas of science, the earliest attempts at paleoart in the mid-19th century were extremely crude by today's standards, and Lescaze presents these early reconstructions within the context of the history of paleoart, showing how the field has evolved from its primitive origins up to the rigorous reconstructions made by 21st-century paleoartists. Saini, on the other hand, has set out to prove that contemporary population geneticists such as David Reich and Luigi Cavalli-Sforza are making the same mistakes that were made by the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scientific racists who believed that indigenous Australians were not fully human. One must recognize what an extraordinary assertion this is: to claim that some of the most prominent geneticists in the world are continuing to make a fundamental error that has gone uncorrected for over two hundred years, but that a journalist with no background in genetics is able to detect the error.Saini's book is primarily structured as a series as interviews with various prominent researchers about genetics and/or intelligence, including the aforementioned David Reich, Robert Plomin, and Richard Haier. Each interview is punctuated with Saini's comments about the ways that she believes these scientists to be naïve and/or wrong, often with an assertion about how the actual state of research in these fields contradicts these scientists' opinions. However, in most of the cases where Saini claims to know better than these professionals, her statements about the current state of research are incorrect. There are too many examples of this pattern to list, but I'll provide a few that are representative.On page 183, Saini says: "But to date, no scientific research has been able to show any average genetic differences between population groups that go further than the superficial and are linked to hard survival, such as skin colour and those that prevent a geographically linked disease." The context of this quote is discussing David Reich's assertion that we cannot rule out the possibility that genes affecting psychological traits will eventually be found to differ in their distributions between human population groups. There are a few dozen genetic studies that have found differences between human populations that go beyond superficial traits or disease resistance, but given the context of her statement, one study stands out as particularly relevant.Guo, Jing, et al. "Global genetic differentiation of complex traits shaped by natural selection in humans." Nature Communications 9.1 (2018): 1865. This study found differences between African, East Asian, and European populations in the distribution of genetic variants affecting ten traits, including four health-related traits (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, coronary artery disease, and type II diabetes), and three psychological traits (risk of Alzheimer's disease, risk of Schizophrenia, and years of educational attainment). The last of these, years of educational attainment, is often used as a proxy for intelligence in genome-wide association studies.On page 221, Saini says, "The question of whether cognition, like skin colour or height, has a genetic basis is one of the most controversial in human biology." To be clear, this sentence is referring to the causes of individual variation in cognition, not the causes of differences between group averages. The question of whether or not group differences have a genetic basis is indeed controversial, but in 2019, making such a statement about the heritability of individual variation is equivalent to saying that it's controversial whether or not global warming exists. Ideas such as the existence of global warming or the heritability of cognitive ability are controversial among some political activists, but among professionals in the relevant fields, these questions have been regarded as settled for more than twenty years.Around a year ago, I wrote an article for the evolution blog Panda's Thumb giving an overview of what's currently accepted in this area. Amazon doesn't allow external links in reviews, but my article can be found by Googling for its title, which is "General intelligence: What we know and how we know it". An older source that discusses the heritability of human intelligence, and demonstrates how long this conclusion has been accepted, is "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", a report published by the American Psychological Association in 1996.On pages 227-228, discussing her interview with Robert Plomin, Saini says: "he (Plomin) would still be left with the challenge of finding a single mechanism, one biological pathway, to explain how any of these genetic variations acts on the brain and leads to what we see as someone's general intelligence. We know, for instance, that X-linked mental retardation is a genetic condition, identifiable in a person's DNA, reliably leading to certain intellectual disabilities. [...] But for everyday intelligence, scientists don't have anything like this." Saini is wrong about this, too, and the data that she is claiming doesn't exist has existed for several years.Okbay, Aysu, et al. "Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment." Nature 533.7604 (2016): 539-542. This study found that the genetic variants associated with educational attainment are disproportionately found in genes that are expressed in fetal brain development. Many of the developmental pathways by which these genes are expressed are also known, allowing for a picture of the mechanism by which variance in them affects cognitive ability. The relation between these variants and cognitive ability has been replicated in a second study: Lee, James J., et al. "Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals." Nature Genetics 50.8 (2018): 1112-1121. In addition to how these genes are expressed in fetal development, the supplement for this paper also examines how they impact the structure of brain cells themselves.The preceding three quotes might give the impression that the focus of Saini's book is on attacking the data underlying the science of genetics, but the greater portion of her book makes a different argument. Throughout the book, the argument she makes most often is that research about race and genetics, or about genetics in general, is unethical because of its potential to be abused and the ways that it's been abused in the past. For example, on page 224 Saini argues that studies comparing the degree of similarity between identical and fraternal twins, the most widely-used method of measuring heritability in behavioral genetics, are "tainted" because they are reminiscent of Josef Mengele's human experiments conducted on twins at Auschwitz. Saini doesn't mention the critical distinction between Mengele's experiments and behavioral genetics: modern twin studies are always conducted with the subjects' consent, and don't involve harming anyone.Saini has a tendency to take it for granted that readers will regard these sorts of arguments as an adequate basis for rejecting research that is otherwise highly-regarded. As another example, in her discussion of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Saini (pp. 150-151) argues that Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues "had somehow fallen into the trap of treating groups of people as special and distinct, in the same way that racists do", and that "They were using similar intellectual frameworks to pre-war race scientists, but with fresh terminology". The implication is that this accusation makes Cavalli-Sforza's research invalid and/or unethical, but Saini never offers an explanation as to why his research is discredited by its vague resemblance to unethical research that had been conducted a century earlier.It's disturbing to see the number of people who are praising this book, and apparently welcoming Saini's disparagement of scientists such as Plomin and Cavalli-Sforza, who are respectively among the most prominent figures in the fields of behavioral genetics and human population genetics. In our society's zeal to eradicate racism in all its forms, is it now considered okay to reject large swaths of biological research that is, by most measures, well-established and uncontroversial? The majority of this book's positive reviews have focused on Saini's discussion of research about race and intelligence, which only makes up about ten percent of the book, while saying little of her attacks on behavioral genetics and population genetics more generally. The attitude appears to be that if the only way to discredit research about race and intelligence is by discrediting the two entire fields that this research builds upon, so be it.It is difficult to imagine how any line of research could be so dangerous that it's worth paying such a price to eradicate it. One basic problem with this assumption is that all scientific discoveries, beginning with early humanity's mastery of fire, have the potential to be used for either good or evil. (For an example of a paper making this argument, see: Davis, Bernard D. "The moralistic fallacy." Nature 272.5652 (1978): 390.) Even leaving that argument aside, though, I think that there is a more important flaw in the perspective of Saini and her supporters, which was raised in one of this book's other reviews, from the user "CapitalismAndFriedman".In the field known as Whiteness Studies, one of the foundational premises is that since racial categories have no relation to biology, they were instead created by whites as a means to enforce oppression of other groups, with the existence of a caucasian or "white" race is having been socially engineered to act as a ruling class. This is the basis for the concept of "toxic whiteness", which underlies racially motivated actions by leftist activists such as the student takeover of the Evergreen State College Campus in 2017. Saini may be concerned about a resemblance between Cavalli-Sforza's research and 19th-century scientific racism, but in modern discourse about race, there is another resemblance that is at least as concerning. Watching Mike Nanya's documentary about the Evergreen protesters, including their eventual attempt to physically hunt down the professor who had opposed them, it's hard to ignore the similarity between the actions of these protesters and the intimidation tactics that were used by the Nazi Brownshirts in the 1920s.When defenders of these sorts of tactics justify their actions, they inevitably point to racial disparities in various areas of society as proof of the pervasiveness of white supremacy, and of the need for drastic measures to counteract it, with the assumption that any observed difference between races must be directly or indirectly the result of white racism. These assertions about the causes of racial disparities are empirical claims, that could potentially be proven or disproven by research about race, and it's essential to critically examine such claims before using them as a basis for the sort of social revolution that's being attempted. This is the most important reason society currently needs research about race and genetics, and why books such as Saini's are dangerous. If individuals such as Saini succeed at suppressing this research, and Whiteness Studies becomes an intellectual orthodoxy without its premises ever being challenged, I fear that the events at Evergreen State College may foreshadow the future of Britain and the United States.

I come to this book from an odd perspective: I’m sick of identity politics. I want a culture that focuses on the individual and not the group that individual belongs to. Focusing on group identity just increases division. It also doesn’t allow for how different individuals actually can be within a group population. Group identity is not destiny.But people can’t help focusing on how this or that group has social inequity due to discrimination. That if any group is not completely on par with every other it’s due to society. In other words, every inequality is a “social construct”.This is an interesting idea. But it is flawed. It completely ignores biology in the equation. It relies on everyone being identical copies of each other.A society with equal opportunity in every societal way will still have an inequality in outcome if biologically people are unequal.And of course they are. Genes/biology have given us differences. Obviously, between men and woman. But also between fast and slow. And smart and dumb. And any of a million other traits. And, ugly and unfortunately enough, there are differences in traits between extended families with separated lineages. Not every human population is biologically identical to every other. It’s impossible.This is reality. We aren’t blank copies of one another with no differences between sexes, for example. Or between families. If we don’t share a common ancestor within twenty or forty or so generations of each other, we are going to be different. Forty generations of separate ancestry is more than enough time for some biological adaptations to have occurred.And, unfortunately, these biological differences manifest themselves more obviously in groups than in individuals. Individual variation is much bigger than group variation, but in groups the law of large numbers exposes a mean much easier.Which, again is why it’s better to focus on individuals. More variation. Less obvious differences.But in our society, people look at group differences as de facto evidence of discrimination, completely ruling out biology. They look at averages of the group. This is wrong. And also gross. You are basically calling out groups with biological advantages as being racist or sexist, when biology is a key reason for many social inequalities. "Privileged" people are not all monsters; most of them were just born with favorable biology.Inequality is not de facto evidence of discrimination. And the only way biology wouldn’t be a reason for inequality would be if everyone were genetically identical.So, I come to this book hoping for a real scientific takedown showing that whatever changes nature/biology has wrought between extended families they would be small. And hence whatever biological differences there exists between groups they would be minor. That in fact the social differences are the key.But instead this author refuses to engage and heeds mindlessly to a blank slate mentality. De facto dismissing any idea that biology could cause substantial differences.I’m going to have to continue for my search for an author that; (1) concedes humans aren’t a blank slate; (2) goes through the science in detail to show how biological differences between groups would be small or inconsequential.I'm looking for someone that doesn't dismiss Rushton, Lynn, Murray and all the other investigators of this area through name-calling and character assasination, but takes them head-on at their own game. Exposes flaws in their thinking/methodology. Makes me think and really consider how biology is a minor factor. Scientifically and not dogmatically.However, this book just appears to be ideology and not science at all. So, unfortunately, I will have to continue my search for a good counter-argument to biology being a key factor. Hopefully a real scientist will step up.

The problem I have with this book (and many like it) is not in its intent or its depth and scope research, it's that when all is said and done it does not conclusively or convincingly make its case that this or that (mostly socio-economics, culture and poverty) is the sole or driving casual influence on demographic outcome differences. In fact, it comes close to what I've seen Ben Goldacre refer to as "pseudodebunking". It also muddles a lot of ideas and skirts dangerously close to science denial at times. The chopstick story is cute but completely out of date and irrelevant when applied to modern statistical genetics. It obfuscates with examples and counterpoints, and certainly presents some healthy and much needed scepticism, but it does nothing to conclusively debunk or disprove anything.First of all, the fact that race/ethnicity is a man made, somewhat social concept does not preclude it having biological underpinnings and neither does it negate it being useful in understanding population differences. Almost all epidemiology is carried out by allocating to imperfect categories, that is just how the science is. Also, the fact that there is overlap and blurred boundaries, as well as possible large within-differences does not mean average between differences are irrelevant - that is just basic bimodal distribution.For example, focusing on the intelligence and IQ parts. Yes, IQ is variable and unstable, yes it is an imperfect measure, and yes, reverse causation when it comes to genetics is potentially an issue. But does all this nitpicking of the methodology rule out genetics influencing intelligence, or that there may exist genetic differences that influence intelligence between populations? No, it doesn't. Perhaps the effects are small, perhaps environmental effects are mostly responsible, but I get the impression the author doesn't really want to know. The take home from this book is not that "race science" has been debunked, but that it has been abandoned. No scientist who values his career would touch this kind of research in this climate.So while this book is a fairly good and thorough critique of the flaws of both previous research and the scientific method in general, it left me wondering if the author would apply the same scrutiny to research which supported the null hypothesis that genetic differences do not account for any social outcomes? Because for the time being and on the evidence presented here, the hypothesis remains a hypothesis.

To the extent that a thing called race exists, it does so as a social and cultural idea and a slippery one at that - decades of research attempting to prove a scientific basis for race and correlations with complex ideas like intelligence have failed, universally. And yet the very idea of race remains within the public conscience and consequently, continues to exert an outsized force on our lives experiences day to day.. More than anything this book made me acknowledge the degree to which we must remain vigilant regarding old, toxic ideas wrapped in pretty, new clothes. Exceptional study, well written.

Fantastic discussion of the scary rise in "race science" including the contribution of genetics. Don't understand why / how race is a social construct? Read this!

Excellent. A great read. Thoughtful and considered but still really compelling. Still can’t stop thinking about it. Highly recommend.

An initial warning- this is an uncomfortable read- especially for white, middle class liberals such a myself.This prescient book details how perversion of the truth has led to some of the cruelest acts of inhumanity.The central tenet of this powerful work is that there is no scientific basis to race, arguing it is entirely a social and cultural construct used by the powerful to justify their exploitation of the weak.At a time when statues are toppled, the author brilliantly sets about deconstructing the architecture of racism firmly rooted in colonialism, slavery and economic exploitation.The degree to which racism is engrained and accepted in our lives comes as a jolt.It is difficult to read the evidence provided here and not admit a degree of personal racism – no matter how well intended we believe we are.Saini argues that science has been twisted to substantiate the economic and social position of elites throughout history.From the discovery of blood groups, evolution by natural selection, Mendelian genetics and the deciphering of the human genome, those with most to lose have sought to justify their superiority by perverting research to create artificial differences in cognitive, physical and social abilities. This twisting of the facts has often been systematically sponsored by well financed organisations such as The Pioneer Fund and supported by pseudoscientific publications such as Mankind Quarterly.Even well respected institutions such as the Max Planck Institute and University of London have been implicated in the nefarious pursuit of eugenics so fundamental to Nazism.Today eugenics has been replaced by the study of ‘variation’ in human populations but the aim is equally egregious, seeking differences in people and trying to explain them in terms of the determinism of genetics, ignoring culture, history and environmental factors.The Covid 19 pandemic has made particularly relevant discussions around race and health.Here differential outcomes have been conveniently explained in terms of racial biology rather than social disadvantage, discrimination, historical and cultural factors.In a world increasingly dominated by nationalism and populism which seeks to divide and rule it is vital that we all challenge the language of hate and misinformation which fuel it.