Don’t Even Go There A policy of deliberate ignorance has corrupted top scientific institutions in the West. It’s been an open secret for years that prestigious journals will often reject submissions that offend prevailing political orthodoxies—especially if they involve controversial aspects of human biology and behavior—no matter how scientifically sound the work might be. The leading journal Nature Human Behaviour recently made this practice official in an editorial effectively announcing that it will not publish studies that show the wrong kind of differences between human groups. American geneticists now face an even more drastic form of censorship: exclusion from access to the data necessary to conduct analyses, let alone publish results. Case in point: the National Institutes of Health now withholds access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory. The source at issue, the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), is an exceptional tool, combining genome scans of several million individuals with extensive data about health, education, occupation, and income. It is indispensable for research on how genes and environments combine to affect human traits. No other widely accessible American database comes close in terms of scientific utility. My colleagues at other universities and I have run into problems involving applications to study the relationships among intelligence, education, and health outcomes. Sometimes, NIH denies access to some of the attributes that I have just mentioned, on the grounds that studying their genetic basis is “stigmatizing.” Sometimes, it demands updates about ongoing research, with the implied threat that it could withdraw usage if it doesn’t receive satisfactory answers. In some cases, NIH has retroactively withdrawn access for research it had previously approved. Note that none of the studies I am referring to include inquiries into race or sex differences. Apparently, NIH is clamping down on a broad range of attempts to explore the relationship between genetics and intelligence. What is NIH’s justification? Studies of intelligence do not pose any greater threat to the dignity of their participants than research based on non-genetic factors. With the customary safeguards in place, research activities such as genetically predicting an individual’s academic performance need be no more “stigmatizing” than predicting academic performance based on an individual’s family structure during childhood. The cost of this censorship is profound. On a practical level, many of the original data-generating studies were set up with the explicit goal of understanding risk factors for various diseases. Since intelligence and education are also risk factors for many of these diseases, denying researchers usage of these data stymies progress on the problems the studies were funded to address. Scientific research should not have to justify itself on those grounds, anyway. Perhaps the most elemental principle of science is that the search for truth is worthwhile, regardless of its practical benefits. NIH’s responsibility is to protect the safety and privacy of research participants, not to enforce a party line. Indeed, no apparent legal basis exists for these restrictions. NIH enforces hundreds of regulations, but you will search in vain for any grounds on which to ban “stigmatizing” research—whatever that even means.
They wouldn't be banning access if they didn't know the answers in advance, and not like the answers.
What answers are you talking about ? Are you trying to discover who your ancestors where ? You can always take one of those DNA tests and then correlate it with a Phenotype mapping of your ancestors to see how accurate the DNA tests are considering they're supposed to be a 99% accuracy rate for each marker tested. My phenotype and DNA tests correlate to Planid/Silvid (USA) and with mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and Y-chromosome haplogroup from the area of South France. Maybe they caught too many bad characters with an agenda abusing the data...you know...misbehaving science of behavior genetics. Regardless, I think the data is still available (able to access) through research universities. wrbtrader
Yes I did but I was going to ask you the same until I realized I forgot to post an article from Aaron Panofsky @ https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo16124298.html My point, the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) is still available (not banned) for access by certain universities because of contractual research work although it will be banned (no access) for everyone else. wrbtrader
As far as I know the author of this article, James Lee is a well-respected behavioral geneticist professor at the University of Minnesota. The problem is that his study field, behavioral genetics, has a history of people who regularly attempted to use the NIH data to foster the advantages of eugenics oriented policies on the basis of race, sex and other factors. For example -- using the NIH data to claim that blacks were not successful, intelligent, or capable hence using the data to deliberately stigmatize people while promoting white supremacy talking points. The intent of this type of "research" is to tear a group of people down rather than to help them up. Professor James Lee does touch on this eugenics third rail - he has given presentations on Polygenic Prediction and Embryo Selection including editorials in the Wall Street Journal on selecting embryos to obtain the best cognitive ability and educational attainment. His research including papers in Nature Genetics outline his proposal of a polygenic score based on DNA which can estimate the probability of an individual completing college (and being successful). Furthermore James Lee puts forward that IVF embryo selection should be used to foster intelligent children and lead to an IQ increase of 5 points or more per generation. (read transcript at the link above for more details) All of this being kept in mind, James Lee does make some legitimate points in his article about reasonable and appropriate research which needs access to the NIH data. However he failed to address some of the previous abuse of the NIH data and what safeguards should be put in place to prevent future abuse --- rather than just demanding that all researchers have access to the NIH data to do as they please - trying to pass off the entire situation as political adherence to the "party line". It should be noted that Lee's own research and proposals according to others skirts on the edge of what is acceptable.
I'm actually a big supporter of eugenics and think it's the future for civilization. In fact, I think eventually nobody will have natural random children. You'd be a fool to have one when you could have a smarter/more athletic/better looking/less disease prone child. If you did, your child would be less competitive. The painful process of giving birth will be seen as archaic and children will be made in a lab. However, we are still a long way off from this time. If you look at what race people identify as you will probably find each race has a mixture of correlated genes that are both more/less desirable. For example, one group identifying as one race could be more prone to certain diseases. I think if we solely isolated the gene that contributes to skin color, darker skin would be more optimal as it holds up better against the sun. However, the drawback against darker skin is it can be harder to detect certain diseases than on somebody who's lighter as abnormalities become easier to spot.
Name one. Science should stand or fall on its own merits, not on idealogical grounds. There are plenty of opportunities in academics to refute and debate data, conclusions and methodologies advanced in a research paper, and that should be the process for resolving scientific disputes. This is politics. The NIH should not be insinuating politics by cutting qualified researchers off from access to data compiled at taxpayer expense. Particularly researchers who are tenured professors at major universities. In any event, there is a better argument for socialism if intelligence and other factors material to success can be shown to be a result of the genetic lottery rather than personal virtue or a lack thereof.