A: There are certainly scientists who say that.  There are also scientists who allow their ideological views to define what they believe is science (see PC, M.D. by Sally Satel).

     And at the same time there are volumes of information that prove the reality of race.  For instance, while some high blood pressure medication can help people of any race.  Some medication seems to be race specific.  In recent news, the drug BiDil (see HERE) is being tested for black heart patients and reduces mortality a whopping 66% but does next to nothing to help whites.  There's another heart drug, enalapril (see HERE) which helps whites by 44% but does not significantly help blacks. 

    The problem with scientists and race is that most scientists depend upon outside funds for their work (from government agencies, universities and corporations).  Not so surprisingly, all these organizations depend on the public for their funding.  So there is pressure from without to do studies that either the public wants or that will benefit the public.  At the very least, many believe, the studies should not be objectionable to the public and to the public ethos.  

     Galileo was imprisoned for spouting notions that were un-PC in the 17th century.  Many consider modernity to be a time of free discussion and enlightenment.  But when it comes to political incorrect subjects, nothing could be farther from the truth. Professor Hans Eysenck was physically assaulted in 1973 by left-wing agitators for publicly positing the modern heresy of human inequality.  Nobel-prize winner William Shockley was burned in effigy at Stanford and had a WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE poster issued for him at Harvard for his work in the study of intelligence and ethnicity.  There was a mounted campaign to have Professor Linda Gottfredson's funding cut off for her views.  There was also a move to have her professorship denied, and she was forced to spend months defending her views before the university.  Edward O. Wilson, of Harvard, did not even write on race but on the hereditability of behavior.  This, however, is also taboo and he was summarily deemed a "fascist" and "Nazi" by his critics and had a bucket of water dumped on his head.  Scientist Richard Herrnstein, who studied the heretability of IQ, had death threats issued against him.   Thomas Bouchard, co-director of the now-lauded Minnesota twins study, was threatened and attacked by leftists.  Michael Levin of the City College of New York was censured (in absentia), had his classroom invaded by protestors, and was threatened with removal of tenure.  Students broke down the school president's door in attempts to have Levin removed.  Another pioneer in the study of race and IQ, Professor Arthur Jensen  

and his family received threats that bombs would be planted in their house; he was personally attacked, his lectures broken up, his invited contributions to scientific conferences shouted down.... The police had to post a constant guard at his university office to protect him from attacks.  He was unable to continue his research, as educational establishments refused him access to schools and universities.

(Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe, Roger Pearson, 1991, p. 16) 

 

There existed, and still exists, a drive to oust Professor Philippe Rushton from the University of Western Ontario for his research into race and r-K selection.

 

 

So knowing all of this, why would any scientist reveal any attitude that does not conform with modern views regarding human inequality?  Easy, they wouldn't; especially if they're untenured.  The intimidation has been successful and today few will touch the study of race and behavior or race and IQ.  And if an untenured scientist did attempt to delve into this taboo field, he would soon find himself demonized in the press and amongst the student body, he would have his funding threatened, his position threatened, and quite probably, as the above cases prove, his life threatened.

BACK