The mainstream and fringe classes contribute to the public confusion that feeds the racist pseudoscience machine. Even though the Buffalo terrorist was entrenched in the alt-science world, his screed featured cherry-picked, out-of-context figures and data from mainstream science. White nationalist circles consume the mainstream genetics literature at a high rate according to the work of scholars.
The question isn't about what we have a right to ask, but about how we can let science do what it does best: pick the useful ideas and discard the broken ones.
The mainstream research that aims to resolve relationships between genes and traits that we care about is important to the betterment of life on Earth, and INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals INRDeals Learning about how genetic information crafts traits across the biosphere is an exciting frontier of science.
The design and results of studies of humans are not without flaws, and in particular as they apply to the statistical interpretation of the findings, the design and results do not warrant the sort of headline-worthy conclusions that they have sparked. Steven Pinker summarized the results of the study in a way that was misleading.
Large genome studies often identify hundreds or thousands of genetic markers, all of which are associated with human traits or behaviors. These studies are important, but not much else in a meaningful way.
Even the honest work of well-intentioned scientists should be more clear about their messages. It would sound less sexy and create less clickbait if the results of genome-wide studies were more accurate. It is our scientific responsibility to participate in the course correction if the main message from honest work is distorted to dangerous ends.
The work of the alt-genetics fringe science community requires an aggressive effort to extirpate any force which legitimizes the rot of racist pseudoscience. The actors who author, platform, or spread misinformation would be held accountable. Helping to promote racist pseudoscience is akin to scientific malfeasance. Mass retraction, public shaming, and defrocking should be on the table as reactions, just as with other large and consequential violations of the scientific process. The work of Jean-Phillipe Rushton, whose professional existence has been built around a biological race fantasy, cannot be ignored. It should be treated the same way as other destructive acts of impropriety.
In the case of mainstream or fringe science, the question is not about what we have a right to ask, but about how we can let science do what it does best. Demanding the best of the work is not censorship. It's science.
What would a formal effort to correct misinterpretations look like? The modern era of big science is organizing institutions around ambitious goals. Nixon's War on Cancer and the Human Genome Project are examples of how science knows how to mobilize resources around important topics. Large efforts draw attention to issues that we care about.
Funding agencies, school teachers, ethicists, physicians and everyday citizen-scientists should all be involved in a unified effort. Genetics should not see participation in these efforts as community service, but as protecting the science that keeps their lights on, and is the greatest knowledge-creating instrument in the universe.
The stakes are higher than ever. Anything else is cowardice.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
