Morning:
3°c
Science and race have never been easy bedfellows. Since Victorian times, when Western scientific advancement was used as an intellectual and moral justification for European colonial expansion, science or pseudo-science has occupied an uncomfortable place in our understanding of race.
Yet today, as Professor Steve Jones will argue at a debate tonight, it is commonly held by scientists that, genetically, there is no such thing as race.
It has been proven that there is a negligible amount of difference between the DNA of different "races". Rather, race is a social construct, a fluid and malleable entity.
In America, the "one drop" rule of black blood still effectively renders anyone with any in them, even if they are quite light skinned, as "black".
Elsewhere, race being such a nebulous entity, it can often be confusing. For example, many mixed-race people, myself included, are often mistaken for Arabs.
Perhaps more important, given the recent spate of TV programmes about science and race, not to mention BNP leader Nick Griffin's effusions, eminent geneticists have consistently argued that there is no discernible link between race and intelligence.
Yet sadly, examples of scientific knowledge being distorted to serve a less intellectually rigorous, more morally questionable agenda are still legion.
Back in the 1990s, The Bell Curve, a book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray that espoused the demeaning hypothesis that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites, became a New York Times bestseller.
In October 2007, Nobel Prize-winner James Watson elicited indignation with his comments that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".
Pronouncements such as these unfortunately give respectability to the old lie that black is resolutely physical, whereas white is wholly cerebral.
Researchers such as Steve Jones have shown that there are many reasons apart from biology why one group might do well or badly.
Yet it would be naive to deny that race, although biologically inconsequential, is still very much a social reality.
Many social and economic disparities still arise from it: people use race to define themselves.
Scientists of all backgrounds have a duty to interpret data responsibly: their pronouncements on race have ethical, legal and social implications.
In other words, if not handled responsibly, studies implying that biology inevitably means a certain sociology can directly affect the lives of black people.
Once racial myths have been dispelled, science has to be wary of creating new ones.
With the breaking of the human genome code scientists must resist the temptation to advance notions of biological inevitability.
Science shows that we are all intrinsically equal. Our challenge is to act like it.
Lindsay Johns and Steve Jones are speakers at tonight's The Whole World Is Africa event at the British Library at 6.30pm.
Reader views (6)
must not is a thing you cannot do in science, science merely points the way to truth, did the catholic church stop galliao or copernicas because they disagreed with the results of the findings , no it just took longer for the truth to surface, snd so it is with all science, you cannot say you must not , if we dont some one else will.
- Londoner432, london
Humans show Darwinian adaption to their environments in exactly the same way as all other fauna and flora. People from hot sunny countries have darker skins than those from cooler northern climes. Eye colour is probably to do with glare and quantities of sunlight. The suggestion that black is resolutely physical, whereas white is wholly cerebral might also be environmental in that some climes are safer than others and allow time for abstract thought to occur and industrialisation to arise. There's no magic to it. The reason Britain is more advanced than the antarctic might just be that Britain got shot of its predatory animals a long long time ago and we're not constantly freezing and looking for something to eat.
- Squiz, Islington
I was at the talk tonight and I really enjoyed and agreed with the majority of what Lindsay argued. However, right at the end - after arguing that people could be part of many social groupss - Lindsay said that he thought that in Britain we should all speak "one language" "for national coherence".
I hope Lindsay meant only that all people living in Britain should have some ability in English - because if he actually meant all people should only speak one national language then this is just as discriminatory as most of the opinions he was arguing against tonight! And even if he were arguing the former, this is still a rather hypocritical stance for a British journalist when numerous British ex-pats live in countries abroad without learning more than a few words of the local language(!).
When we look at the world in general - and particularly at the continent of Africa - we see that over 3/4 of people in the world are brought up bi- or multilingual and it is actually less 'normal' globally to speak only one language. Sorry to stray from the main topic, but it is a also an important point if we are to fight against other worldwide inequalities! All this aside I really did think the debate was very intersting, informative and an excellent opportunity for people to sensibly discuss this topic! (ps I was the "linguist" in the audience!)
- Laura Robson, London, UK
In an ideal world, scientists would dispassionately analyse empirical data and postulate objective theories which were verifiable through detached experimentation. In the real world, individual scientists often bring their own prejudices, unknowingly, in to the frame. Essentially, they try and cram empirical facts in to hypotheses that reflect their own world view. That's bad science.
- Tony Mcmahon, London, UK
Science does not "create myths" and whether a hypothesis is considered "demeaning" is irrelevant.
There is no obligation, nor ought there to be, on scientists to run their hypotheses past the race relations industry for their approval. They can put forward any hypotheses they like. The criterion of their value is their success in accounting for or predicting empirical data.
In any impartial empirical study you may find things that you did not expect to find. You may even find things you did not want to find.
Whether there is any merit in what Charles Murray and James Watson said I do not know since I have never read what they have written and it's not a subject that greatly interests me. However they should not be debarred from saying it.
It is not the role of science to create a narrative that is to Mr Johns' liking politically.
- Johnse18, London
Race is social construct, so White people aren't White and black people aren't black?
No such thing as racism, then?
- Richard, London, England
