#a phd in public health is on my mind heavy lately !! :>

[conversci]

People Conducting Research: Harris Eyre

Dr Harris Eyre, MBBS, PhD is working to maximise improvements in mental health outcomes through entrepreneurship, scalable evidence-based technologies and transdisciplinary innovation.

The burden of mental disorders is growing globally with significant individual health and social impacts, in addition to major economic consequences. Almost half (45%) of the adult Australian population will experience a mental disorder at some point in their life[i], and while there are strategies in place for prevention and care, health systems around the world have not yet adequately responded to the burden of mental illness.

The terms ‘mental disorder’ and ‘mental illness’ are umbrella terms that cover a broad spectrum of mental health, developmental and behavioural disorders with different presentations. In high-income countries like Australia, between 35-50% of people with mental disorders receive no treatment, and this number is even higher in low- and middle-income countries. For those who do receive help; diagnoses are subjective, and treatments are trial-and-error, which can be ineffective or even disastrous. As a medical professional, Dr Harris Eyre became ‘frustrated’, and is now on a mission to make mental health solutions more ‘personalised and precise’.

Originally from Mackay, rural Queensland, Dr Eyre’s career path has fallen into ‘three buckets’ – clinical psychiatry, research and now entrepreneurship. He has always been interested in human health - healthy lifestyles, athletics, and psychology – and therefore studied undergraduate medicine at James Cook University as his first ‘bucket’. He was inspired to pursue a career in mental health by a local psychiatry professor, who introduced him to cutting-edge research into the effects of meditation on the brain, the therapeutic effects of exercise for depression, and the interplay between the immune system and mental illness. He undertook psychiatry training as a medical doctor across low to high socioeconomic status areas in Townsville, Palm Island, and other rural communities. He loved helping people, but realised that many of the issues in mental healthcare would not be changed: the subjective diagnoses, trial-and-error treatment, poor access to therapists and psychiatrists, and stigma.  Frustrated, he searched for a way to ‘make an impact and difference on a larger scale’, and enrolled in a PhD at The University of Adelaide and undertook a Fulbright Scholarship at the UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

California, a hub of technology, introduced Dr Eyre to digital health, genomics, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and other innovative ideas and technologies. Armed with a ‘wave of technology applicable to mental health’, he decided to bring his clinical and neuroscience knowledge and networks into industry as an entrepreneur. He reached out to former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Tom Insel, who was moving to Verily (aka Google Life Sciences) team at the time to establish an exploration into technologies that could transform care for mental illness. Dr Eyre was encouraged by Dr Insel’s move, decided to make a similar change himself, and the two have collaborated and kept in touch since. (Dr Eyre was instrumental in inviting Dr Insel to deliver the Convergence Science Network’s Graeme Clark Oration in 2016.)

After several research-heavy years during his PhD, Dr Eyre returned to Melbourne to embark upon a technology executive career. He co-founded CNSDose to provide genetic guidance of medications in mental health. He is now Chief Medical Officer of the company. That is, finding the right medication on a patient-by-patient basis with advanced genetic technology, which has been made possible with improved analytic capabilities and lower cost genomic sequencing.

The first product created by CNSDose, provided guidance for antidepressant medication and dose selection. The effectiveness of antidepressants differs from person to person, and it often takes time for doctors to find the most suitable medication and dosage for their patients. Some patients can go for months or years with no benefit, feeling ‘like a guinea pig’ all the while. Dr Eyre and the CNSdose team therefore collaborated with other interdisciplinary scientists, clinicians, and the patients to devise the best and most practical strategy.

The team identified certain genetic markers in the liver and blood-brain barrier that correspond to antidepressant metabolism, and how the drug across cell membranes. The CNSdose team scoured existing scientific literature to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), DNA sequence variations, that influence the way antidepressants are processed by the body, and then developed an algorithm with software engineers to determine how different drugs ‘traverse these metabolic hurdles’ to determine the right medications based on an individual's genes. With this product patients send in a cheek swab for genome sequencing, and they receive a clinical report back suggesting a drug type and dosage.

Pharmacogenetic guidance for medications is a prime example of the benefit that convergence science holds in psychiatry. As the mind, brain, and behaviour are incredibly complex, drawing from multiple sciences and health disciplines will assist in the development of research, and clinical and public health innovations to tackle challenges that we have yet to overcome – rising rates of mental disorders, inefficient healthcare systems, low success rates of current treatment approaches, etc.. Dr Eyre encourages others involved in mental health care to engage with innovative technologies, such as advancing molecular biology and neuroimaging, reduced genomic sequencing costs and high-level computing power. Dr Eyre sees himself as part of a team and views every collaborator and contributor critical to the process. He greatly values teamwork, as vastly different people with different cultures and knowledge can contribute towards more creative and innovative ideas.

While focused on managing his own company, Dr Eyre’s ultimate goal is to ‘support the development of ecosystems’ that are optimally set up to build a sustainable, global response to support mental health. He authored the Convergence Mental Health model three years ago, which has already been leveraged by institutes globally, including the Stanford Brainstorm Laboratory, for which he is an international advisor. He works predominantly at the Texas Medical Center, the world’s largest medical centre, but additionally holds honorary positions with Deakin University, the University of Adelaide, and the University of Melbourne where he provides industry-academic advisory support to help upskill other researchers and clinicians to commercialise their work and create innovative solutions for advancing mental healthcare. The Asia-Pacific region has a ‘huge need for social, policy, and health reforms around mental health but less innovation in this area’. His idea is to facilitate education and training around Convergence Mental Health. He and his team are also currently developing a proposal for a large institute with consumer, clinician, and transdisciplinary researcher participation in Australia in partnership with the Texas Medical Center and Bay Area universities (Stanford University and UCSF). Through these networks, emerging technologies can be developed, shared and accelerated to advance patient care.

Dr Eyre also sees consumer participation as critical for the development of personalised mental health treatments. With patient input from their experiences, researchers can be guided to ask the right questions and work towards outcomes that are most meaningful to patients. Scientists often use quantitative symptom scales to determine the success of drugs, but from a patient’s perspective, success may be measured by questions like “can I get back to work on this medication?” or “can I get back my self-confidence?”. Furthermore, patients should be empowered to share in the decision-making with their doctors. Involving patients in the process also means that the technology can be designed for the consumers so that they’re easy to use, and patients are more likely to follow through with the treatment plan and place more trust in the care process.

Alongside his career, travel, and intensive workload, Dr Eyre tries his best to stay healthy. When he’s not working, you’ll find him keeping active, meditating, listening to podcasts, or keeping up with friends. He emphasises the importance of looking after your mental health by discussing feelings and seeking help, keeping active and eating well, and staying connected to a support network of friends and family. He believes that everyone should be able to practice mindfulness, even if it’s only five minutes of meditation a day guided by a phone ‘app’. People often find it more tangible to lift weights at the gym rather than mediate, but looking after your mental health is just as important as looking after your physical health – it is a ‘constant life journey to cultivate [a healthy] mindset’, and if you need help doing so, there are multiple support services you can reach out to.

Dr Eyre’s mission to provide scalable personalised care brings a ‘completely fresh approach to mental health’. With over 300 million people affected with depression globally[ii], he hopes to make a difference in depression management, and currently has other products in the pipeline to provide pharmacogenetic guidance for other mental health medications for disorder such as bipolar, anxiety and late-life depression. He also hopes to inspire and encourage an ‘ecosystem’ of transdisciplinary science in mental health – to have clinicians and researchers conversing with each other, and more importantly, with patients, so that mental healthcare is optimised and tailored for those who need support most.

Catriona Nguyen-Robertson |Science Communication Officer 

[i] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: “Mental health services in Australia” 5 December 2018 https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-services-in-australia/report-contents/summary/prevalence-and-policies

[ii]World Health Organization: “Depression” 22 March 2018 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression

Further reading:

H Eyre et al 2017, “Convergence Science Arrives: How Does It Relate To Psychiatry?”, Academic Psychiatry, 41(1): 91-99 https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/pmc/articles/PMC5540327/

Victoria State Government Better Health: “Getting help for a mental illness” https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/getting-help-for-a-mental-illness

[scholarly-squid]

Being involved in science right now is... weird.

First post on this blog! And this one sure is going to be a doozy. Long post ahead.  I mean long.

In this time of COVID-19, being on social media has been what can only be described as an absolute nightmare.  I’ve been studying a STEM field at my university and I’ve had involvement in laboratories for years now.  Let me tell you something - this whole experience has been painful to watch.  I’m used to people, on both left and right ends of the political spectrum, passing judgement on what scientists do and how they do it.  Science is so wonderful because it is so cutting edge, but that does lead to controversial topics coming up fairly frequently.  Ethical debates, be it about testing methods or AI or what have you, are always swirling around on the internet. Thankfully, there are teams dedicated to determining ethical guidelines for this sort of debate. 

The problem with what I’ve seen on the internet lately is that there is very little scholarly debate about what actions to take, many experts are in agreement, and when scientists make an educated decision, people blatantly disregard it using a number of opinionated, jargon-heavy excuses.  Examples abound:

 I shouldn’t have to wear a mask because they said at one point that masks aren’t necessary and now they say they are. Scientists are untrustworthy.

Scientists only want to lie to you about COVID-19 so they can make more money off of you.

Well if scientists are so smart, what about this one time when a scientist did something bad?

Scientists are all elitists, trained by universities to use and abuse the common man. 

There are plenty of ways I would absolutely love to poke holes in these arguments I’ve seen later, but that’s besides the point.  The issue with these statements popping up everywhere is that there is no way for scientists to refute them logically.  Not because the arguments are right, but because they are completely illogical and based in fallacious reasoning. 

Fallacies are really easy to fall for, and a distrust of science only makes their roots dig deeper into our society. I understand though why they are so popular.  It gives people a reason to think they are different, or somehow defying the status quo, in a society where individualism is held to the highest regard (for me the US).  They also provide an easy solution where there isn’t one.  In scary times like the ones we are in, it feels good to rely on something you know, something comforting, as opposed to something you don’t know.  Science is by nature experimental, new, and groundbreaking, and that’s pretty scary.  People in the general public tend to lack a strong basis in understanding fallacious reasoning, because its really, really tricky to grasp, and isn’t frequently taught in classrooms.  I don’t want to sound like some preachy kid from the debate team or something, because believe me the last thing you should be doing to help people on the internet understand what they’re reading is yell “ThAt’S a FaLlAcY” because it will only make them feel bad, and in response, angry and defensive.  But understanding when you hear a fallacy yourself is one of the most important things I’ve ever been taught in my life. If you are unfamiliar with fallacies and want a list to keep handy, here’s a good start.  This can help you and perhaps others understand whether what they’re reading is a good source, or if the arguments are flawed.  

But why this desire to distrust science in the first place? For one thing, science has been made into the one thing it shouldn’t be: Political.  The call from the Right is typically that progress as a whole is bad unless it has been privatized, because academic scientists are untrustworthy, government agents who have been trained to look down on the rural middle and working classes of America. The call from the Left has honestly been somewhat similar, though perhaps less vocal: that major scientific progress is the work of private, rich medical companies, who don’t care about their impact on people or the earth, and that holistic methods (think essential oils, anti-vax movements, etc) should in part or entirely replace peer reviewed medicine.  Both of these views may be extremes.  But when your sweet Republican Great Aunt Mary, who has never been educated in collegiate level, or much high school level, STEM or logic courses, sees her friend Susan from the Community Republican Facebook page, post her piece about scientific elites trying to squash middle America, Mary has no way to refute it logically and it is associated with the group she is already involved in, and Mary sympathizes with Susan because she knows and trusts her.  And when Mary sees a Democrat refute it, it causes her to dig her heels in even more and double down on her support, because of how partisan politics in America has become.  If you’re not right, you must be wrong.  The same goes for the Left, of course.    

Another reason for distrust: as scientists we don’t do well communicating our findings to the public in a non-biased, yet easy to digest way.  Our knowledge comes from and is displayed in peer-reviewed, dense as hell articles that involve confusing acronyms, long Latin or Greek names and phrases that one would need a high-level physiology course to understand, and figures that screw with the head to look at without deep knowledge of statistics.  I’ve read and written scientific articles, and let me tell you, they’re absolutely awful and intimidating to look at and I hate how they are written (and I’m writing this, which is also dense and awful and intimidating.  I’m trying my best to consolidate I promise). Its no surprise that people who are unfamiliar with these topics would have a difficult time understanding them, and that could cause some to get bruised pride.  

The issue then lies in people attempting to become more scientifically literate through sources that aren’t straight from scientists.  News media, Facebook pages, Clickbait, all of that loves to make money off of clicks.  Its amazing how quickly “a chemical found in small traces in blueberries found to reduce some plaques in xyz brain region in mouse study” becomes “Could the Cure for Alzheimer’s be BERRIES?!” That sounds a whole lot more final and wrapped up and spectacular than a small minor change.  Then comes the issue of scientists in the media saying they know end all be all.  Elon Musk yelling about needing to reopen the economy, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson giving a talk on areas of science in which he is not an expert (despite training in astrophysics), is a whole lot more interesting to people than Normal Nancy giving an hour long talk on a specific subset of a specific subset of a specific subset of virus with zero intonation or emotion.  Sensationalized science is science that sells, even if it isn’t right, and people start to think of these individuals in the media of what a scientist is supposed to look like.  As a community, I respect scientists with all my heart.  Overall though, we do need to come up with a better way to reach people who aren’t open to us.  Have scientist approved websites, pages, and magazines that are specifically for the lay public. We should avoid making sweeping statements or overextending our knowledge if we somehow do gain fame.By continuing the way we have, we further alienate ourselves.  I of course don’t mean sacrificing research quality, or dumbing down scientific publication. Just finding ways to talk to people in a more relaxed way.

I suppose what I’m trying to say here is people don’t hate science without reason, even if the reasons are flawed.  And distrust of science doesn’t mean people are inherently bad people.  Perhaps they are just ignorant, ignorant and stubborn.  But people who do profit off of not listening to scientists are truly putting people at risk for selfish gain.  The problem lies in that not listening to scientists is extremely dangerous, not just right now, but all. the. time. 

Why is it a danger that people don’t have the means listen to scientists? Obviously it currently is putting people’s lives at risk. Not wearing masks to public places, being so angry at policies one doesn’t understand that they spit and cough on people in retaliation, or march in massive groups to protest.  People who do these things are a danger to themselves and others.  But we have been building up to this point.  I saw an interesting op-ed recently about the death of the expert that made a few interesting points.  The advent of the internet has brought us so much access to wonderful information.  But without education on finding scholarly sources early on and with full intent to promote gaining wisdom from those with experience, it becomes a breeding ground for dangerous mistaking of opinion (or simply wrong fact) for fact.   Anyone online can say they are an expert.  Once a person’s mind is filled with ideas that align with their own belief system, especially from someone who claims to be an expert, no researcher, academic, or other scholarly source can convince them otherwise.  If “my PhD in biochemistry” isn’t enough to answer the question “Well what makes you qualified to speak on biochemistry?”, then we’ve run into a serious problem.  People who have the true information individuals are seeking have been neglected for sources that fit with people’s personal values.  Its a natural thing to have happen of course, but when everything is online, and there isn’t much one can do to stop misinformation through regulation, these beliefs spread like wildfire, and this creates demand for pseudoscientific and untrue actions medically, politically, or socially.  These aren’t just ideas, they manifest into actions which can actively harm people.  

Its a weird time to be a scientist because not thirty years ago, your word was taken as law by many in the public, and if it wasn’t, it wasn’t out there to see all over the internet.  Now we are hit with a serious health crisis and everything is online, and the truth rears its ugly head: that no one who really, really needs to wants to listen to your life’s work. No one is respecting researchers who work tirelessly to come up with vaccinations and tests.  While you spend day in and day out working late hours trying to come up with a means to save lives, people come back and spit in your face.  Science, especially in academia, has always been a somewhat thankless job, (save for the pay if you get really lucky), and many times people won’t understand you. They know you’re smart, but they don’t really know what about, and it can be difficult to convey.  But that simply comes with the territory.  What pains me most is the severe retaliation during a time of crisis, instead of a renewed understanding of the need for science.  I don’t consider myself a scientist yet, considering I’m still learning in college. But I can’t help but feel that if we don’t find a way to educate people, and quickly, my field will be useless.  Because it’s not science that makes a difference, it’s people adopting science to inform their decisions.

If you know a scientists right now, especially someone working in virology, epidemiology, specifically COVID-19, or really any other field of life science, please thank them.  Hell, all STEM fields, for that matter.  They are truly trying their best during a time when it feels like all rationality has flown out the window.  And if they have any advice for you, listen to them.  By listening to scientists, you set a precedent for those around you to listen as well, which could get us all out of this mess quicker and healthier.

If you have any questions or comments, pop by my ask box.  Or reply too, doesn’t matter to me. My blog is all about conversations about science, science culture, and science literacy, and this may be my first post but it won’t be the last. Also this was super long, confusing, and ranty, so if you want clarification please ask! And if I don’t have answers I will try my best to direct you to someone who does. 

All y’all stay safe, and be smart.

[republicstandard]

Reflections on the London Conference on Intelligence

At the beginning of this year, honorary senior lecturer at the University College London Dr James Thompson came under fire for having organised an annual event called the London Conference on Intelligence. After the event was described in the London Student as a “eugenics conference with neo-Nazi links”, several prominent news outlets released the claims and described the conference as a “controversial conference”, a “conference on eugenics”, a “eugenics conference”, and a “secret eugenics conference” with “neo-Nazi links”. First, it is apparent that reporters parrot each other, and do not bother to check the credibility of the sources. Second, the articles published by the London Student, the Guardian, and Complex (see the links above) mention as one of their sources the Southern Poverty Law Center, a strongly ideologically charged organization. It accused, for example, the distinguished political scientist Charles Murray of being a white nationalist, despite the fact that he has described race and gender based identity politics as “toxic” both for Whites and for the members of other races.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

I would like to tell a more accurate story about the London Conference on Intelligence, from my personal point of view. I am a Belgian PhD student living in Germany. I studied Classics in Liege from 2008 to 2013, and then Egyptology from 2013 to 2015. I am now a PhD student at the University of Göttingen. After I read Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, I became very interested in human nature in general and in human intelligence in particular. While I was still a university student in Belgium, Dr. Thompson started a very informative blog providing detailed in-depth discussion of recent findings in intelligence research. In 2015, he announced the event (but not the location) on the blog, which led me to attend three years in a row and to make a presentation at the 2017 conference. Nowadays, I want to combine my background in Egyptology with my deep interest in human intelligence, by conducting research on the intelligence of the ancient Egyptians. In the following, I would like to describe what I learnt, what I saw and what I heard at these three conferences. I would also like to address some of the charges made against the organizers and some of the participants.

A conference on intelligence in London

The conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research has been the central annual gathering of intelligence researchers for more than 15 years, at different locations all over the globe. The London Conference on Intelligence takes place in London every year, in memory of the so-called London school. The London school comprises some highly influential psychologists in the field of intelligence research: Charles Spearman (1863-1945), Hans Eysenck (1916-1997), and John C. Raven (1902-1970). It is known for establishing several key bases of contemporary intelligence research, such as the g factor, the heritability of IQ, factor analysis, and the correlation coefficient – which is one of the most important statistical tools used in psychological research. William Revelle, a psychology professor at Northwestern University, even wrote in his account of Spearman’s life: “It may be said that all of modern psychometrics is merely a footnote on the work of Francis Galton and Charles Spearman.”

These bases are no longer seriously contested. According to Richard Haier, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Irvine, Past President of the International Society for Intelligence Research, and Editor-in-Chief of Intelligence,

“the data that support a major genetic component to intelligence are compelling and the number of genetic deniers and minimizers is diminishing rapidly” (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 40).

Nevertheless, these established facts are still perceived as controversial outside of academia, and the very idea that cognitive ability is influenced by genes may, as such, be met with accusations of eugenics. The science of individual differences in cognitive ability has aroused several prolific critics such as Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin, and the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. It is telling that Gould’s celebrated The Mismeasure of Man received most of its praise from newspapers and pundits in the public debate, whereas most of the negative reviews were published in academic journals (see S. Larivée, “Vices et vertus de S. J. Gould”, Revue québécoise de psychologie 23, 2002, p. 8).

Accusations of eugenics

So, what about the claims about the event being a “conference on eugenics”? Let us first clarify what eugenics actually means. In general, the word “eugenics” refers to attempts to favour genetically influenced qualities which are deemed desirable, such as intelligence, health and good character. Inasmuch as such traits are heritable (their variation in the population is genetically influenced), the main mean for eugenics has been to encourage the reproduction of individuals who have such qualities to a high extent and discourage the reproduction of those who do not, or who have traits deemed undesirable. The word “eugenics” also refers to a specific movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which favoured the implementation of such policies. To this end, many different means were conceived of, but the best known of the general public are probably the laws aiming at the sterilisation of the mentally retarded; such laws were passed in a number of US States and European countries. Hence, the word “eugenics” has become associated with compulsory sterilisation in the minds of many, and this word has been thrown at a number of people for the purpose of disqualifying them altogether, despite the fact that they were not in any way concerned with sterilisation. For instance, the expression “eugenic abortion” has been used to criticize women who choose to abort foetuses with detected disabilities. This attitude neglects to take into account the important difference between the end in itself on the one hand, and the means to this end on the other hand. One may reject compulsory sterilisation without denying that a high intelligence, a high conscientiousness and an optimal health enable an individual to benefit the group he belongs to, or, conversely, that an individual born with severe disabilities can impose a heavy burden on the members of his family. Today, modern genetics offers prospects for gene editing and embryo selection, the ethical problems of which are hardly equal to those of compulsory sterilisation.

The reporters never explain precisely why they describe the event as a “eugenics conference.” However, a possible reason for this accusation is the presence of a quote by intelligence researcher E. L. Thorndike (1874-1949) on the first page of the program of the 2016 London Conference on Intelligence. Its author does indeed refer to “selective breeding” as a mean to “alter man’s capacity to learn, to keep sane, to cherish justice or to be happy.” But the quote does not promote the usage of sterilisation or of any other aggressive practice, since “selective breeding” does not necessarily refer to such practices. To give only one example, if a private company decides to give an important part of its benefits to highly altruistic couples so that they use the money to have a lot of (presumably) altruistic children (all psychological traits being under genetic influence); this is indeed selective breeding, yet the practice hardly seems inhumane or unacceptable.

In any case, across the years, the attendees of the London Conference on Intelligence have debated a wide variety of topics, most of which had nothing to do with eugenics. These topics include the efficiency of early childhood intervention for improving IQ (2015), the relationship between colour acuity and intelligence (2015), the cognitive abilities of chimpanzees (2015), publication bias (2016), emotion recognition ability (2016), the use of ancient European DNA for understanding the evolution of human intelligence in the Bronze Age (2017), the impact of exposure to heavy metals on cognitive ability (several years), and the use of psychometrics for the description of evolutionary life history strategy (several years). My own presentation was about the ways of assessing the cognitive ability of ancient Egyptians and about the impact of their difficult life conditions on their cognitive ability.

Other topics have been the relationship between intelligence and religiosity (2017), and political orientation (2015), and between personality and political orientation among high-IQ people (2016). Others speakers addressed topics like the possible causes of average difference in IQ between countries (2015 and 2016), the hypothesis of a decline in heritable general intelligence since the early or mid-19th century (2015 and 2016), sex differences (2016 and 2017), and race differences (2015 and 2017).

Average differences between races or ethnicities

One of the main criticisms that has be raised against the conference organizers is that it allowed the presence of researchers who have sustained the view that human races differ, on average, in intelligence and personality, and that these differences are likely to be partly the result of genetic factors. This view might appear incredible and repulsive to some, especially to those who hear about it for the first time, and it is very tempting to think of those who sustain it as racists. But this would be a lazy answer to a difficult question. First, it is crucial to keep in mind the distinction between what is and what ought to be. To the best of my knowledge, the researchers who consider some ethnic groups to be endowed with a higher or lower average IQ have never said that these groups ought to be so, or that this situation was desirable. In fact, many of them have explicitly deplored what they consider to be an abhorrent reality. Serge Larivée, a French-Canadian psychology professor at the University of Montreal, wrote that he deplored the existence of individual and group differences in intelligence (Le Québec sceptique 60, p. 62-66), and most recently, radio host Stefan Molyneux explained during his interview on the Rubin Report: “It is unbelievably heartbreaking” (34:33), and a bit later: “This is one of the most difficult facts I’ve ever had to absorb in my life” (34:39).

Second, many of the researchers working on this topic have repeatedly emphasized the fact that they are talking about average differences, which cannot and should not be generalized to all the individuals within each group. Here are a few examples:

“It really must be emphasized that there is enormous variability within each of the populations. Since these distributions clearly overlap, it is always problematic to generalize from a group average to any particular individual.” (J. Philippe Rushton during his 1989 debate with David Suzuki, at 31:51) “If you were an employer looking for intellectual talent, an IQ of 120 is an IQ of 120, whether the face is black or white.” (R. Herrnstein & Ch. Murray, The Bell Curve, Free Press, 1994, p. 313). “Even though Jewish and Asian immigrants as a whole have made a positive eugenic impact on the U.S. population, the best approach to immigration policy would be to select immigrants as individuals rather than by ethnic group. There is a large range of desirable and undesirable qualities within each group.” (R. Lynn, Eugenics, Praeger, 2001, p. 223).

Had they really been racists, they would probably not have bothered with such caveats, and had they been white supremacists, they would probably not have written that the average IQ of East Asians is higher than that of people of European descent (see, among others, The Bell Curve and the tribune Mainstream Science on Intelligence).

Instead of equating the opinion of Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, and those who share their views with the promotion of white supremacy, it would be much wiser to insist that racism is unacceptable no matter whether this opinion is right or wrong, because:

As already explained, these are just average differences. There are intelligent individuals and unintelligent individuals in every ethnic group. To judge people by the colour of their skin rather than the content of their character is deleterious not only for those who are discriminated against, but also for the ones who discriminate, because they are losing many opportunities of interacting with talented individuals.

“Being more intelligent” than someone does not mean “being superior” to this person. Although intelligence is highly valued in society and is associated with success in many life areas, it is not all that matters, and it would be utterly ridiculous to assess the value of a human being on the sole basis of intelligence. Perhaps those who accused the aforementioned researchers of promoting the idea that some races are “superior” to others are revealing their own inability to dissociate “intelligence” from “superiority”.

Moreover, the critics of Lynn, Murray and Gottfredson might even run the risk of confusing the public about the fact that equal rights do not require equal abilities. The point has already been made several times:

“To rest the case for equal treatment of national or racial minorities on the assertion that they do not differ from other men is implicitly to admit that factual inequality would justify unequal treatment.” (Fr. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago University Press, 1960, p. 86) “But to fear research on genetic racial differences, or the possible existence of a biological basis for differences in abilities, is, in a sense, to grant the racist’s assumption: that if it should be established beyond reasonable doubt that there are biological or genetically conditioned differences in mental abilities among individuals or groups, then we are justified in oppressing or exploiting those who are most limited in genetic endowment. This is, of course, a complete non sequitur.” (A. Jensen, Genetics and Education, Methuen, 1972, p. 329) “If someone defends racial discrimination on the grounds of genetic differences between races, it is more prudent to attack the logic of his argument than to accept the argument and deny any differences. The latter stance can leave one in an extremely awkward position if such a difference is subsequently shown to exist.” (J. C. Loehlin, G. Lindzey & N. Spuhler, Race Differences in Intelligence, W.H. Freeman, 1975, p. 240) “But it is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, one revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.” (A.W.F. Edwards, “Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy,” BioEssays 25, 2003, p. 801) “In fact, pinning a message of tolerance to the claim that all humans are essentially the same underneath the skin is dangerous. It suggests that if there were real differences, racism would be justified.” (B. Winegard with B. Winegard & B. Boutwell, “On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism,” Quillette, June 23, 2016)

Finally, I would like to make the point that understanding possible differences between races or groups in general is in fact useful and beneficial for all, although this may seem counterintuitive to some. First, it is not necessarily harmful to be aware of the differences that exist, so long as we can all basically agree on what the scientific evidence indicates and we do not make the fallacy of attributing a group mean to any one individual. Researchers need to be careful to take precautions to this end, as they have repeatedly done. Second, realistic knowledge about group differences in abilities is useful – if not decisive – for alleviating grievances related to group differences in outcomes. To give only one example, since IQ is an important predictor of educational achievement, it could enable the policymakers and the public to understand the causes of the over-representations of Asians and the under-representation of Blacks in the universities where affirmative action is not enforced.

Crucially, it could enable them to know how far we are from the goal of eliminating discrimination: if the proportions of enrolled students in those universities correspond to what one would expect with an average IQ of 105 for Asians, an average IQ of 100 for Whites and an average IQ of 85 for Blacks (on these numbers, see the tribune Mainstream Science on Intelligence), it will mean that, overall, these proportions are primarily the result of a selective process which is based on the educational level of the applicants. By contrast, much damage can be caused by a theory of systemic racism which ignores the scientific study of group differences in intelligence – for instance, by highlighting the socio-economic differences between Whites as a whole and Blacks as a whole without taking into account the existing studies that compare the outcomes of Whites and Blacks of similar IQ (such as this one; see also chapter 14 of The Bell Curve). Such a theory is intrinsically inflammatory: it implies that all disparities are necessarily due to oppression, discrimination and prejudice (some of them certainly are, but the idea that all disparities are caused by discrimination is undermined by some studies and in particular by the large scientific consensus on the fact that neither IQ tests nor scholastic achievement tests are biased against any American-born, English-speaking ethnic group), and because this is supposed to be ingrained in more or less every human context, it also implies that people who do very well would have done even better had they had lighter skin. Thus, it encourages Blacks to despise Whites and blame them for any difficulties they experience, and this, in turns, encourages Whites to despise Blacks. Furthermore, quotas and affirmative action run the risk of harming the ethnic groups that they intend to help, by depriving them of their self-confidence and from the satisfaction that comes from knowing that one has succeeded through one’s own competence and efforts. As Linda Gottfredson explains in one of her academic publications:

“According to the social privilege theory, high-achieving groups (at least European whites) are therefore automatically guilty of profiting from an oppressive social system, and low-achieving groups are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. Every inequality becomes more evidence of entrenched evil. The talk of brotherhood 50 years ago is replaced by the talk of reparations; the hope of mutual respect among the races by mutual resentment.”

Let us hope that it is not too late for reconciliation and mutual respect.

The Mankind Quarterly and the Ulster Institute for Social Research

Much of the media campaign consisted of “guilt-by-association.” The most prominent instances refer to the academic journal Mankind Quarterly and to the *Ulster Institute for Social Research, and connections that have been made between these and various statements and individuals. As will be shown, these are both legitimate institutions that have made, and continue to make, valuable scientific contributions. More importantly, however, it must be emphasized that mere association with a person or institution cannot provide any ground for criticism. It is a truism and a central principle of every free and democratic society that each individual can only be judged by his/her behaviour and character, and not by the behaviours and characters of those he/she associates with. It is agreed that some general attitudes could probably be gleaned from someone’s membership in an organisation such as a political party. To attempt to do so for the journals that a researcher publishes in is wrongful.

The Mankind Quarterly was founded by, among others, Corrado Gini (1884-1965), a prominent Italian statistician who was the president of the Istituto Centrale di Statistica from 1926 to 1932, that is, under the fascist regime. Of course, neither the editors nor the authors can be held responsible for the political activities of a former editor who died more than fifty years ago. That would be like calling “Nazis” the Egyptologists who published in Probleme der Ägyptologie, a book series that was founded by Egyptologist and NSDAP member Hermann Kees.

One can doubtlessly find papers in Mankind Quarterly that were later proven wrong or that applied poor scientific standards compared to the current level of knowledge or methodology. But this is true of all scientific journals. Cherry-picking the worst examples is an unscientific practice, and applying it to even more prestigious journals will reflect badly on most of them. Today, Mankind Quarterly publishes research articles whose data can be checked, theories or hypotheses related to these data, and book reviews, and is not in any way concerned with proposing specific policies. Inasmuch as these articles contain errors, as most articles do, they should be criticized on the basis of empirical evidence, not with ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, there is no ground for claiming that the editors Gerhard Meisenberg and Richard Lynn determine the content of the journal on the basis of their personal political convictions, whatever these convictions may be. The views expressed in Mankind Quarterly often contradict each other, and some of them have directly challenged the opinions of Lynn and/or Meisenberg; for instance, in the September 2017 issue, Richard Lynn presented his views on sex differences, and his article was followed by replies written by James R. Flynn and Roberto Colom.

What has been said about the Mankind Quarterly can also be said about the Ulster Institute for Social Research, which has published a number of monographs written by Richard Lynn, John Harvey, Tatu Vanhanen, Edward Dutton, and Jelena Ĉvorović, as well as Festschrifts edited by Helmuth Nyborg. In a general way, these books look like gigantic scientific articles: they are very dense, full of graphs, very instructive, and not especially entertaining. Again, if mistakes are found in some of them, the criticisms must be based on evidence, not personal attacks. Moreover, while statistics can always be misused, data which are the result of properly conducted research should never be suppressed for fear of misapplication.

The Pioneer Fund

The London Student’s article mentions connections between the Pioneer Fund and individuals who attended the conference. It is justified to consider the funding sources of scientists, insofar as there is reason to question their integrity and academic freedom due to conditions associated with the funding. According to University of Montreal Professor Serge Larivée, however, the Pioneer Fund representatives “formally agree not to influence the researchers so that they publish results which support their ideology.” (Le Québec sceptique 60, p. 65; my personal translation). In the present case, the claim of “neo-Nazi links” constitutes an ad hominem attack which, from a scientific point of view, is devoid of any validity.

One may then ask why some intelligence researchers applied to the Pioneer Fund. The main reason, I think, is that intelligence has come to be seen as a highly controversial topic in the decades following the publication of Arthur Jensen’s “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” As Richard Haier explains:

“Given the racial inferences and the hot emotional atmosphere, few researchers or their students opted to focus their careers on any questions at all about intelligence. Getting federal research support for researching intelligence became virtually impossible. Almost overnight, intelligence research became radioactive.” (The Neuroscience of Intelligence, p. 44).

Through its funding, the Pioneer Fund has made possible important studies which, otherwise, could probably not have been carried out. One of the best known is probably the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, which constitutes, among others, a decisive contribution to our understanding of the heritability of intelligence. The Pioneer Fund also made possible the publication of two important books by Arthur Jensen that are still often cited in our days: Bias in Mental Testing (1980) and The g factor (1998). Neither book is a work of racial advocacy and, despite the accusations that have been made against him, Arthur Jensen has made it clear that he favoured equal opportunities and the application of identical standards of excellence for all students regardless of race (see Fr. Miele, Intelligence, race, and genetics. Conversations with Arthur Jensen, Basic Books, 2002).

Other claims

As mentioned, most of the media onslaught is nothing more than “guilt-by-association.” This is particularly true of the claims made by the London Student. Once again, speaking at a conference does not imply that the organizers or the other participants approve all your statements, or that you approve theirs. On a similar note, J. Philippe Rushton wrote in 2008 in an email to a journalist: “So far I have resisted making policy recommendations… and have appeared at many other places including academic ones where they don’t agree with me and I don’t agree with them.” (see here at 4:07).

It is also worth noting that some authors of the harsh criticisms levelled against the conference organizers seem to be very poorly informed when it comes to the current state of intelligence research. The Cheese Grater, magazine of the Students’ Union UCL, describes as “sexist” the tweet in which James Thompson writes that men have, on average, bigger brains than women. But in 2016, during his review of the literature on the biological foundations of intelligence, Lars Penke, Professor at the University of Göttingen, explained that there is now a wide agreement on that question:

“We know that there is a robust sex difference in overall brain volume. Men have, on average, a 10% bigger brain than women. Still, in representative samples that cover the whole range of intelligence variation, you usually don’t find a mean difference between the sexes” (see here at 7:39).

The most startling comment I have found so far comes from an opinion piece published in the Independent: the 2017 conference of the respected International Society for Intelligence Research, which was held in Montreal in July, is described as a “Canadian pro-eugenics conference.” All these sensationalist claims are likely to strengthen the following opinion, expressed by Stefan Molyneux about mainstream journalism:

“The mainstream media is not in the business of delivering information to consumers. They are in the business of delivering consumers to advertisers.”

Secrecy?

Another aspect of the London Conference on Intelligence is its relative lack of publicity: whereas the 2014 and 2015 conferences were announced on Dr. Thompson’s blog, the 2016 and 2017 conferences were announced only to the speakers and to those invited by them or by the organizers. This may explain why the event has been described as “secret.” A friend of mine, who did not attend the London conference, raised the concern that the researchers attending the event might not have their views challenged by the colleagues who disagree with them. This is a valid point that deserves careful attention, although one should not assume the participants agree on all the topics that were discussed at the conference.

First, it is not uncommon to have small conferences with a limited number of participants in order to provide the possibility of long, in-depth exchanges between researchers, instead of congresses of hundreds of scientists who run between parallel sessions, some of which feature researchers who speak to an (almost) empty theatre. Second, the fate of earlier intelligence researchers working on race differences in intelligence illustrates that it was not unreasonable for Richard Lynn and Helmuth Nyborg to think that a conference accessible only by invitation was more suited for ensuring their security: Arthur Jensen, one of the best known researchers working on race differences in intelligence, has received death threats; Hans Eysenck, who publicly agreed with Jensen’s views, was physically attacked at the London School of Economics. The small-sized London Conference on Intelligence enables the researchers to present their data, have exchanges about them, and talk about the possibilities of testing their hypotheses without any fear of retaliation. If they were deprived of any possibility of expressing their views, it would be good neither for them, neither for the society as a whole:

“The silence deprives society of information that it needs to have. In this light, a special advantage of what we might call “enclave deliberation” is that it promotes the development of positions that would otherwise be invisible, silenced, or squelched in general debate.” (C. Sunstein, Going to Extremes, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 152)

Conclusion

To conclude, again, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of understanding the difference between what is and what should be. In order to understand what is, researchers should be able to gather empirical data, to formulate theories on these data, and to present both their data and their theories at academic conferences even when these data or theories may be uncomfortable. On the other hand, empirical facts alone do not tell us what should be, and it is important that scientists warn against any potential misuse of their results, as they have often done. As Norwegian editor and writer Knut Olav Åmås elegantly and simply said:

“No knowledge is in itself evil or dangerous. Only the human use of knowledge can become evil or dangerous.” (Norwegian TV program “Brainwash”, see here at 37:42)

The reporters who wrote on the London Conference on Intelligence do not make such distinction, nor do they distinguish the personal views of researchers from the data that were presented. It is to fear that such reporting can only frighten those who have both the willingness to serve the society that funds them and the courage to present highly unpopular results. As Fatos Selita, Robert Chapman, Kaili Rimfeld and Yulia Kovas explained:

“Bad reporting of science does us all a disservice as it prevents informed and engaged discourse on topics of vital personal, social and cultural importance. It has the power to instil negative perceptions, deprive people of knowledge, and prevent understanding. It also forces some scientists to avoid communicating findings because they are concerned that what they say or write can be manipulated by the media.” (“Save Science from Fiction”, The Accessible Genetics Consortium, March 4, 2016)

The only point that I did not address is the legal aspect of the booking. Since I am not familiar with the procedure which is required for booking a room for an event at the University College of London, I will not make any comments on that matter.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

For me personally, the London Conference on Intelligence has been both one of the most instructive and one of the most fascinating events I have attended so far, along with the conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research. I sincerely hope that it will continue to be held in the following years. In any case, I will take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to organizing the London Conference on Intelligence for all that they have done.

Note: The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or of the individuals with whom the author is associated.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech. Make a donation towards our running costs by clicking here.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2kMv4E7 via IFTTT