Should any topics be taboo for science?

[Saracen]

There's been a couple of interesting programs on the TV in the last week or so. One looked at the question of whether some races are less intelligent than others, and one last night looked at whether people of mixed race have a genetic advantage.

I don't want to discuss those two subjects, or at least, not in this thread. But it did make me wonder .... should any subject be off-limits to science?

On the one hand, if you ask awkward questions, you might have to deal with uncomfortable answers. And by "ask questions" I mean ask in a rigorous, structured scientifically valid way, aimed at coming up with evidence-based answers. For instance, if you ask whether one race is more intelligent than another, what are you supposed to do with the information if there were evidence to show it was the case? Or wasn't.

The other question about mixed race people having advantages certainly does seem to have some strong evidence-based basis, though no doubt the BNP and the like won't like it much. For instance, in our DNA, we have certain characteristics or traits that provide an ability to resist bacteriological infection. If you are homozygous in that trait, it means you have two identical copies of the alleles in that gene. If you're heterozygous for that gene, you have two different alleles and evidence shows that that confers a greater ability to fight infection.

Also, it's pretty well accepted that close inbreeding can cause some, erm .... unfortunate results. The reason is that the smaller the gene pool, the larger the chance of reinforcing variant genes that cause undesirable results, like susceptibility to some really nasty genetic disorders and disabilities. By direct implication, the wider the gene pool, the lower the chances of a coincidental reinforcing of those genes.

There was a study a few years ago that showed that British Pakistanis represented abut 3% of the birth rate, but about a third of such serious genetic disorders, and the likelihood of such problems was about 13 times the national norm. The result was attributed (and I have no idea whether rightly or wrongly) to the practice of first cousin marriages. And that resulted in dome calls for that to be banned.

Which brings me back to my actual question ..... should some topics be taboo for science? What do we do, for instance, if science were to show that a particular issue had a serious genetic effect (such as serious genetic disorders), but that that practice has deep-rooted cultural or religious origins?

Incest is illegal in most if not all countries, and the reason for that is, at least in large part, genetic. We worked that much out even before we had a science of genetics. But what if a scientific study were to show that mixing races had significant genetic advantages? What if the principle of "hybrid vigour" were to run true in humans, as indeed it demonstrably does in plants, and has in some animal communities where studies have been done, so it probably does in humans too.

Any scientist that tried to suggest that we should have an actual policy of mixing the races is likely to have proud ethnic minorities standing side-by-side with the BNP and white supremacists, all baying for the blood of the scientist.

And it's a serious question, and a serious threat. It was exactly such attempts to engineer society on genetic grounds that led to the likes of the eugenics programs to "improve" the race, and the the Nazi's attempts at creating an Aryan master race by genocide.

So on the one hand, my view is that facts are facts and that science is neutral. If we find out that this effect or that is scientifically valid, then it's for society to use or abuse that knowledge. That suggests that all knowledge is good.

On the other hand, what if we found out that there is a different in intelligence between races. Whoever ends up more racially intelligent, someone's going to end up feeling superior and someone inferior because of it, and over something we can't affect anyway. You also risk handling ammunition to extremist groups. So why ask the question if the answer can't help and could be dangerous?

So should science avoid asking some questions, because the answers could be explosive, and perhaps either mean that we can't do anything about it, or if we try (as with eugenics) we end up with a cure worse than the problem?

Science, even if it's 100% impartial and objective, doesn't exist in a vacuum. If it asks questions, the results may have a social effect and not necessarily a positive one. I don't like the idea of self-censorship of science, but if asking questions blindly ignoring the potential social effects risks opening Pandora's box, is it a responsible thing to do?


Please note : this thread is not about racism, or race and intelligence, or the BNP, or about genetics and genetic disorders. They are used as examples of a socially dangerous area for science to ask questions about. If you want to discuss those, please open your own thread. This is about what science should or shouldn't look at.

[TooNice]

I am inherently curious about facts so my first reaction is that no subjects should be off-limit. I've also always been in favour of research in genetics engineering, cloning, and other research sometime negatively viewed as 'playing God'.

However, even before I reached the part where you mentioned it, I started thinking of what happened with the Nazis. If you do not put things in check, things can go out of control. Perhaps nothing as bad as what happened in WW2 will repeat again for a few generations. However, discriminations (say, for jobs) may become rife. And yet any attempt for control that would be strongly opposed. I can already see comments like "It's not racism, it's scientific fact" or "Yet another case of political correctness going out of control". Basically, I do not really trust people to be both objective (or in some case, it may not be practical, such as when they go through the batch of CV) and sensitive.

And for the people who may end up in the with the short end of the stick, the line "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" comes to mind. There are at least two problems I can think of. First, would those deemed less intelligent give up in improving their knowledge (making them even less employable outside of manual labour). Would they become subject to bullying? Would people blame them for using those 'scientific facts' as an excuse for not studying as hard and seeking more intellectual work?

After all, I am don't really think that it would be possible for scientists to collectively agree on the aforementioned topics. There are research supporting/refuting many theories, and even if one can overcome the issue of defining intelligence, designing suitable tests, separating nature from nurture, selecting a suitable sample etc., I reckon that you will end up with some conflicting results. Under those circumstances, would we end up with nothing tangible gained, yet added to the many social conflicts?

Sorry I didn't really answer the question. As noted in the first line, my first impression is 'no', but as you have already noted, there can be serious social repercussions, and this specific example, it's the negative outcome that comes to my mind first. Perhaps I would rather see the efforts spent on answering questions/solving problems which would benefit mankind first. While the racing mixing example can be useful (and I have no problem with the idea of mixing race anyway), I just find it hard to see how the knowledge provided by race superiority/inferiority can be used positively.

One thing I wonder though, is if the world is becoming more mixed with globalisation. I have a fairly twisted/flawed idea which will remain fantasy only. First, collect the semen of every men who are relatively healthy within a certain age group. Then, women who wants to have a baby will get the sperm from a random donor (who may be the same or of a completely different race), and impregnated via artificial insemination. Do that for enough generations to "reshuffle" the "deck", and there you go, humankind will need to find another reason to discriminate each other

[Again, this is just a weird idea I am having at 3AM in the morning. I can see why it's not viable in more ways than I care to list]

[BUFF]

I don't think that any subject should be taboo for science.
However, I do think that the means of obtaining that knowledge & what we then do with that knowledge have to be very carefully watched & some of those suggested processes may be considered unreasonable.

[Perfectionist]

Reminds me of something I saw a while ago about a predicted "future race of coffee coloured people"

google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.bbc.co.uk+coffee+coloured&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky
There we go:

Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

[..] in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.

Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.

There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

(Sounds like the film Idiocracy again as mentioned in the obesity thread)

Looking at the situation dispassionately I think we as a race are going to need to get over the squeamishness over at least a little genetic selection at some point, the psychotic version used by the nazis was of course wrong, but we don't boycott volkswagen and that was supposedly made by them, or cars - We already genetically select naturally whether we are aware of it by not via looks and pheromones (anyone remember Dr Winston's human body series where he did the iconic test with the shirts of people differing genetically "smelling better" to test subjects?) - otherwise as mentioned in that article things will just stagnate and degenerate - we have effectively removed ourselves from natural evolution by the use of technology. I'm glad I don't live in an age where we will have to start facing up to it yet because I have the suspicion like with climate change nothing will even start to be done until it's already at the very precipice.

But anyway, with regards to the thread title: No, I don't think so really, because someone has to ask the hard questions and it's usually scientists who end up having to do it as the rest are mostly hypnotising themselves into denial from the state of the world with x-factor and soaps. Or warcrap, drugs, alcohol and such.

serious genetic effect (such as serious genetic disorders), but that that practice has deep-rooted cultural or religious origins?

Those two things shouldn't even be taken into account. Out society indoctrinates people to be careful of "offending" people about those things when really long-held practices are just that, and any religious or cultural attachment to it just just the force of tradition - "we've always done it this way". If a tradition has no real use it shouldn't be there in the first place, just because dead people did it doesn't mean it's right or we'd be following cultural origins to a tee in the UK and going around wearing beautifully decorated, varied, completely useless flower-scented nosebags to prevent against pathogens still!

[Saracen]

One of the dangers, to my mind, is that science, if done badly or superficially, or even if done well but when we aren't in full possession of the facts, can lead to damaging conclusions with severe social consequences.

For instance, on the "intelligence and race" there is some fairly convincing evidence that race affects intelligence, at least at first glance. \for instasnce, that Rageh Omah documentary outlined the results of a switch in admissions policy at University of California Berkeley, where some years back, admissions policy was switched to be based entirely on a kind of IQ test aimed at assessing academic potential, and where those determining admission did so blind, other than those tests, They didn't know the race of the applicant. The result was that East Asians were heavily over-represented in relation to the ir percentage of the population, while African Americans were heavily under-represented.

At first glance, that might indicate a racial element to intelligence, and certainly, there are those (including some well-known academics) that have used it to support that view. But a more detailed look (as per Rageh's program) suggests it may well be more cultural than racial. The Confiscuian work ethic has promulgated round China, spread to Japan, Korea etc, and led to a great respect for academic achievement that provides a home atmosphere conducive to learning. Well, if your environment, from birth, respects academic achievement, encourages reading and thinking and a dedicated work ethic, respects the notion that academic excellence is a way to greater earnings, then small flippin' wonder people with that ethic do well as a result. So the inference is that whilst people from East Asian ethnic backgrounds do, typically, achieve highly in an academic environment and thus may be perceived as more intelligent than whites, who by that yardstick, are more intelligent than Africans, who do better than Australian aborigine peoples, it may well be that the apparent difference in intelligence is due to differences in culture typical of the race, rather than to race itself.

And there's certainly evidence to support that. Studies of the achievements of black Africans in South Africa have rocketed up since the abolition of apartheid, but typically, not (yet) at advanced levels. For instance, achievement to the level of a medical doctor have shot up, but specialisations haven't. The explanation given for that is again cultural - those with a more white, middle-class background have family situations that lend themselves to the extra time and cost involved in going for the specialisations. So it isn't race that's preventing the black doctors from specialising, but social conditions, and "class".

The danger is clear. If you accept some variations of IQ testing as a way to measure intelligence (and I'm not convinced that even doing that isn't a leap too far) then the statistics seem to show that East Asians are the most intelligent, white Europeans and North Americans come next and black African origins follow some way behind. And that interpretation of the statistics is fuel for racists, has been used to justify eugenics, from government "breeding" programs right up to the Nazi death camps.

A little science can be a dangerous thing, especially if it's used or abused by extremists with a racial agenda, and mankind does seem to have a knack for finding ways to justify some very poisonous agendas. If, as Rageh's program seems to suggest, the biggest difference in academic achievement is social background, wealth and the attitude of parents, then Obama is quite right - what's needed is a earthquake in cultural attitudes, and a change of mindset. If you change aspirations and the attitude to education, you change test results. The South African data clearly demonstrates that much.

So .... if you study race and intelligence and it shows "differences", then you hand the extremists a tool. Should we do that? On the other hand, if you study the data a bit more clearly, it seems to much more strongly support the notion while race may have little to do with it, that the attitude parents to education, learning and abstract thinking does have a lot to do with academic achievement, and that in turn can make a huge difference to success in later life.

Science, then, can be used to justify radical politics, but it can also be used to inform and shape social policy and government actions. If educational achievement is largely based on parental attitudes, then it's a kind of self-reinforcing vicious circle but one that overt government policy could affect and improve. Perhaps we ought to be looking at educational funding in the light of that. If you have people from a relatively poor background facing £20,000 (or more) of debt as a result of getting a degree, then even aspiring to try to get one is much less daunting from those on whom the current financial pressures aren't so onerous. Could it be argued that student debt acts as a strong motivator to reinforce the "class" differences in "intelligence", as measured by academic achievement.

What is clear is that, on average, academic achievement is a clear indicator for likely success in life. Obviously, there are exceptions. The likes of Richard Branson or Alan Sugar make it clear than a degree isn't a prerequisite for financial or business success, and indeed, it might even be that those with an independent nature and a personal drive do better in an entrepreneurial environment than those with a more structured and intellectual approach. But if you look at top engineers, lawyers, politicians, accountants, doctors and so forth, you'll find that a higher percentage of top paying jobs require or encourage academic excellence.

So at least in that case, it may be that facing up to uncomfortable questions actually leads to insights, or to hard evidence supporting insights we already had, that should in turn inform social policy and government action. But, until you do the research you do know what the results will be and therefore don't know what the social consequences might be. it appears that looking underneath the superficial implications of the racial intelligence question suggests it's nothing to do with race per se, but with background, affluence, culture and so forth, and that it can therefore be used to debunk the poison of the racist groups that might seek to exploit the superficial inferences from statistical studies. But there was no way to know that going in, and the result could have ended up being a huge racist propaganda tool.

Which brings me back to the question - are there some subjects science shouldn't tackle, simply because science doesn't exist in a vacuum? It's all very well to look at science as 'pure', and to go where evidence takes us, and if we could all look at results in a calm, objective and dispassionate way, that might be the end of it. But these things can have social consequences and dangers, meaning science doesn't exist in that kind of academic utopian vacuum.

[kalniel]

Well my question is: shouldn't a mod move this to Question Time?

[Saracen]

Well my question is: shouldn't a mod move this to Question Time?

Perhaps, but another question might be whether we should merge QT and GD, as so few people seem to use QT. But if so, it's a question for a separate thread, not this one.

[Phage]

You don't have to raise this as a question. History has examples of societies trying to limit and/or ban R&D, and harming themselves in the process. The banning of gunpowder in Japan limited them to a feudal society for hundreds of years, putting them well behind the arguably 'less civilised' West when contact was made. (ref Guns, Germs and Steel)
Nature is competition, any tactic to try and artficially limit a society's competitiveness will harm that society.

Cry havoc, and let slip the white coats of unfettered research.

[ajones]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but is this is social question or one of ethics?

Returning to the Nazi example, could one not argue that we, as a global society, rose against an inapproriate use of science and quelled it? OK, dodgy example at the cost of millions of lives... but what we consider socially acceptable won out in the end.

Society should be responsible enough to evolve. Cultures need to become more tolerant of change.

However, I do feel that we need to control how we investige and to what purpose our results are used in a strict ethical manner... And in these days when ethics seem to be controlled by the almighty dollar, I would ask whether our scientific community can be trusted to do that? I'd like to think it can.

[Lucio]

I'm wondering whether your question is really about whether science should have limits or whether it's more a case highlighting whether the scientific method can really be applied in all situations. To use your example, birth defects can be proven to be higher in UK Pakistani populations but that doesn't actually tell you the cause, you may *believe* the cause is a higher level of family interbreeding but is our understanding of the DNA really complete enough to make that assumption?

This is always the big problem once you move away from fields like chemistry or physics, those you can prove you case by repeating the same experiment. Social sciences and biology are vastly more complex and what holds true in one system might not in another (E.g. if you ran the experiment again you'd get different results).

It's not to say that these sciences are invalid, but that their findings need to be taken with a big pinch of salt and more importantly they have to be careful of what they research and why. If for example, someone wanted to study the high prevalance of genetic defects, then their motivation needs to be taken into account as well. If the results won't actually *help* humanity, then why should they conduct research in the first place?

[Phage]

. Social sciences and biology are vastly more complex and what holds true in one system might not in another (E.g. if you ran the experiment again you'd get different results).

There's a big difference between social 'sciences' and Biology. There are plenty of biological experiments that will return consistent results. The problem arises, as you rightly point out, when you try and apply biology to sociology.

. It's not to say that these sciences are invalid, but that their findings need to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

No. Biology /= Sociology. Biology is demonstrably valid. Mendel ?

. and more importantly they have to be careful of what they research and why. If for example, someone wanted to study the high prevalance of genetic defects, then their motivation needs to be taken into account as well.

True. Hard to tell people's motivations though. The swine are always lying...

. If the results won't actually *help* humanity, then why should they conduct research in the first place?

Have to take issue with this. The whole point of undertaking fundamental research is not having the answers. Whether it is good or bad for society is completely unknowable. Research should be undertaken for the sake of advancing knowledge.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Moose....as they defy logic!!

[Main]

I don't think any topic should be taboo for science, for the simple reason that over man's history, he has found plenty of reasons to carry out dispicable acts without any scientific grounding. But that doesn't mean that I think scientific progress should be made without safeguards. One of the things about taboo subjects though, is that outrage at the topic can be used to guide the research down a better route.

Take stem cell research, a topic that gets a lot of blood boiling largely because the chief source of raw material has been embryos. Whether these embryos have gotten to a point that they are even truely alive or not doesn't really enter into it because for the most part it's just seen as research that comes from killing babies. I can only wonder if the pioneers of the field even considered what the moral implications might have been. If there had not been this outrage, would there have been much bother in finding alternative means of sourcing stem cells (such an advancement was made this year) or would the bulk of research have simply been to continue to refine the existing methods?

[thestjohn]

I would like to think there is no area that science cannot probe, and I am commonly frustrated by limitations that are placed on subjects such as human cloning, for example. But I also recognise that good science interpreted inaccurately or applied unethically can be as harmful as bad science. I don't think there is an easy answer to your question Saracen, at least not one I can think of right now. I suppose it comes down to how much risk-management is necessary for the "greater good" of humanity. Do we want to sacrifice any potential gain from scientific inquiry into potentially unethical areas in exchange for a potentially safe and unchanging culture? My opinion is similar to Phage's above, in that I believe research should always be conducted, whether or not it might actually 'help' humanity.

I would also make the point that regardless of the science, political and social change happens anyway. Should we ignore the potential benefits of research in order to prevent extremists gaining ammunition for their arguments when it is entirely possible that, should they ever achieve power, they would enact unethical policies (such as racial discrimination) whether or not the science backs them? Our own government is content to ignore scientific studies when it feels it is politically necessary.