Cornell University Claims Whites Are Genetically Weaker Than Blacks
78
The Study
I thoroughly expected the blogosphere to pick up on this story, but I guess they've been too focussed on Obama's fabrications, and Chelsea Clinton. Shockingly enough, the story isn't even a most read on Fox News' website. Why? I don't know, but I am remedying the situation now.
Cornell University has released a controversial study that will accomplish literally nothing more than sowing more discontent among the races, and serve as yet another recruiting tool for white supremacist groups. So let's all pat Cornell on the back, and bask in the racially charged anti-glory that is their latest contribution to useless science.
White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.
I know I'm supposed to conduct myself as an adult, but ... WTF!
This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?
Apparently the goal of these ongoing studies is to find out where the ancestors of global populations came from, and when they migrated to that area. There have also been other larger studies involving other races. I am again left wondering why Cornell's latest endeavor has such a small sample group when the other studies involved hundreds of subjects.
I doubt Cornell's goal was to inflame anyone, but the content of the study is being used to claim racism. If you need proof ... do a search of this topic and read the comments on the few blogs and forums that have addressed it. Some of the findings are pretty inflammatory towards whites, and other findings are not anything new ... thereby rendering this study utterly useless. I'm pretty sure Nicholas Wade covered a lot of the migratory issues in his book "Before the Dawn".
Here's the part where the study outlines the genetic inferiority of European cultures (i.e. whites):
But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.
The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.
So what exactly are these "bad" mutations? What would be a genetic imperfection in a perfectly healthy person with no ailments? Also, how do we know what perfect genetics are in order to map imperfections? What if those imperfections are actually evolution? If man indeed migrated to Europe from Africa they would have had to mutate in order to adapt. In other words ... they evolved in order to better survive. Since when is evolving a genetic imperfection?
Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code. I would assume that if two different races mated 200 years ago, it would affect the current subject's genetic makeup. Perhaps in the form of one of these "imperfections."
With all the discrepancies aside ... we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful, and most likely would have led to someone getting fired.
Perhaps you are thinking that I'm just race baiting here, but I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism. Do you remember the story of James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist for his part in the unravelling of DNA, and who once ran one of America's leading scientific research institutions, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was criticized roundly for saying that Africans were not as smart as westerners.
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times 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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
For those of you who remember the story you will recall the constant mini-quotes about what Dr. Watson said, and calls of racism he endured. Dr. Watson had several speaking engagements canceled, he was criticized by his own institutions, suspended from his job, and ultimately was forced to resign his post as a result of the media firestorm about his findings on genetic studies. Keep in mind that this guy is probably the world's foremost expert on DNA.
Unfortunately the MSM didn't publish Dr. Watson's other statements that are pretty pertinent to the issue. He was quoted as saying that he had "hope" that "everyone is equal." Watson also stated that "there are many people of color who are very talented", but that never made it onto the news. The most important statement that Dr. Watson made in his writings is integral to what we are talking about with Cornell University.
"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
In other words ... people who evolved in different geographical areas from one another did not evolve in an equal intellectual capacity.
Sound familiar?
Cornell University's study says the exact same thing as Dr. Watson's work suggested. There are only two differences between the two findings. One is that one of the studies illustrated the difference in physical genetics throughout man's evolution. While the other illustrates the intellectual evolution of man. The second difference is that the study showing blacks as superior has not been met with negative publicity in the mainstream. The one that showed whites as superior did.
Both studies outlined the theory that once man left Africa, and began its great migration to other parts of the world, humans became isolated from one another geographically. Thus, as a result of that isolation, humans evolved quite differently from one another ... both physically and mentally. Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites. Now that's fair and balanced scientific research. Why the same study with similar findings cost one man his job and reputation, but the other has been met with no negativity just illustrates what an ignorant, hypocritical, PC society we live in.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
It strikes me that it's innacurate to attribute the story to Cornell University. I haven't seen the story or the Nature article but I imagine that the study was conducted by a professor or professors or researchers at Cornell, not by the university. As at most universities, Cornell does not control the research done by its faculty. [I agree that it sounds like a questionable piece of research. However, the professors or researchers or whoever funded the research deserves to be criticized, not the university. I suppose the university is indirectly responsible because it hired the researchers or professors. Nevertheless, it would be more accurate in my opinion to name the researchers and their department at the university and where the funding came from. I'm sure the study will get a thorough going over in the peer review process following the publication of the article in "Nature" which is a premier scientific journal. And if the study was totally crappy I doubt that it would have been published by "Nature."]
By the way James Watson has never done ANY research on the relative intelligence of Africans and Europeans. He just made a dumb off-the-cuff remark which cost him his job as head of the Coldstream Laboratory.
Throughout your post you reference pieces of a mainstream press article (one of the poorer ones in terms of covering the whole journal article) instead of the actual paper published in Nature. If you had bothered to check that before replying to the inadequacies of the reporting on the article you'd find that most of your allegations about the study are untrue:
1. The "imperfections" you mention are from programs that demonstrate which changes to genetic code actually change the protein structure of the genes they encode. This process was done in an unbiased way (i.e. without regard to whether the gene they were looking for occurred in an African or European descendant) and was referenced against an outgroup (chimp). There is a risk of including some positively selected mutations in the deleterious group, but from the numerous studies you mention as already addressing this topic, we know that the proportion of the mutations that are positively selected is quite low (and from further simulations conducted by a number of groups).
2. Cornell did take into account interracial mixing. That's one of the reasons for the different sample sizes. They threw out a few African Americans that showed evidence of interracial ancestry. All the subjects they used showed no evidence of it.
3. There's an incredible difference between what these authors asserted and what James Watson said. These authors do not claim there's any connection with intelligence or physical prowess or any other "real" trait, only that there's a greater proportional of genetically deleterious mutations. What that actually means is left for further research. But the BIGGER DIFFERENCE is that James Watson is not one of the world's foremost experts on genomics or even functional genetics and he didn't have a SINGLE SUBJECT (never mind 35) on which his statements were based. His statements were in fact inflammatory (e.g. right after your quote about us all wishing we're equal he said "but anyone who has had to manage a black knows this is not true"). While there are certainly some reverse racists, most scientists would entertain a well-conducted study that showed Europeans had genetic differences predisposing them to certain traits. In fact, if you look at the implications of this research (as the authors did in interviews), you can imagine it will come out that Native Americans have an even higher proportion of deleterious mutations than European Americans due to their more recent population bottleneck. How PC is that?
4. The sample size was normal for a study such as this, but the main advantage was that it looked at an enormous number of genes found throughout the genome. So the sample size of interest was actually around 10,000 for most comparisons, since the gene was the level of sampling. As you can see from the reported p-values, these sample sizes were more than enough to get very significant results (p values generally around 1x10^-10). And the simulations and tests took into account the different sample sizes. Also, out of curiousity, why would you predit the proportion of fixed differences between populations that are slightly deletrious to be greatly affected by the difference in sample size between 15 and 20?
5. The authors of this study are from a diverse set of ethnic groups (South American, European-American, European, Asian). Some are not even Americans. Why would you expect them to, instead of caring about the quality of their own research, make up some story about inferior European Americans (which isn't even their argument...at least in the sense of inferiority you and most bloggers use)? Why would the reviewers and editors at Nature accept it? Why would Cornell and the federal granting agencies that supported the research want to support research that was so blatantly wrong a non-scientist blogger could see how bad it was? Do you really think everyone at those places was colluding to make this study (so they could feel good about being PC? Or why?) --- or is it more likely (and in fact true) that FoxNews and others in the popular press didn't completely understand what the article said and/or ran out of space to include things such as their controls and precise methodology?
Next time you want to rant about science, read the actual scientific article and see whether the faults are in it or just in the popular press account of it.
It's true that sometimes scientists are prevented from presenting data that doesn't fit in with pre-conceived notions of what is PC or right. That's wrong. As is neglecting to publish important null results. But the solution isn't to incorrectly denigrate those that publish well-researched results. And James Watson's comment was not well-researched and he is not an expert in the issues he was quoted on. If you want to be the director of an important scientific institute you do need to make sure your inflammatory comments are well-researched or you're liable to get fired.
I've read the article in Nature, and addressed many of the points you are trying to criticise me for. I never alleged that Cornell was in any way being racist. In fact I said the opposite. My complaint is the MSM coverage of the study ... not the study itself. With the exception of the inexcusable sample of only 35 people of which can not be defended. As a result of that MSM media coverage we are seeing white supremacists use it as a recruiting tool. I also can't say enough that this study was completely useless as valuable research.
As for the interracial mating issue ... Cornell did not do nearly enough to ensure that the remaining test subjects' ancestors hadn't had an interracial affair. Their explanation of why there was a different sample size is unacceptable. If test subjects are disqualified, you replace them. You NEVER conduct a study of this nature with different sample populations. To do so is borders on the unethical.
Frankly I'm shocked that a couple of you are saying that Dr. Watson was not an expert in this type of research. Do you even know anything about this guy at all? Not only did he write a book about this topic, but he knows more about DNA and genetics than everyone at Cornell combined. His comments were based on geographical isolation .. just as Cornell's. However, the studies he quoted, as well as his own research, were not politically correct. The point is that he was very qualified to make his statements, and he had scientific research to back up his words. The fact that the quotes "attributed" to him were inflammatory does not in any way delegitimize the research he used to formulate his conclusion.
I simply can't make it any clearer, than I did in the article itself, that I am only critical of Cornell for the ridiculously small sample size. The MSM's coverage of the study is the problem. I was clear about that in the article, and I was clear about that in the comments ... please don't missinterpret anymore.
Watson's DNA research provided absolutely no scientific basis for his comment about Africa. His remark was far afield from his expertise. He was widely criticized and forced to retract his outragious statement and apologize. Nevertheless, he lost his job over the remark. If you are truly interested in the subject you may want to read the material linked here: http://hubpages.com/hub/All-Brains-Are-the-Same-Co
http://hubpages.com/hub/All-Brains-Are-the-Same-Co
I recall reading somewhere that the lab that Watson headed was in the forefront of the now discredited eugenics movement early in its history.
(BTW, yes I do know something about James Watson. I read his book when it was published and I've actually met him briefly on a couple of occasions. However, I am not a scientist, and we didn't discuss science.)
I recall a professor I had many years ago at Cornell, Henry Alonzo Myers, saying that equality does not mean that people are identical but rather that they are equal in "ultimate value," with each person counting for one. One of the reasons mentioned for that conclusion was the difficulty or impossibility of reaching agreement on which human characteristics are the most important and which would make some people more equal. Is it intelligence, kindness, honesty, athletic prowess, artistic ability, musical genius, generosity, mathematical ability, industriousness or just what would make one person worth more than another? Very hard to say.
These statements seem to indicate you were targeting the research, not the MSM coverage of it:
"Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code."
"we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful..."
You even started the main part of your diatribe with:
"This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?"
As for your reading the original article, fine, but I don't understand then why you misunderstood it so thoroughly then. You did not understand the correct way to interpret the statistics and simulations, you misuse the term "superior" saying "Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites" when the article never talked about specific aspects of the phenotype or any sore of physical/mental distinction. Unless you believe that mental characteristics aren't encoded by genes?
You also clearly do not understand the norms of science or the correct application of statistics. In fact frequently studies "of this type" are done with different sample sizes for different populations and that is the accepted norm and completely covered by their statistics. Population genetic and genomic studies are also quite frequently done with these "small" numbers of individuals. Cornell and its personnel did not embarass themselves with this article, though you did with your post. Do you really think you know how to run such a study better than a professor of biostatistics and computational biology as well as several other PhDs with vast research experience? And can you tell me why you didn't include data on the number of genes they looked at in their study since that is the more important measure in terms of statistical robustness. Did you look at their p-values (which were obtained using corrected and accepted statistical techniques)? Most researchers in cog psych or similar with 100X that many subjects would never dream of having close to that level of significance.
Your comments seem to indicate that because white supremicist groups might use this study you think the research shouldn't be done or reported? That seems like a race-based bias in reporting scientific results. The kind of bias you so adamently believe is wrong, according to your statements on the backlash to Watson's comments.
I don't understand why you put the word attributed in quotes about Watson's comments: he made them. And I do think you have a responsibility as a scientist to present your data in a fair, accurate, and non-confrontational way (doing otherwise will just inflame passions and not advance science or society), so the way you say things is important. Especially when people will just see his Nobel Prize and other relatively unrelated accomplishments and think he is an expert on the subject. But he is most definitely not an expert on that particular subject (he admits to as much himself). Unraveling the structure of DNA over 50 years ago does not make you more intelligent at biostatistics, bioinformatics, computational biology, genomics and genetics than everyone else (or entire universities as you just claimed). He knows a good bit about molecular genetics, though is not nearly the currently most knowledgable guy about that even (he's been in academia for 60 years after all - most of the biggest breakthroughs are done by 20-40 year olds).
I do agree that some research is not pursued because of political considerations. And it's a shame when people like E.O. Wilson are shot down when presenting perfectly good theories (as was done in the mid-1970s). Or, e.g. when Thornhill & Palmer suggested rape is an adaptation and were shot down not only by people with competing data and evidence, but also by people with purely political agendas. Or even when former Harvard President Larry Summers suggested that girls may be inherintly less frequently in the very highest (and very lowest) percentiles in math; even though he was not an expert on the subject, he quoted good research and made his comments in a fair and articulate manner. I'm the first to think that it's unfair and wrong when such people are ostracized for these comments. That simply wasn't the case with Watson. And yes, I'm very familiar with him. But I'm also familiar with many, many other geneticists, including a good number of people at Cold Springs where he got in trouble for his comments.
You claim that "I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism." Interesting claim, backed up by 1 specific example. As I've said before, I think better examples exist, but that's beside the point. How do you explain the five studies the authors of this paper cite which "highlighted examples of European-specific positive selection"? (Setting aside the non-congruence between positive selection and genetic superiority since you conflate those in your post). For a sampling, look at Voight et al A map of recent positive selection in the human genome or Mekel-Bbrow et al Ongoing adaptive evolution of ASPM, a brain size determinant in Homo sapiens. These people did good science that showed positive selection in Europeans, published in presitgious journals, and were not widely decried as racists. At least in the scientific establishment, you can most definitely get away with those statements when they're well supported by research. Heck, even Summers is still employeed by Harvard as a tenured prof. Not exactly a bad gig.
I would be interested in seeing you make a full discussion of why " You NEVER conduct a study of this nature with different sample populations. To do so is [sic] borders on the unethical."
By the way, I myself added the interpretation that throwing away 4 African Americans was part of the reason why sample sizes differed. If you look at the article, you see that the difference was 20-15, so 4 AA's thrown out couldn't totally account for that. Furthermore, the authors never suggested it did. So it confuses me why you would say "Their explanation of why there was a different sample size is unacceptable. If test subjects are disqualified, you replace them." if you really read the article. Just so you know, the authors are quoted in the press as saying they have since looked at a number of other data sets with fairly high sample size and found similar patterns.
I wouldnt trust these results anyway. Its all a publicity stunt. These researchers stink.
I haven't read the original research. But based on what you're agreeing on, Ryan owned this comment thread as far as I'm concerned. He gave voice to a few nascent thoughts bouncing around my head and then some.
He should make a separate hub with those essays ;D
It only figures that people (whites) would either question the source, deny it altogether, or act as though it doesn't matter. The fact is this might explain why whites are more prone to genetic diseases, while blacks are more prone to lifestyle diseases. While white media and scientists focus on Sickle Cell, why not focus on white genetic diseases. CF, Huntingtons,Hotchkins, MS,MD,ALS, just to name a few. Instead of crying reverse racism, why don't whites ever want to face the fact that they are not perfect. What's the genetic link to that?
Afrocentric lies like these have been deployed to boost the self esteem of poor blacks. Trouble is, it's the poor, and ultimately dumb, blacks who buy into these lies. Everyone else knows these are blatant lies developed through false research. DNA has proven time an time again, that the first homo.sapien.sapiens were NOT sub saharan african. Period. Deploying the "out of africa" THEORY only serves to add the proverbial turd to the punch bowl from which the intelligent are drinking from.
Andrew says:
2 years ago
This type of "reverse racism" is just part of the backlash for hundreds of years of racism inflicted by whites. Think of it like a pendulum swinging back and forth.