Sir

It is difficult to see the Commentary by Stephen Ceci and Wendy M. Williams ('Should scientists study race and IQ?' Nature 457, 788–789; 2009) as anything other than a whitewash. Decisions about what kinds of scholarly research questions and methods are considered worthy of attention and funding are fundamental to modern science.

Stupid science and evil science — both of which exist — should not be permitted to coexist casually alongside the normative intellectual activities we admire. It is the role of scientists, as gatekeepers, to distinguish among them, to identify them for non-specialist audiences and to repudiate the intellectually impoverished elements. Any science that fails to do this, that takes all work to be of equal stature, necessarily calls into question its own standing as a scholarly enterprise.

The study of an organic basis of intelligence is not itself threatening. But it does not explain economic stratification, poverty and illiteracy rates any better than the history of slavery and colonialism does. Anyone who thinks that it can is obliged to confront and acknowledge the political nature of the science they are engaged in, and must be prepared to defend it on that basis.

Racism is a political act, and scientific racism is simply the recruitment of the trappings of science in pursuit of its ignoble goals. If scientific racism has a place in science, it debases the entire enterprise.

See also: The belief that genes cannot be changed is now outdated Identifying adaptive differences could provide insight The arrogance of trying to sum up abilities in a number Would you wish the research undone? Measured intelligence is a product of social processes Don't fan the flames of a dead debate A useful way to glean social information