Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?

[marplots]

(much snipped to answer the question)
I note that there is a dishonest use of the word "race" by some here. It is conceded that this word is laden with negative social connotations and scientific ambiguity. Unfortunately, the OP used this word in raising the question. I have attempted to elevate the discussion by simply referring to population groups with features developed while in isolation. We know these differences still exist and are quite apparent. A visitor from 55 Cancri would quite readily comprehend the differences among an African bushman, a Swede and native of China. It is not relevant to any scientific discussion what word we use to label such groups.
How could studying the underlying genetic basis of any of these differences not be interesting scientifically?

It would be interesting. It would be as interesting as finding out the genetic basis for hair color (probably already done) or breast size. You could even decide to look at the genetic basis for some suite of characteristics - left handedness, shape of the ear and finger length. Throw skin pigment and epicanthic folds in the mix if you like.

It's just that you ought to do that part first before you decide to then use your suite of genes to look for links to ADHD, Alzheimer's or intelligence.

 

[Dinwar]

It would be interesting. It would be as interesting as finding out the genetic basis for hair color (probably already done) or breast size. You could even decide to look at the genetic basis for some suite of characteristics - left handedness, shape of the ear and finger length. Throw skin pigment and epicanthic folds in the mix if you like.

It's just that you ought to do that part first before you decide to then use your suite of genes to look for links to ADHD, Alzheimer's or intelligence.

What you're saying is, we can immediately look for a genetic basis for some traits but not others in different races. Please provide a criteria for differentiating between those which are acceptable and those which are not. You appear to be saying that we can examine cosmetic differences, but not cognative ones. However, both are phynotypic differences.

I see more than "mean intelligence" as a target for study -- although that might be useful. It is quite possible that some groups in isolation developed some special cognitive abilities to deal with a unique local environment.

Some of us contain Neanderthal DNA. It's rather an open question as to how this might impact cognition. The OP's ban would prevent that.

I note that there is a dishonest use of the word "race" by some here.

Are you referring to our little discussion about the definition? If so, that wasn't dishonest, it was a simple disagreement (the literature isn't consistent, so differences of opinion as to how the term should be applied can honestly occur). I've tried to be careful since then to discuss subpopulations and isolated groups, rather than races.

 

[marplots]

Dinwar, I didn't want to copy your reply, but I pretty much agree with you. As to "banning" - I'd go with the softer, "wouldn't fund it" instead. An outright ban seems pointless to me.

And I apologize for trying to sneak an analogy on you from your own field. (Note to self: that argumentative technique is a sure loser.)

I think the whole thing would be much clearer if we could invent a hypothetical study proposal and then challenge it to see if it could be modified into something fund-worthy or if the enterprise is too fraught with foggy terms and ideas.

 

[Dinwar]

As to "banning" - I'd go with the softer, "wouldn't fund it" instead. An outright ban seems pointless to me.

I wouldn't go that far, even. I'd say we need to examine each proposal. There ARE valid scientific reasons to believe that racial differences include aspects that we might be uncomfortable with acknowledging, and science is obliged to examine those.

And I apologize for trying to sneak an analogy on you from your own field.

No appology needed. I actually appreciate it, because it illustrated the difference between valid scientific criticism and puting fencing around questions science isn't allowed to ask. Science can't ask about genetic components to where organisms lie in a fossil bed--but it's because the data aren't there, not because we won't allow science to examine it. If someone could come up with a similar reason to not do studies of intelligence where individual subpopulations are examined, I'd be perfectly happy saying we shouldn't do them.

I think the whole thing would be much clearer if we could invent a hypothetical study proposal and then challenge it to see if it could be modified into something fund-worthy or if the enterprise is too fraught with foggy terms and ideas.

True enough.

How about this: We propose examining cognative function between sub-Saharan African, European, Middle Eastern, various main-land Asian, and North an South American populations. We divide the groups up into populations which include Neanderthal DNA and those which do not (the reason to include a lot of them is that I think there'd be a continuum), and see if there's any correlation in various types of cognative function, including IQ, memory retention, visualization, etc. This is a very broad view of such a study, but I think it's the type of thing you're asking. It would very much be something that racists could potentially use to support their insanity, but it's based on a valid biological difference that has the potential to impact how human brains function.

 

[marplots]

How about this: We propose examining cognative function between sub-Saharan African, European, Middle Eastern, various main-land Asian, and North an South American populations. We divide the groups up into populations which include Neanderthal DNA and those which do not (the reason to include a lot of them is that I think there'd be a continuum), and see if there's any correlation in various types of cognative function, including IQ, memory retention, visualization, etc. This is a very broad view of such a study, but I think it's the type of thing you're asking. It would very much be something that racists could potentially use to support their insanity, but it's based on a valid biological difference that has the potential to impact how human brains function.

My first question would be whether we can draw our sub-populations from the greater New York area and divide them into those same categories based on genetic identifiers. Supposing there is a wide variety of ethnicities in the area, does this sound reasonable?

In other words, using submitted DNA or existing DNA data banks, can we pull the samples we want without ever seeing any living humans?

 

[Jono]

The markers and grouping themselves of course serve no other function than to identify "race" so they would serve no function in any other type of genetic study.

Well, regardless of the choice of "word" for the groups, the observations of human variation cluster all on their own and they do (the core of our racial/ecotypical/ancestral-population-group lineage variation; variance of similarities and differences) matter sometimes outside of strictly mundane cases of categorisation. E.g with bone marrow donation:

Did you know that mixed-race people have especially difficult odds of finding a bone marrow donor in the event of leukemia or rare blood diseases? For mixed patients, their monoracial parents and relatives will not likely match them. Even among their siblings, the odds are only one in four of finding a donor. While multiethnic people are the largest growing minority group, they are also the smallest percentage in bone marrow registries. That’s why in 2009, a non-profit organization called Mixed Marrow was created to address that need. [http://hapamama.com/2011/04/29/why-multiracials-need-bone-marrow-donors/]

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.
[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html]

Guess what, no one banned it but I'm guessing the fact that genetics has almost no impact on human educational achievement

Erhm, excuse me but it sounds as if you're stating that genetics have next to no impact on human performance in physical or cognitive achievements. You aren't jesting are you? If not then onwards to Pinker, yet again:

Nowadays it is popular to say that races do not exist but are purely social constructions. Though that is certainly true of bureaucratic pigeonholes such as "colored," "Hispanic," "Asian/Pacific Islander," and the one-drop rule for being "black," it is an overstatement when it comes to human differences in general. The biological anthropologist Vincent Sarich points out that a race is just a very large and partly inbred family. Some racial distinctions thus may have a degree of biological reality, even though they are not exact boundaries between fixed categories. Humans, having recently evolved from a single founder population, are all related, but Europeans, having mostly bred with other Europeans for millennia, are on average more closely related to other Europeans than they are to Africans or Asians, and vice versa. Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies.
...

The Blank Slate, then, is not necessary to combat racism and sexism. Nor is it necessary to combat Social Darwinism, the belief that the rich and the poor deserve their status and so we must abandon any principle of economic justice in favor of extreme laissez-faire policies.
Because of a fear of Social Darwinism, the idea that class has anything to do with genes is treated by modern intellectuals like plutonium, even though it is hard to imagine how it could not be true in part. To adapt an example from the philosopher Robert Nozick, suppose a million people are willing to pay ten dollars to hear Pavarotti sing and are unwilling to pay ten dollars to hear me sing, in part because of genetic differences between us. Pavarotti will be ten million dollars richer and will live in an economic stratum that my genes keep me out of, even in a society that is socially fair. It is a brute fact that greater rewards will go to people with greater inborn talent if other people are willing to pay more for the fruits of those talents. The only way that cannot happen is if people are locked into arbitrary castes, if all economic transactions are controlled by the state, or if there is no such thing as inborn talent because we are blank slates."

 

[Earthborn]

What you're saying is, we can immediately look for a genetic basis for some traits but not others in different races. Please provide a criteria for differentiating between those which are acceptable and those which are not. You appear to be saying that we can examine cosmetic differences, but not cognative ones. However, both are phynotypic differences.

Both are phenotypic differences and they can be studied in pretty much the same way the genetic influences in phenotype are studied. There are two ways: either you take genetically identical organisms and have them develop (if at all possible from conception to adulthood) in different environments. The differences between them show how much influence the environment has on the phenotypic traits you were studying. Or you can take genetically dissimilar organisms and have them develop in identical environments; any differences you find are then likely caused by genetic influence.

Both of these are very hard -- not to mention unethical -- to do with humans, therefore conclusions are drawn either by analogy through animal studies, or by far less rigorous and objective social studies. These are hard enough to do with easily measurable traits (such as skin colour) but as soon as you throw nebulous concepts such as "intelligence" or "race" in the mix, all bets or off.

If you think you know a better way to study these things, let's hear it.

 

[Dinwar]

If you think you know a better way to study these things, let's hear it.

Why, hello sir! I must say, you appear to be made of straw.

I've never said "I know how to do these studies". I have argued that doing research with implications about human subpopulations should not be banned.

Also, I'd like to point out that while setting up the sorts of studies you describe is unethical, these sorts of things HAVE been done in the past. Twin studies come to mind--looking at identical twins that are raised in separate environments. As for looking at genetically different things growing up in the same environment, a melting pot like the USA gives us a pretty good imitation thereof. You've still got to distinguish between signal and noise, but I'm not convinced the problem is insurmountable.

In other words, using submitted DNA or existing DNA data banks, can we pull the samples we want without ever seeing any living humans?

For the genetic component, maybe. But not for testing cognative abilities. And I doubt you'll find as many subpopulations represented in gene databases as we'd need.

 

[Jono]

A few articles (and one paper) of possible interest, relating to the thread's title and concerns thereof:

*In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
*Let's celebrate human genetic diversity (excerpt from their article in Nature, posted on the linked blog)
*On the Concept of Biological Race and Its Applicability to Humans(paper)
*Should we study race-intelligence links?
*A Family Tree in Every Gene

 

[Earthborn]

I've never said "I know how to do these studies".

I never said you said that.

I have argued that doing research with implications about human subpopulations should not be banned.

I'd love to say that I agree, but I do think research into cognitive differences in human subpopulations better be good, and considering the current attempts that's a de facto ban.

Twin studies come to mind--looking at identical twins that are raised in separate environments.

True, but those are not carefully controlled environments. Therefore any similarities or differences found cannot be attributed to similarities or differences in the environment.

As for looking at genetically different things growing up in the same environment, a melting pot like the USA gives us a pretty good imitation thereof.

You don't understand what is meant by "identical environments". A melting pot like the USA is the absolute worst imitation thereof, because people with different genetic backgrounds live in different classes, different geographic areas and different subcultures. There is no way to make sure individuals receive the same environmental stimuli during their development.

You've still got to distinguish between signal and noise, but I'm not convinced the problem is insurmountable.

I'm not convinced the problem is surmountable. Even the genetics of skin colour and how it relates to "race" haven't been unravelled.

 

[Dinwar]

I never said you said that.

You said:

If you think you know a better way to study these things, let's hear it.

I don't play the "I never said that!" game. If your words clearly imply the concept in question, I consider it the equivalent of saying it. And your words do clearly imply that you expect me to provide a method of getting around the problems you raised or shut up.

True, but those are not carefully controlled environments.

So there are extra complications. That's life. Paleontologists, astronomers, biologists, and numerous other branches of science deal with this exact issue all the time. It's not as big a problem as you make it seem. Sure, it's something we need ot be aware of and to have methods of addressing, but it doesn't inherently make the study worthless or unscientific.

You don't understand what is meant by "identical environments".

Actually, I do. I don't believe you understand WHY identical environments are used. They're used to eliminate contributing factors, so that (in theory, if not always in practice) the entire signal comes from the genetic factors being tested for. Identical environments are not the only way around this issue, however. If you look at a wide range of environments you can tease out the environmental signal from the genetic signal. It's not easy, no--but it's also not an invalid concept. It's used all the time in other aspects of biology.

I'm not convinced the problem is surmountable.

Fair enough. I disagree with you, but that's just part of science. That said, do you think that I should be constrained to what you consider a proper study? Are you really comfortable with the idea that one person, or even a handful of people, get to decide not whether they will fund this research or not, but rather whether science should be allowed to ask the questions or not? Because if you're uncomfortable with the concept, our disagreement about minimizing extrenuous variables is irrelevant.

 

[Perpetual Student]

me
I note that there is a dishonest use of the word "race" by some here.

Are you referring to our little discussion about the definition? If so, that wasn't dishonest, it was a simple disagreement (the literature isn't consistent, so differences of opinion as to how the term should be applied can honestly occur). I've tried to be careful since then to discuss subpopulations and isolated groups, rather than races.

No, I was referring to those comments (by others) using the scientific ambiguity and loaded cultural context of the word "race" as an excuse to ignore the reality that we currently have distinct population groups that came about in prehistory when human groups were isolated from each other.
Studying the genetic differences of these groupings is a legitimate scientific pursuit and can yield useful knowledge.

 

[Dinwar]

Ah, I see. I just wanted to make sure we were both on the same page.

 

[Jono]

Without knowing too much of the authors mentioned (some stuff said about the authors might possibly be correct even, though who the heck is Entine?), this writer got me jolted back to the boasian/meadian/montague'ean fundamental "race-denial" I sensed in Horgan's entry mentioned in the OP. Excerpt:

And finally, let’s take a look at Linda Gottfredson.

“[Linda] Gottfredson [is] a University of Delaware researcher who said that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and have diminished capabilities in work and educational settings. The university rejected a $174,000 Pioneer grant toward her work, citing the fund’s racist history. Gottfredson sued, claiming she was a victim of political correctness, and the school eventually backed down to avoid a protracted legal battle.”[10]

Gottfredson is militant. In 1990 she got together with Phillipe Rushton and with Harry Weyher, the president of the Pioneer Fund, and wrote a letter to the British daily The Independent saying that “governments that want ‘effective’ public policies must listen to scientists who say blacks are genetically less intelligent than other races.”[10a]

The outspoken Linda Gottfredson once again is neither a psychologist nor a biologist, but a sociologist who teaches in the Department of Education at the University of Delaware. So we have a physicist, a philosopher, and a sociologist. What do they have in common with the IQ-testers? Other than that they attack blacks from their academic perches and collect their rewards from the Pioneer Fund, nothing.
...

But if you are still not convinced that there is a big-money organized effort against blacks, I will ask you simply to remember that the Civil Rights movement is only a half-century old, and that almost every psychology department in the country continues to produce and teach so-called IQ research, even though this ‘research’ has been thoroughly discredited many times over, and even though the only point of it is to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities.

This is a big deal. A lot of Establishment support goes to convincing people that

1) human races supposedly exist;

2) that the prejudices ordinary Americans have about so-called ‘blacks’—which are derived from the ideological needs of those who oppressed Africans with slavery—are supposedly accurate; and

3) that IQ tests—designed so that members of the lower classes (where blacks are overrepresented) will do poorly as a result of their environmental disadvantages—are valid measures of something called ‘intelligence,’ which is held to be innate and unalterable, but which is in fact a concept that the IQ test results themselves refute!

It is high time all this was exposed, and it is high time that ordinary black people became aware of what is being done to them, systematically, across the board, with subterfuge, and with the backing of big money.

A defense must be mounted.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[lomiller]

It is an obvious biological fact that human populations developed differing features millennia ago when they were in isolation from each other. We have such obvious features like hair and eye color, skin color, bone density, limb length, height, facial features and much more.

There is minimal genetic variation across all humans. Being able to group certain traits doesn’t change the fact that differences among even family members are much larger than the differences between “races” and the variance within any “race” is much greater than the variance between “races”. There are multiple populations within Africa that are much more distantly related from each other that the supposed “races” are. The traits that separate these supposed “races” are basically irrelevant and have no correlation to genes that control other things.

It is irrelevant whether we choose to label such population groups as races, sub-species or crockles.

It is not irrelevant. Sub-species has a very specific meaning, one that precludes it form meaning the same thing as race.

Race is less well defined but still has a meaning, and more importantly is tied to groupings laid out in an unscientific and arbitrary way. I guess, if you were willing to disavow all existing groupings of “race” you could reuse the term to mean something else entirely, but this is both confusing and unnecessary as all the terminology required to look at genetic differences and grouping already exists.

I’ve yet to see anyone argue for the existence of “race” that isn’t really trying to argue that the outdated, arbitrary and unscientific categories of race laid down centuries ago by people who had little understanding of biology and no understanding of genetics.

 

[lomiller]

I'll dispute it. Here's my scientifically valid argument.
1) When doing comparison research, you have to clearly define what you are comparing. Otherwise, you cannot know if variation in the definition is causing variation in the output.
2) There is no clearly defined standard that answers the referent "race."
3) This is different than a statistical norming since the inter-person variability swamps the categorical variability.
4) Basing a comparative study on race will not yield valid or useful results.



Yes, but only when those biological differences are used to define the groups, or when there is some biological marker. This is not the usual definition of race. Ancestry, or genome would be the proper term.



This is only partially true and misleading. What we mean to say is that people with this genetic variation suffer these consequences - no matter what racial identification we apply to them. To say that those most prone to carry the sickle cell allele are of African descent is different than saying black people are prone to sickle cell anemia. The emphasis is, and should be, on circumstance, not race: "Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly among people whose ancestors lived in tropical and sub-tropical sub-saharan regions where malaria is or was common."



Those are two different ideas. The first is that intelligence has a genetic component. The second is that race is a useful discriminator. You are only being racist if you believe, without justification, that "race" as a category clearly defines some sub-population with a relevant variation in genes. How exactly is that assumption justified if not on prejudice?



Here I disagree because I think basing studies on purely biological grounds is exactly the right formula. If there is a clear separation of races based on biological grounds, then race would be a useful way to proceed, in the same way that gender is a useful way to do a study.



Not necessarily. It's only when you form groups in an unscientific, non-biological way that problems arise. It would be the same if you decided to test IQ based on whether someone has an appealing voice, or whether you find them attractive. The grouping is too arbitrary to give your results meaning or usefulness.

What would you say to a study that tried to ferret out different evolutionary paths for fossils found facing south compared with those found on their backs and those with limbs missing? You'd rightly say the grouping isn't significant and is too arbitrary to matter. And you'd point out there might be too much overlap. You'd want a more rational basis for comparison. If I were to suggest such a study, you'd be right in challenging my assumption that orientation of fossils as discovered is a useful discriminator.

Great post

 

[lomiller]

Erhm, excuse me but it sounds as if you're stating that genetics have next to no impact on human performance in physical or cognitive achievements. You aren't jesting are you? If not then onwards to Pinker, yet again:

I’m citing a paper published in Science that says no individual allele contributes more than 0.02% of the variance in human educational achievement and that the variance that can be explained by detectable alleles amounts to ~2% of total variance.

Well, regardless of the choice of "word" for the groups, the observations of human variation cluster all on their own

Human genetic variance of most traits exist on a cline. You can use markers to draw arbitrary lines around some, but not all groups. You can also get different equally valid groupings by choosing different markers.
There are people out there “researching” what groupings of marker frequency exist that can draw a line around the “races” as they were defined in centuries past. Such groupings are basically worthless because all they really define is a set of markers with no fixed correlation to anything else. If you looked at a specific marker of interest to you, you’d get an entirely different grouping.

and they do (the core of our racial/ecotypical/ancestral-population-group lineage variation; variance of similarities and differences

Such groupings are almost always superficial. Of the 6 major mitochondrial groupings only parts of 1 (L3) are found outside Africa and you have to drill down quite a bit farther to get to mitochondrial groupings that were traditionally confined to North America, Europe or Asia. Why would such closely related groups be “separate races” while much more distantly related groups in Africa be part of one “race” simply because their skin colour is the same?

 

[Jono]

There is minimal genetic variation across all humans. Being able to group certain traits doesn’t change the fact that differences among even family members are much larger than the differences between “races” and the variance within any “race” is much greater than the variance between “races”. There are multiple populations within Africa that are much more distantly related from each other that the supposed “races” are. The traits that separate these supposed “races” are basically irrelevant and have no correlation to genes that control other things.

A whopping of three questionable statements. We have the minimal genetic variation one, Lewontin's Fallacy and a claim that phylogenic groups and attached alleles are being arbitrarily linked to the term "race".

Human groups are more genetically diverse than dogs are (if looking at heterozygosity then: humans 0.776, dogs 0.401). Also, differences between two seperate species of gorillas (G. berengi and G. Gorilla) are on the order of six times less than between african Bantu people and anglo-saxon british (drafted from here and here). I found Vincent Sarich's and Miele's book "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" gave a good survey of the history of anthropology in this context, related genetics, the political and academic controversies, and the definitions of race. As he once noted: "I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours… except those few races heavily modified by recent human selection; in particular, dogs."

* Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies:

3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

* Let's celebrate human genetic diversity: [Ebenstein, Lanny. Lahn, Bruce. [Nature, 8 October 2009]

The current moral position is a sort of 'biological egalitarianism'. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.
...

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certainty on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

Quite a different story from the one you're telling lomiller.

For a rough yet clear comparison of the striking similarities between a couple of, allegedly, inconsistent groupings, Carelton Coon's prime-race category were at one time Austroloid, Congoloid, Capoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid (of which there were sub-branches). Then, the zero-race system used by Brace (calling it geographic clusters instead) had eight of such 'sub-branches'; Australo-Melanesia (comparable to Coon's Austroloid), Africa (Congoloid, Capoid), Amerind-Jomon Pacific-Asia-Eskimo (Mongoloid), India-Europe (Caucasoid). Both involve a racial (sub-specie) taxon, where the only difference is (not the variables included) are the main structuring of groups.

Ironically (well, not really), Sforza's groupings are notably similar to Carleton Coon's racial groupings is interesting, especially as the former is supposed/argued to be somewhat of the 'dean' on the human genome and its viable "biogeographical" groups. I do not understand the utter denial by some here, still to this day (I mean it's not the 70's is it?). These are basic hereditary breeds within a species whose geographical, genetic as well as historical isolations can account for their genetic distances inbetween each other. In a much simpler, conventional way, we do the same with dog breeds et al. As Templeton wrote in 'Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective':

subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation

People react toward the term 'race', usually because of knee-jerk association with "bad" things and political musings thereof of course. Rationalizing this, the argument is that it isn't precise or defined enough to be valid, all while not realising/recognising that by the same token we could then throw out most of our classifications of the animal kingdom right out the window. Still, it isn't even necessary to use the r-word. Ashley Montague (allthough arguing on behalf of extreme enviromentalism as opposed to nature) termed it ethniticity, making it appliable even more six ways from sunday... all while the same darn observations are made empirically, showing us that nature will come out (as Feynman put it) they way it is no matter what we call it or what our expectations are. This is why, for example, Coon's own groupings of human beings (many times his added musings and elaborations were beyond reason) matches up quite well with Sforsa's volumnous work and studies on the human genome project.

 

[Jono]

Species

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms,[13] and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[14]

Who here will argue species are a social construct, biologically meaningless, non-predictive and only morphological/phenotypical (i.e the "only skin-deep" canard)??

 

[marplots]

Jono,
I didn't want to copy your whole post just to ask this:

What happens to the genetic groupings when an Australo-Melanesia (comparable to Coon's Austroloid) and an Amerind-Jomon Pacific-Asia-Eskimo (Mongoloid), have a child? Wouldn't you lose the benefits of the classification system in a single generation?

If that's so, what would be the relevance of basing research on these categories, since, arguably, the categories disappear and have disappeared for a large part of the human population? Aren't you then left trying to solve a new suite of problems about linking IQ to genes that may or may not appear in offspring?

If that is also so, why do the initial categorization in the first place instead of just trying to find genes that are linked to IQ? The latter is really what we want, isn't it?