The Trustworthiness Deficit in Postgenomic Research on Human Intelligence

Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy

In this response, I focus on clarifying my arguments, highlighting consensus, and addressing competing views about the utility of polygenic scores (PGSs) for social science. I also discuss an assortment of expansions to my arguments and suggest alternative approaches. I conclude by reiterating the need for caution and appropriate scientific skepticism.

Testing the talented child: Direct-to-consumer genetic talent tests in China

One controversial area of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in China is "genetic talent testing" for children. In this study, I show that while experts criticize genetic talent testing as unscientific, the persistence of genetic talent testing is not merely a product of parents' scientific illiteracy. Instead, genetic talent testing reflects parents' pragmatic use of technology in response to the parenting pressures in contemporary China. Parents see the results of genetic talent testing as offering an advantage for their children when combined with the intensive parenting strategy of precision education. Drawing on the sociology of testing, I argue how genetic talent testing in China is a product of broader concerns about population quality and can potentially reshape how parents imagine quality children through the theory of multiple intelligences. My study of this "off label" use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing also suggests that scientists need to broaden their imagination of potential misuses of their technologies.

Should Cognitive Differences Research Be Forbidden?

Some authors have proposed that research on cognitive differences, including differences between ethnic and racial groups, needs to be prevented because it produces true knowledge that is dangerous and socially undesirable. From a consequentialist perspective, this contribution investigates the usually unstated assumptions about harms and benefits behind these proposals. The conclusion is that intelligence differences provide powerful explanations of many important real-world phenomena, and that denying their causal role requires the promotion of alternative false beliefs. Acting on these false beliefs almost invariably prevents the effective management of societal problems while creating new ones. The proper questions to ask are not about the nature of the research and the results it is expected to produce, but about whether prevailing value systems can turn truthful knowledge about cognitive differences into benign outcomes, whatever the truth may be. These value systems are the proper focus of action. Therefore, the proposal to suppress knowledge about cognitive ability differences must be based on the argument that people in modern societies will apply such knowledge in malicious rather than beneficial ways, either because of universal limitations of human nature or because of specific features of modern societies.