New forms of 'racism' arise in science research

The simple fact diverged doesn't tell us in what ways were they diverged. Bigotry can easily fill the remaining wholes in our knowledge (which are vast) and assume eg. that blacks are more prone to die young etc. Who cares if it needs tons of research into social conditions to exclude it as a factor, when you can just take some biological differences and ascribe stuff to them.

>The contents and tone of the article are awful and an affront to science and assume everything will result in Nazi eugenics programmes

Well, "objective science" is mostly a BS notion in an era of government and corporate grants, paid research, and tons of huge interests and prejudices. Lab results, for any stuff that's not totally trivial, don't speak themselves, they require an interpretative context. That can be either provided by relentlessly searching for the truth by the scientist or by quick copout and career/economic/governmental/social pressure.

Whatever is true of race, I would like to believe. Even if it's politically incorrect, or even if it's not, I would like to believe whatever is true.

But I don't know what to believe. There doesn't even seem to be a noticeable leaning in the evidence for one side or the other. Experts in the appropriate fields say 'There is no scientific basis for the concept of race.' Experts in the appropriate fields also say 'Clearly there are racial differences.'

Is it a semantic issue mostly? Are some people just afraid of the inconvenient truth? Or is the other side peddling an 'inconvenient truth' for racists-motivated reasons? I am not coming close to having a grasp on this issue.

I only want to believe that which is true.

The problem isn't the result of some study. In a small part it is the interpretation. The much bigger part is the value judgement.

There can't ever be a value judgement in science. If there is, it's not science.

Now, people do pass judgement across ethnical lines. It's natural because these boundaries are very visible. But it's not scientific ever.

The problem the author wants to address but doesn't understand is that people are finding new underpinnings for racist beliefs, and nobody calls them on their fallacy!

> She cited new research urging that children be identified based on their genetically predetermined educational abilities and then put in separate schools that could be used to foster different kinds of learning.

is, we already know that constructing social categories based on biological traits is bullshit, simply because the relevant criteria are not given by science. Science can only give a classification of some measure, but it can not reasonably define if the measure is relevant. For an extreme example, even if you get a "obviously relevant" distribution, you have to choose at which values you draw the line.

But lets assume for the sake of the argument, that there is initially no difference in the outcome of the education ( defining this is left as an exercise to the reader), one of the school types will be perceived as better. So it will get more applications, can afford harsher selection criteria and actually become better. At which point the better school will probably get more resources, and the cycle continues.

So calling "racism" on non-biased factual evidence is harsh. Assuming that non-biased factual evidence includes citations to the roughly 100 years of research how oppressive structures develop. (These 100 years of research are usually called feminism.) But we know that precisely these footnotes are the first to be dropped.