Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#41

Post by terminalshort »

rustyhancock wrote: post #39
rahimnathwani wrote: post #9

It seems weird for the government to collect data useful for research, but then to gate access based on the viewpoints of potential users. This restriction doesn't support the search for truth. Whatever people think of Lasker (Cremieux) and his views, isn't data being available to all interested parties the best way to find the truth? The article mentions this towards the very end: Adam Candeub, the top lawyer at the…

Scientists, are not quite like explorers, just venturing off in direction and see what they find. They have interests, that align with funding, which aligns with actionable data. And they follow them. So who would even do such research? The best you could find is some meaningless difference in mean scores that is likely swamped by environmental factors. And the fact that "race" is far fuzzier than our intuition leads…

> So it's hard to fund research with no purpose, that scientists aren't particularly interested in conducting.

But that's not what happened. They didn't just decline to fund such research. The NIH banned it on their data set even if you had your own funding. You don't explicitly ban things that people are not interested in doing. e.g. the NIH doesn't ban using the data set to perform research on astrology. If I want to do research on the difference between Libras and Scorpios and I come up with the money, the policy is "OK, you do you."

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#42

Post by rustyhancock »

terminalshort wrote: post #41
rustyhancock wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists, are not quite like explorers, just venturing off in direction and see what they find. They have interests, that align with funding, which aligns with actionable data. And they follow them. So who would even do such research? The best you could find is some meaningless difference in mean scores that is likely swamped by environmental factors. And the fact that "race" is far fuzzier than our intuition leads…

> So it's hard to fund research with no purpose, that scientists aren't particularly interested in conducting. But that's not what happened. They didn't just decline to fund such research. The NIH banned it on their data set even if you had your own funding. You don't explicitly ban things that people are not interested in doing. e.g. the NIH doesn't ban using the data set to perform research on astrology. If I want…

I read the NIH policy and it seems quite reasonable to me.

The rule usually applied to datasets with broad consent is the surprise principle. Even if you have consent if the person is subsequently surprised by how it was used it's not informed consent.

To put it simply, how do we get samples from marginalised groups if we plan to allow to use that data for them to be marginalised?

If the NIH didn't actively oppose it how can they expect to get more participants ?

But the article is also about groups engaging in academic dishonesty to bypass NIH policy. It really makes me question their motives and that they aren't simply scientists seeking truth.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#43

Post by bigbadfeline »

dismalaf wrote: post #32

> Jordan Lasker, who often writes about race and intelligence under the name Crémieux It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest. Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.

> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence.

Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that material himself. No, he didn't invent his theory, he simply followed accepted science.

> Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.

There isn't much that resembles science in social academia, data isn't science and the prediction of the so-called "social" sciences have been disastrously wrong all along.

Data isn't evidence ether - you have to have a theory within a science with a sound methodological foundation before you can treat data as evidence. We don't have that now and we've never had it, the few meager attempts were politicized and bastardized in their infancy.

> It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest.

Center-left? Like all Democrats in Congress who joined the fifty-odd Republicans to vote for letting the government remotely mess with your car while you drive?

At the time of a real shooting war in the streets in Minneapolis they seized the opportunity to put some more shackles around public's ankles.

There isn't left, right or center in US party politics - only Orwellian-left theater vs Orwellian-right theater in service of forces who view the public as sheep to be sheared.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#44

Post by terminalshort »

rustyhancock wrote: post #42
terminalshort wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it's hard to fund research with no purpose, that scientists aren't particularly interested in conducting. But that's not what happened. They didn't just decline to fund such research. The NIH banned it on their data set even if you had your own funding. You don't explicitly ban things that people are not interested in doing. e.g. the NIH doesn't ban using the data set to perform research on astrology. If I want…

I read the NIH policy and it seems quite reasonable to me. The rule usually applied to datasets with broad consent is the surprise principle. Even if you have consent if the person is subsequently surprised by how it was used it's not informed consent. To put it simply, how do we get samples from marginalised groups if we plan to allow to use that data for them to be marginalised? If the NIH didn't actively oppose it…

I was responding to the statement from the article that it had explicitly banned anything to do with race, ancestry, or ethnicity. I have not read the full policy.

> To put it simply, how do we get samples from marginalised groups if we plan to allow to use that data for them to be marginalised?

You said in your previous comment above that these categories aren't useful anyway, which brings up some questions:

1. If that is the NIH's opinion, then why did they label the data with those categories?

2. If these categories are actually not useful, then why should I care if the dataset isn't balanced between members of those categories?

> But the article is also about groups engaging in academic dishonesty to bypass NIH policy. It really makes me question their motives and that they aren't simply scientists seeking truth.

To the contrary, I consider any such restriction on the topic of research to be fundamentally unscientific and I mistrust any scientist who feels an ethical obligation to comply with such political censorship.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#45

Post by terminalshort »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #43
dismalaf wrote: post #32

> Jordan Lasker, who often writes about race and intelligence under the name Crémieux It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest. Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.

> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that mate…

How, exactly, was Hitler following the science? Can you point to the specific scientific research that is to blame?

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#46

Post by bigbadfeline »

terminalshort wrote: post #45
bigbadfeline wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that mate…

How, exactly, was Hitler following the science? Can you point to the specific scientific research that is to blame?

It's in my prior comment: EUGENICS. Research it, it's all out there.

Eugenics was flourishing during Hitler's time, he loved it, it was the foundation and the excuse for his believes.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#47

Post by terminalshort »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #46
terminalshort wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly, was Hitler following the science? Can you point to the specific scientific research that is to blame?

It's in my prior comment: EUGENICS . Research it, it's all out there. Eugenics was flourishing during Hitler's time, he loved it, it was the foundation and the excuse for his believes.

Yes, I know you mean eugenics. But that fundamentally isn't science. It's government policy. You are blaming this on science, so please point me to the science that you blame this on.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#48

Post by rustyhancock »

terminalshort wrote: post #44
rustyhancock wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the NIH policy and it seems quite reasonable to me. The rule usually applied to datasets with broad consent is the surprise principle. Even if you have consent if the person is subsequently surprised by how it was used it's not informed consent. To put it simply, how do we get samples from marginalised groups if we plan to allow to use that data for them to be marginalised? If the NIH didn't actively oppose it…

I was responding to the statement from the article that it had explicitly banned anything to do with race, ancestry, or ethnicity. I have not read the full policy. > To put it simply, how do we get samples from marginalised groups if we plan to allow to use that data for them to be marginalised? You said in your previous comment above that these categories aren't useful anyway, which brings up some questions: 1. If t…

It's not restricted. NIH won't allow you to use the datasets they control for it. It is practically and pragmatically reasonable for them to do that. It's also ethically sound to not let the data subjects data be used for something they wouldn't want as the data controller.

If a scientist wants to do the research then they can pursue it and find a journal to publish it in. The reputable journals are unlikely to find it of interest unless it was a huge effect size. But we know any effect size must be tiny hence the need for a huge dataset.

They'd have to take samples and basically tell the person the intension was to check if some races were genetically inferior let's see how well they do with recruitment. I wouldn't give a sample.

Or just do a GWAS study and then develop metrics for estimating risk for individuals which can make use of ethnicity.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#49

Post by bigbadfeline »

terminalshort wrote: post #47
bigbadfeline wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in my prior comment: EUGENICS . Research it, it's all out there. Eugenics was flourishing during Hitler's time, he loved it, it was the foundation and the excuse for his believes.

Yes, I know you mean eugenics. But that fundamentally isn't science. It's government policy. You are blaming this on science, so please point me to the science that you blame this on.

Eugenics is the name of a scientific theory, part of "scientific racism", first formulated by Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Darwin. See 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", and 1869 book "Hereditary Genius".

Make sure you research on the science and history of eugenics instead of seeking support for your prejudice about it. Of course, it's a shameful example of accepted but disastrous "science", which social scientists, media and politicians don't like to talk about. They always have many theories, to provide room for plausible deniability, but eugenics was accepted no less than any other social theory at the time.

That theory was significantly expanded later and used by politicians in the US to justify forced sterilization of Irish and black women (not sure about others - DO research"),

It was also used and adapted by Hitler to justify his racial believes and policies.

Re: Genetic data from over 20k U.S. children misused for 'race science'

#50

Post by [deleted] »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #43
dismalaf wrote: post #32

> Jordan Lasker, who often writes about race and intelligence under the name Crémieux It's funny because this guy is center-left, he just happens to actually be intellectually honest. Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Trying to hide data and gaslight the public isn't science.

> Anyhow, either we do science or we just admit that we don't like the social implications of the evidence. Right, right... Rehabilitation of eugenics in 3, 2, 1... Nothing new here, Hitler did follow the "social implications of the evidence"... after all, a whole bunch of esteemed scientists and Nobel laureates hailed eugenics as the best thing after sliced white bread, Hitler did quite a bit of slicing of that mate…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN