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

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 10:35 PM UTC

dismalaf wrote: post #51

bigbadfeline wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

No one considers eugenics science. Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so. Next you'll say Scientology is science... Or astrology, or whatever. We have a pretty defined view of what science is today and any random person calling something science doesn't discredit actual science.

Post by terminalshort » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 10:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #61

dismalaf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one considers eugenics science. Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so. Next you'll say Scientology is science... Or astrology, or whatever. We have a pretty defined view of what science is today and any random person calling something science doesn't discredit actual science.

This is definitely not true. There are hereditarian scientists working to rehabilitate "eugenics"; this comes up a lot with the people working on embryo selection.

Post by tptacek » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 11:21 PM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #64

tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of problems with this perspective, but a very simple pragmatic one is that these data sets depend on volunteer consent, which will be withheld if people believe their contributed data will be used this way. At the end of the day, human consent is the paramount concern.

I was with you until the last sentence. But I went to the ABCD Study web site, and read the article they link about ethical use of data (Responsible use of population neuroscience data: Towards standards of accountability and integrity). I didn't get the impression that consent (for this study or future ones) is the reason they gatekeep the data.

Post by hubber » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 1:02 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #59

hubber wrote: post #13

[flagged]

This is a category error. Our definition of "race" is, to the extent it's genetically constructed at all (it's at least as much social as genetic), based on a small, superficial subset of the whole genome, mostly selected ages ago in response to climate. The idea that the rest of the genome would be strongly correlated to these phenotypical traits is in fact the extraordinary claim; not only is there not extraordinar…

Post by ajsishahhs » Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 2:20 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #68

hubber wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This the "cold winters theory", popularized by the academic fraudster Richard Lynn (of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" fame). It's a just-so story. You could tell the same story about the selective pressure for intelligence and problem-solving in hot climates; try to eat in the Kalahari sometime. Really, the more you think about that theory, the dumber it gets.