Political Correctness Makes Race and Genetics Taboo in the West, which is why China is Winning

Most scientists will tell you that race has no biological basis—it is, in academic-speak, a “social construct.” But a new book by distinguished journalist Nicholas Wade challenges that assumption, concluding that race is real and human social behaviour is subject to natural selection just like everything else.

Of course we are all different. We should however be able to discuss differences.

Race has become such a hot topic that even Science can't touch the subject.

Wade doesn’t shy away from the disquieting implications of his theories: our genes, he says, could explain why some countries are wealthy while others languish in penury. In fact, the more we discover about ourselves from genomics, the more it becomes apparent that science and ideology are on a collision course. Why? Because it’s totally unacceptable to say in public these days that different races might have different behavioural characteristics, and that those characteristics might be genetically determined… even though that’s the way the science seems to be pointing.

People say we are all one race. True, with some beautiful differences.

It’s one thing to say that tribal cultures have smaller trust circles; quite another to say that science can explain why black people smoke menthol cigarettes, or why Asians are good at maths. (Or, for that matter, why people with ginger hair are less sexually attractive.)

Hey, I love Redheads.

For over a decade, it has been Chinese academics, unencumbered by political correctness, who have embarked upon the race-based research enabled by genomics. The Chinese particularly enjoy IQ-versus-race league tables, because they invariably come out on top. That sort of research makes Westerners squeamish, to put it mildly—which is why today, most research into the genomics of race is still carried out at the Beijing Genomics Institute. By and large, the subject is un-fundable in the West.

Science should be able to do research. This PC stuff does not belong in the Research Lab.

When BiDil was given the nod in 2005, the FDA’s Robert Temple stated plainly: “The information presented to the FDA clearly showed that blacks suffering from heart failure will now have an additional safe and effective option for treating their condition.” But the pills remain controversial, because they undermine the idea of race as a purely social construct. One female doctor, appalled by the idea of race-based medicine, said in 2005 that she wished BiDil had never been approved, even though she knew it would save lives.

"It could save lives" but you don't like it because it's not Politically Correct ?

Pontin almost certainly didn’t mean for “career-ending trouble” to sound as sinister or threatening as it does. But his choice of words is instructive: even though the jury is still out on whether race can be said to have any meaningful biological basis, only the social construct side of the argument is considered acceptable in public.

So any research on Race is potentially Career Ending ?

We are is worse trouble than I thought.

In other words, although it shouldn’t take courage to write a book that outlines what genetic discoveries might one day be able to tell us about ourselves, in today’s heavily politicised scientific atmosphere, it most certainly does. Which is reason enough, I think, to applaud Nicholas Wade.

Well, common sense would tell me that since there are so many different types of people.

That all medicine will not work the same way on all of us. But, to ignore this fact in Research.

That just dumb and not realistic. We are not carbon copies of each other.

In my opinion...That is what makes us all so beautiful and unique.


BreitBart.com

So the Chinese have some studies that indicate their superiority? No big surprise there. LoL! But it's a helluva spin to put on it that our reluctance to buy into that crap is keeping us down.

I just don't understand how it's a helluva spin as you said. If a study shows that genetics may play a role in behavior depending on race how is it a spin to say that ignoring what may turn out to be a significant factor could be a hindrance? Seems like ignorance. Please elaborate though.


*Edit* of course only relevant if a study has validity.

originally posted by: Antipathy17

originally posted by: kosmicjack
So the Chinese have some studies that indicate their superiority? No big surprise there. LoL! But it's a helluva spin to put on it that our reluctance to buy into that crap is keeping us down.

worded improperly. sec

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Most scientists will tell you that race has no biological basis—it is, in academic-speak, a “social construct.” But a new book by distinguished journalist Nicholas Wade challenges that assumption, concluding that race is real and human social behaviour is subject to natural selection just like everything else.

Scientific American concluded, "What makes Wade’s book so troublesome is that he offers no scientific evidence to support his racial hypothesis. None." Wiki

a reply to: whyamIhere

There are a finite number of genes and ways genes are expressed. There are very large segments of human genetic code that are effectively "turned off". Sure there are genetic markers tracing their way through the human genome but tying that to behavior is inductive reasoning only. No basis in science.

There are not enough degrees of freedom in genetic encoding to explain the complexities of free will and cultural memes.

Besides, if you believe that there is not political constraint on free speech in china, you should do more research. That assertion is patently absurd.

Rubbish .. over 40+ years putting people back together all over the world .. one thing can say for sure is when operating on them theyre all the same ..

Meh .. will leave it to the eggheads and pc crowd to argue over .. .

Although there are plenty of research firms studying different ethnic backgrounds for medical, it is all soon to be a moot point, we are entering the genetics age where your specific rna will be studied by computers and everything you need to know about yourself will be personalized.

Best to stop reading Breitbart. they have an agenda..this specific agenda is veiled racism at best.

Google for yourself "studies --enter whatever race-- genetic diseases" and you will get thousands of different firms globally studying various "races" and their specific and unique attributes and concerns.


And Redheads are hot!

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I am not speaking to the authenticity of the book.

Simply throwing it up for a discussion.

It seems obvious to me....different genetics would require different medications.

ADD: I didn't write the article. Just thought is was interesting.

Also, I don't read BrietBart...Just stumbled across this article.

originally posted by: Expat888
Rubbish .. over 40+ years putting people back together all over the world .. one thing can say for sure is when operating on them theyre all the same ..

Meh .. will leave it to the eggheads and pc crowd to argue over .. .

the first and second statement you made contradict each other
they are all the same inside is the PC argument...which you agree to.
then you moan about the PC crowd?
...

I don't think it has anything to do with "PC" as the ethical concerns over some of this research go back at least to the early 1900's with criticisms of eugenics. The Nazi's pretty well illustrated where eugenics was heading and after that nobody wanted to be associated with abusing science to quantify racial superiority.

In my opinion, people overly eager to label things as "PC" run amok, are contributing as much to the problem as people who can find bigotry in anything.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I don't think it has anything to do with "PC" as the concerns about some of this research started back in the early 1900's with criticisms against eugenics. The Nazi's pretty well illustrated where eugenics was heading and after that nobody wanted to be associated with abusing science to racial superiority.

In my opinion, people overly eager to label things as "PC" run amok, are contributing as much to the problem as people who can find bigotry in anything.

Why does it have to be seen as quantifying racial superiority? Why can't it been seen as trying to figure truth and not just trying to find yourself superior?

Because of eugenics in the pasted? Well haven't we learned its not okay to kill because of race, so why does trying to figure our our differences have to be associated with such a thing?

The issue is, there is no problem talking about race in a genetic stand point.. there are some who have advantage and some have disadvantage, that is also socially speaking of course.

Some one with heavy muscle mass really required now a days? etc etc

But the issue starts when we inject superiority stuff... or our socially construct "value".

No body had a equal starting point to make them equal.

Anything that contradicts a warm fluffy egalitarian message seems to be a no go topic, especially where race is concerned.

Raymond Cattell was practically strung up for publishing "A New Morality From Science: Beyondism" in which he discussed the benefits of eugenics and selective breeding - which basically argued that mixing genetics of different races causes defects of both to be exacerbated rather than diminished. It caused this award winning geneticist his credibility. While someone certainly can disagree, it shouldn't be made a sacred taboo not allowed to transgress. IMO

I don't have anything against people because of their race. It is their attitude I look at. In this country it seems that an aggressive attitude gets you the most. The meek get to work harder so these people prosper.

a reply to: Antipathy17

Right, if it has validity. I'd be more inclined to think it did if someone else can come to the same conclusion, like say the Swiss.

What's China winning?

There's an end? A goal? Who hands out the prize?

I just have to laugh whenever some great goal for humanity is mentioned whether it's state vs state or nation vs nation or climate change or the next generation or whatever as if there is finite linear progression to the totality of existence with a finish line sitting out there waiting to be crossed.

So China's winning. Okay. Wake me for the awards ceremony.

a reply to: whyamIhere

All of this research was pioneered by an American.... In America. They had a through the wormhole with Morgan freeman on it.

This is only new info to people who buy into the right wing talking points. Everyone knows that on average Africans have better fast twitch muscles and on average Asians are smarter. This is only counting the average of course. Your strongest guy in the world might be Asian and the smartest might be Hispanic. That stuff only applies to the average, not the individual.


That's not even counting the fact in America these things don't work at all..... There are no pure races in America. African Americans are so mixed with European and Indian DNA that there is no telling what genetic switch took in what child.


Facts are ,the more we mix, the stronger we make the species. The more likely we are for kids to get both the African fast twitch muscles and the Asian reasoning. In most cases the dominate trait is the most useful one. So it's past down more often.


The reason china is passing America is because they fund there schools and pay for college for all citizens who want to go and have the grades. We've allowed the right to defund the schools and cut programs that help the poor get out of poverty. Then we wonder why our kids don't succeed at the same rate there's do.

a reply to: Degradation33

That's because his findings were the opposite of what evolution predicts. Leading people to assume he was putting his personal philosophy into the evidence. Evolution works the opposite way. By mixing we get rid of genetic defects. Most genetic diseases take both parents having the faulty gene for it to be passed to the child. So a black/ white mix means no sicklecell or skin cancer. FOR the remainder of the mixed persons genetic line. They will never have to worry about any genetic defects that take both parents having them.

It seems the same forces in the media that lambast people who do put 100% faith into Darwinism also refuses to acknowledge Darwinism's logical conclusions as it applies to variations and adaptations in the diverse human populations.