What do you think?
Rate this book
Superior: The Return of Race Science
Superior tells the disturbing story of the persistent thread of belief in biological racial differences in the world of science. After the horrors of the Nazi regime in WWII, the mainstream scientific world turned its back on eugenics and the study of racial difference. But a worldwide network of eugenicists founded journals and funded research, providing the kind of shoddy studies that were ultimately cited in Richard Hernstein's and Charles Murray's 1994 title, The Bell Curve, which purported to show differences in intelligence among races.
Whether you think of racist science as bad science, evil science, alt-right science, or pseudoscience, why would any contemporary scientist imagine that gross inequality is a fact of nature, rather than of political history? Angela Saini's Superior connects the dots, laying bare the history, continuity, and connections of modern racist science, some more subtle than you might think.
Whether you think of racist science as bad science, evil science, alt-right science, or pseudoscience, why would any contemporary scientist imagine that gross inequality is a fact of nature, rather than of political history? Angela Saini's Superior connects the dots, laying bare the history, continuity, and connections of modern racist science, some more subtle than you might think.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published May 21, 2019
About the author
Angela Saini
9 books608 followersAngela Saini is an award-winning author and journalist. She has presented science programmes on BBC radio and television, and her writing has appeared in National Geographic, Wired, the Lancet and Nature.
She is the author of four books, including Superior: The Return of Race Science, which was a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize and Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong, which has been translated into fourteen languages. Her latest, The Patriarchs, is a finalist for the Orwell Prize.
Angela has a Masters in Engineering from the University of Oxford and has been a fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Humboldt Foundation in Berlin. She was made an honorary fellow of Keble College, Oxford in 2023.
She is the author of four books, including Superior: The Return of Race Science, which was a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize and Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong, which has been translated into fourteen languages. Her latest, The Patriarchs, is a finalist for the Orwell Prize.
Angela has a Masters in Engineering from the University of Oxford and has been a fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Humboldt Foundation in Berlin. She was made an honorary fellow of Keble College, Oxford in 2023.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 600 reviews
March 20, 2019
This is a journalistic account of 'race science' - where both terms 'race' and 'science' are scrutinised with a sharp eye. Saini is quite up-front with her own stance: that there's no genetic or biological support for racial difference beyond the merest superficialities such as skin pigmentation. Driven by the re-emergence of the most pernicious ideologies that many of us thought had been exposed for what they are by the Holocaust and other race-based genocides of the C20th, this takes an interesting look at the history of 'race science' and the role it still plays in academic research today, however contested and controversial.
Saini is a relaxed writer, always accessible and with a sense of humour that is light but with just the right level of suppressed snarkiness: witness the anecdote of the geneticist who proclaims that he's discovered the 'chop-stick using gene' in Chinese people! Well, we laugh - but, of course, it's not much of a jump to go from 'Chinese people are biologically pre-determined to use chopsticks' to insidious and horrific claims about racialised intelligence, racial hierarchies, justifications for slavery, the creation of race-based underclasses and we're soon back at those looming gas ovens of Auschwitz.
What is most dispiriting about this book is the extent to which highly-educated scientists at the heart of the academe in both Europe and the US can cling to old views of racialised genetic predermination and 'race fate' *in the face of an almost complete lack of biological evidence for racial difference in humans*. It's an important point, of course, but one which perhaps gets slightly repetitive in this book. But, perhaps, it needs to.
There are some horribly disconcerting moments such as when we realise that Maria Stopes favoured eugenics to stop the 'wrong' kind of people from giving birth in favour of so-called 'racial progress'; or that the legendary James Watson (of Crick and Watson fame) was openly racist and sexist and believed that cultural qualities such as Jewish intelligence, in the example given, is genetically pre-determined.
It's impossible not to snigger at some of the desperate manoeuvers of 'race scientists': in the 1920s, when Greeks, Italians and other southern Europeans were being stigmatised as having sub-par intelligence, one 'scientist' claimed that artists such as Dante, Raphael, Titian, Michelangelo and da Vinci were clearly 'Nordic' - as, apparently, was Jesus!
A high point, too, is Saini's digging behind the story from 2018 when the mummy of so-called 'Cheddar Man' was discovered and offered the opportunity to profile an ancient Briton - to the horror of many, not least the UK right-wing press, Cheddar Man turns out to have been black, not white. Which, considering the fact that humans all migrated out of Africa, is hardly surprising. (Light or white skin is an evolutionary development as ancient humans who migrated to less sunny northern Europe needed to maximise absorption of Vitamin D from the sun). So much, then, for all the Brexit-associated nostalgia for a mythic (white) England.
And, of course, that's both the point of the book and why it's so important: this isn't a light-hearted review of old, done-and-dusted attitudes, this is about *now*: it's about Brexit and Trump, it's about #blacklivesmatter, it's about the alt-right appropriating and mis-using science, it's about respected scientists and scientific institutions themselves (though a marginal number, it must be stressed) still trying to find the elusive biological basis for race and differentiation - and all that follows along with it.
Many thanks to HarperCollins, 4th Estate for an ARC via NetGalley.
Saini is a relaxed writer, always accessible and with a sense of humour that is light but with just the right level of suppressed snarkiness: witness the anecdote of the geneticist who proclaims that he's discovered the 'chop-stick using gene' in Chinese people! Well, we laugh - but, of course, it's not much of a jump to go from 'Chinese people are biologically pre-determined to use chopsticks' to insidious and horrific claims about racialised intelligence, racial hierarchies, justifications for slavery, the creation of race-based underclasses and we're soon back at those looming gas ovens of Auschwitz.
What is most dispiriting about this book is the extent to which highly-educated scientists at the heart of the academe in both Europe and the US can cling to old views of racialised genetic predermination and 'race fate' *in the face of an almost complete lack of biological evidence for racial difference in humans*. It's an important point, of course, but one which perhaps gets slightly repetitive in this book. But, perhaps, it needs to.
There are some horribly disconcerting moments such as when we realise that Maria Stopes favoured eugenics to stop the 'wrong' kind of people from giving birth in favour of so-called 'racial progress'; or that the legendary James Watson (of Crick and Watson fame) was openly racist and sexist and believed that cultural qualities such as Jewish intelligence, in the example given, is genetically pre-determined.
It's impossible not to snigger at some of the desperate manoeuvers of 'race scientists': in the 1920s, when Greeks, Italians and other southern Europeans were being stigmatised as having sub-par intelligence, one 'scientist' claimed that artists such as Dante, Raphael, Titian, Michelangelo and da Vinci were clearly 'Nordic' - as, apparently, was Jesus!
A high point, too, is Saini's digging behind the story from 2018 when the mummy of so-called 'Cheddar Man' was discovered and offered the opportunity to profile an ancient Briton - to the horror of many, not least the UK right-wing press, Cheddar Man turns out to have been black, not white. Which, considering the fact that humans all migrated out of Africa, is hardly surprising. (Light or white skin is an evolutionary development as ancient humans who migrated to less sunny northern Europe needed to maximise absorption of Vitamin D from the sun). So much, then, for all the Brexit-associated nostalgia for a mythic (white) England.
And, of course, that's both the point of the book and why it's so important: this isn't a light-hearted review of old, done-and-dusted attitudes, this is about *now*: it's about Brexit and Trump, it's about #blacklivesmatter, it's about the alt-right appropriating and mis-using science, it's about respected scientists and scientific institutions themselves (though a marginal number, it must be stressed) still trying to find the elusive biological basis for race and differentiation - and all that follows along with it.
Many thanks to HarperCollins, 4th Estate for an ARC via NetGalley.
January 5, 2021
This book is about the scientific basis of race. There isn’t one.
From a scientific, biological point of view, there is NO SUCH thing as race. You probably heard this, but there are more DNA variations between black Africans than between black Africans and white Europeans. Since the Unesco statement in 1952 (“The Race Question in Modern Science”) this has been official scientific policy. In their words race was “a fundamentally anti-rational system of thought”.
You will have noted that, alas, this announcement did not stop the whole entirety of human society proceeding on the basis that of course race exists, and of course there are different races. Angela Saini puts it like this :
Racial categories were still alive in people’s minds. They were still active in everyday life, playing out in the politics and the racism of the real world. For scientists to suddenly stop thinking about humans in racial terms was impossible so long as everyone out there still thought about themselves and others that way.
Or in a nutshell, race is a “social reality” not a biological fact.
THE RISE AND FALL AND ATTEMPTED RISE AGAIN OF THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF RACE
Angela Saini tells the story of how science came to believe in the biological basis of separate races and how this “race science” rose to become orthodoxy, then fell dramatically and smashed to bits, and how now it tries to get back in through the back door, courtesy of some well-funded alt right whack jobs.
In the Victorian period there were a lot of bogus scientists running around spouting total nonsense, it took a long while to get them thrown out. You couldn’t tell the bogus ones from the sensible ones for the longest time. Race science began as part of the Victorian mania for classifying everything, butterflies, albatross eggs, fossils, types of wheat, and …. Humans.
EUGENICS (IT’S PRONOUNCED EWWWGENICS)
At the same time came the Darwinian evolution-revolution. When you put the two together, and considering Mendel’s rediscovered work on selective breeding, you got the idea of improving the human race… or a part of it…. (let’s say, oh, I don’t know, the white part)… by selective breeding of people. You know, just like farmers do with cows and those other things. That was called eugenics. Built into all this thinking was, of course, that some races are essentially superior than others, and therefore worth purifying.
DOWNFALL OF RACE SCIENCE
By the 1920s and 30s race science in the form of eugenics had been signed into law in over 30 states in the USA. Compulsory sterilisation of those deemed mentally or physically unfit was the first idea. Europeans were enthusiastic about this too. Germany under Hitler was the apotheosis of the racist state, and you know he kind of gave a bad name to that whole way of thinking, so this led to the abandonment of scientifically based race concepts after WW2 by all except the whack jobs.
DNA
However, says Angela Saini, there has been a partial return of race science in the form of genetics. Self-described antiracist scientists use the phrase “human biodiversity” and sometimes this whole DNA human genome thing sounds kind of not that dissimilar to something those old Victorian gentlemen scientists would have thought they were talking about.
THE BORING BIT
This book spends half its pages detailing the nefarious shady organisations and methods of right wing fruitcakes who still think there is a biological reality to race and who want to reintroduce their untruths into public discourse, to reclothe the Victorian racial hierarchy with sciency DNA chatter. Angela Saini really cares about that stuff, she wants those people recognised and booted out and crushed. I can see why but there was way too much detail for me.
First half was very interesting though. I’m not sure if it’s useful to say I recommend the first half of a book!
From a scientific, biological point of view, there is NO SUCH thing as race. You probably heard this, but there are more DNA variations between black Africans than between black Africans and white Europeans. Since the Unesco statement in 1952 (“The Race Question in Modern Science”) this has been official scientific policy. In their words race was “a fundamentally anti-rational system of thought”.
You will have noted that, alas, this announcement did not stop the whole entirety of human society proceeding on the basis that of course race exists, and of course there are different races. Angela Saini puts it like this :
Racial categories were still alive in people’s minds. They were still active in everyday life, playing out in the politics and the racism of the real world. For scientists to suddenly stop thinking about humans in racial terms was impossible so long as everyone out there still thought about themselves and others that way.
Or in a nutshell, race is a “social reality” not a biological fact.
THE RISE AND FALL AND ATTEMPTED RISE AGAIN OF THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF RACE
Angela Saini tells the story of how science came to believe in the biological basis of separate races and how this “race science” rose to become orthodoxy, then fell dramatically and smashed to bits, and how now it tries to get back in through the back door, courtesy of some well-funded alt right whack jobs.
In the Victorian period there were a lot of bogus scientists running around spouting total nonsense, it took a long while to get them thrown out. You couldn’t tell the bogus ones from the sensible ones for the longest time. Race science began as part of the Victorian mania for classifying everything, butterflies, albatross eggs, fossils, types of wheat, and …. Humans.
EUGENICS (IT’S PRONOUNCED EWWWGENICS)
At the same time came the Darwinian evolution-revolution. When you put the two together, and considering Mendel’s rediscovered work on selective breeding, you got the idea of improving the human race… or a part of it…. (let’s say, oh, I don’t know, the white part)… by selective breeding of people. You know, just like farmers do with cows and those other things. That was called eugenics. Built into all this thinking was, of course, that some races are essentially superior than others, and therefore worth purifying.
DOWNFALL OF RACE SCIENCE
By the 1920s and 30s race science in the form of eugenics had been signed into law in over 30 states in the USA. Compulsory sterilisation of those deemed mentally or physically unfit was the first idea. Europeans were enthusiastic about this too. Germany under Hitler was the apotheosis of the racist state, and you know he kind of gave a bad name to that whole way of thinking, so this led to the abandonment of scientifically based race concepts after WW2 by all except the whack jobs.
DNA
However, says Angela Saini, there has been a partial return of race science in the form of genetics. Self-described antiracist scientists use the phrase “human biodiversity” and sometimes this whole DNA human genome thing sounds kind of not that dissimilar to something those old Victorian gentlemen scientists would have thought they were talking about.
THE BORING BIT
This book spends half its pages detailing the nefarious shady organisations and methods of right wing fruitcakes who still think there is a biological reality to race and who want to reintroduce their untruths into public discourse, to reclothe the Victorian racial hierarchy with sciency DNA chatter. Angela Saini really cares about that stuff, she wants those people recognised and booted out and crushed. I can see why but there was way too much detail for me.
First half was very interesting though. I’m not sure if it’s useful to say I recommend the first half of a book!
August 26, 2019
Politically correct but scientifically unsound
This book drew a lot of attention recently in which the author suggests that the use of race in biological/medical research is due to widespread racism. For example, in Chapter 1, she argues that Out of Africa theory is invented by Europeans, and Nazis wanted to prove superiority of Aryan race. This is false; Hitler made alliances with Muslims from the Middle east against Jews. The Third Reich was anti-Semitic. If Hitler was really a racist, he would have invaded Africa. In fact, many SS officers who went to live in Egypt after the war became Muslims and followed Islamic practices.
The author is also in error when she reminds readers that races correspond to “arbitrary” divisions of population variation that are “politically and economically useful,” The fact is that there are heritable characteristics that allow us to divide into a set of races in such a way that all the members share traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race. These traits and tendencies are viewed as race. Natural barriers such as oceans (e.g. the Atlantic), deserts (e.g. the Sahara) and mountain ranges (e.g. the Himalayas) impeded gene flow between different populations for substantial periods of time. When there is limited gene flow between populations that have come under different selection pressures, we would expect them to gradually diverge from one another over via the processes of genetic drift and natural selection. Races therefore correspond to human populations that have been living in relative isolation from one another, under different regimes of selection. This means that racial categories identify real phenotypic differences and reflect real genetic variation. Natural philosophers began to classify humans into different races because they looked different from one another. These differences reflect their divergent geographical origins. But the most controversial area of “race science” is research into population differences in cognitive ability.
Chimpanzees share the distinction of being our closest living relative which share about 99% of our genes. A unique collaboration between the humanities and the natural sciences; geneticists, historians, archaeologists and linguists found a common ground about the origins of modern human beings including the common origins of languages from an ancient language called Indo-European language. Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations. Modern human beings arose some 200,000 years ago, and for 190,000 years, they we were all dark-skinned, reflecting the origins from Africa. Caucasians are the product of a work of evolution across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – they have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin color and the color of the eye over the past 8,000 years. The process of skin lightening, known as “depigmentation,” occurred due to a series of mutations in one particular gene called SCL24A5.
Equating hereditarian claims with racism is illogical and irresponsible. Many of the ideas that Saini classifies as “scientific racism” are empirical claims. Besides, race is not a social construct, but nationalism and regionalism are certainly social constructs. She uses false arguments to fit her theory. This is a blatant abuse of scientific data to write a politically correct fable. Her conclusions are inaccurate. I would recommend staying away from this apologue.
This book drew a lot of attention recently in which the author suggests that the use of race in biological/medical research is due to widespread racism. For example, in Chapter 1, she argues that Out of Africa theory is invented by Europeans, and Nazis wanted to prove superiority of Aryan race. This is false; Hitler made alliances with Muslims from the Middle east against Jews. The Third Reich was anti-Semitic. If Hitler was really a racist, he would have invaded Africa. In fact, many SS officers who went to live in Egypt after the war became Muslims and followed Islamic practices.
The author is also in error when she reminds readers that races correspond to “arbitrary” divisions of population variation that are “politically and economically useful,” The fact is that there are heritable characteristics that allow us to divide into a set of races in such a way that all the members share traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race. These traits and tendencies are viewed as race. Natural barriers such as oceans (e.g. the Atlantic), deserts (e.g. the Sahara) and mountain ranges (e.g. the Himalayas) impeded gene flow between different populations for substantial periods of time. When there is limited gene flow between populations that have come under different selection pressures, we would expect them to gradually diverge from one another over via the processes of genetic drift and natural selection. Races therefore correspond to human populations that have been living in relative isolation from one another, under different regimes of selection. This means that racial categories identify real phenotypic differences and reflect real genetic variation. Natural philosophers began to classify humans into different races because they looked different from one another. These differences reflect their divergent geographical origins. But the most controversial area of “race science” is research into population differences in cognitive ability.
Chimpanzees share the distinction of being our closest living relative which share about 99% of our genes. A unique collaboration between the humanities and the natural sciences; geneticists, historians, archaeologists and linguists found a common ground about the origins of modern human beings including the common origins of languages from an ancient language called Indo-European language. Europeans today are a mix of the blending of at least three ancient populations of hunter-gatherers and farmers who moved into Europe in separate migrations. Modern human beings arose some 200,000 years ago, and for 190,000 years, they we were all dark-skinned, reflecting the origins from Africa. Caucasians are the product of a work of evolution across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – they have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin color and the color of the eye over the past 8,000 years. The process of skin lightening, known as “depigmentation,” occurred due to a series of mutations in one particular gene called SCL24A5.
Equating hereditarian claims with racism is illogical and irresponsible. Many of the ideas that Saini classifies as “scientific racism” are empirical claims. Besides, race is not a social construct, but nationalism and regionalism are certainly social constructs. She uses false arguments to fit her theory. This is a blatant abuse of scientific data to write a politically correct fable. Her conclusions are inaccurate. I would recommend staying away from this apologue.
Read
June 17, 2020Outstanding examination of 'race science' aka racism pretending to be objectivity. Extraordinarily good in how deep it goes (covering the intersection of 'science' with history, culture, and politics) and showing how very deeply rooted the tendrils are. Written with remarkable calm and objectivity which makes the final shout of rage all the more powerful.
It goes into excellent detail about the resurgence of 'scientific' racism in recent years, as well as laying out the foolishness of the thinking but also its pervasiveness even in people who would think they know better and call themselves anti-racist. Essential reading, and I don't say that lightly.
It goes into excellent detail about the resurgence of 'scientific' racism in recent years, as well as laying out the foolishness of the thinking but also its pervasiveness even in people who would think they know better and call themselves anti-racist. Essential reading, and I don't say that lightly.
June 24, 2019
A good overview of the history of race "science." I studied a lot of the earlier documents for my own research and they just sounded like such a ridiculous and desperate attempt to justify racial hierarchies. Unfortunately, this garbage science is coming back in the form of IQ testing and DNA "science." The best part of this book was when she covered David Reich's research--I would suggest going straight to the source if you're interested. His book "Who we are and how we got here" is excellent.
May 30, 2019
It was always going to be difficult to follow Angela Saini's hugely popular Inferior, but with Superior she has pulled it off, not just in the content but by upping the quality of the writing to a whole new level. Where Inferior looked at the misuse of science in supporting sexism (and the existence of sexism in science), Superior examines the way that racism has been given a totally unfounded pseudo-scientific basis in the past - and how, remarkably, despite absolute evidence to the contrary, this still turns up today.
At the heart of the book is the scientific fact that 'race' simply does not exist biologically - it is nothing more than an outdated social label. As Saini points out, there are far larger genetic variations within a so-called race than there are between individuals supposedly of different races. She shows how, pre-genetics, racial prejudice was given a pseudo-scientific veneer by dreaming up fictitious physical differences over and above the tiny distinctions of appearance - and how this has been continued and transformed with genetics to draw conclusions that go against the fundamental proviso of science - correlation is not causality. Saini demonstrates vividly how, for example, socio-economic or cultural causes of differences in capability, and even medical response to drugs, have been repeatedly ascribed to non-existent biological racial differences.
Along the way we come across the horrendous race-based acts of the past - from slavery to the Nazi atrocities - which have been justified by fictitious assumptions about the implications of race. But Saini makes clear that this is not just a historical problem. One of the excellent aspects of the book is the way that she brings in interviews and personal experience, so, for example, there is a fascinating section on discrimination on the basis of caste in India, and attempts to justify this on a genetic basis. Similarly, she repeatedly shows how white supremacists misuse information to draw incorrect and vile conclusions.
There are fascinating interviews with scientists whose work strays into misuse of evidence to imply something that the data simply does not support. With one exception of Robert Plomin, whose work seems far more solid than the rest, and can only be used to support racism by deliberately misunderstanding it, a lot of this work seems to have been poorly executed or involves drawing inappropriate conclusions. A considerable amount of this nonsense involves IQ testing - yet it has been shown that all IQ tests do is demonstrate an ability to do well at IQ tests, an ability that can be learned - so provides no useable evidence.
The coverage might have easily been extended to cover other discrimination on perceived differences, but I can see the benefit of keeping the focus on race. For me, the only disappointing thing is that Saini shies away from the logical conclusion of her observations. Having categorically shown that race does not exist, it's ridiculous that we still classify people this way. As the author acknowledges, we need some means of categorisation to fight prejudice - but surely it should be based on real markers such as socio-economic means and culture - to continue to do so by race having established that race doesn't exist seems oddly incongruous, and makes it more difficult to counter racists by giving weight to the labels they use.
Overall, a brilliant book, highly readable, which, if there were any justice, would put a final nail in the coffin of racism.
At the heart of the book is the scientific fact that 'race' simply does not exist biologically - it is nothing more than an outdated social label. As Saini points out, there are far larger genetic variations within a so-called race than there are between individuals supposedly of different races. She shows how, pre-genetics, racial prejudice was given a pseudo-scientific veneer by dreaming up fictitious physical differences over and above the tiny distinctions of appearance - and how this has been continued and transformed with genetics to draw conclusions that go against the fundamental proviso of science - correlation is not causality. Saini demonstrates vividly how, for example, socio-economic or cultural causes of differences in capability, and even medical response to drugs, have been repeatedly ascribed to non-existent biological racial differences.
Along the way we come across the horrendous race-based acts of the past - from slavery to the Nazi atrocities - which have been justified by fictitious assumptions about the implications of race. But Saini makes clear that this is not just a historical problem. One of the excellent aspects of the book is the way that she brings in interviews and personal experience, so, for example, there is a fascinating section on discrimination on the basis of caste in India, and attempts to justify this on a genetic basis. Similarly, she repeatedly shows how white supremacists misuse information to draw incorrect and vile conclusions.
There are fascinating interviews with scientists whose work strays into misuse of evidence to imply something that the data simply does not support. With one exception of Robert Plomin, whose work seems far more solid than the rest, and can only be used to support racism by deliberately misunderstanding it, a lot of this work seems to have been poorly executed or involves drawing inappropriate conclusions. A considerable amount of this nonsense involves IQ testing - yet it has been shown that all IQ tests do is demonstrate an ability to do well at IQ tests, an ability that can be learned - so provides no useable evidence.
The coverage might have easily been extended to cover other discrimination on perceived differences, but I can see the benefit of keeping the focus on race. For me, the only disappointing thing is that Saini shies away from the logical conclusion of her observations. Having categorically shown that race does not exist, it's ridiculous that we still classify people this way. As the author acknowledges, we need some means of categorisation to fight prejudice - but surely it should be based on real markers such as socio-economic means and culture - to continue to do so by race having established that race doesn't exist seems oddly incongruous, and makes it more difficult to counter racists by giving weight to the labels they use.
Overall, a brilliant book, highly readable, which, if there were any justice, would put a final nail in the coffin of racism.
July 8, 2019
'There is a kind of will to truth. We will make this be the truth if we try hard enough'- Subir Sinha.
Oh how this resonates in our social media dominated/'fake news' society. Sinha's quote refers particularly to religious extremists but effectively demonstrates the kind of sentiment that underlies the 'science' and ways of thinking that the book works to demolish. That backwards system which starts with ideology and then looks for evidence to support it. Race is not about genetics/ biological difference, it is a social, cultural, political construct. It was created to separate, subordinate, invalidate certain types of people, a way of perpetuating and bolstering the supposed superiority of the great white male. It's the kind of thing that feels like part of the past, and it definitely should be, but Angela Saini shows that not only it it still here, it never went away. Even the Holocaust was not enough to demonstrate the dangers inherent in such ideology, simply pushing those who held these types of views out of the mainstream. For a while at least.
Because now they're back and at the forefront of populist politics- given airtime, given applause, given power. And that's why books like this are so essential, to hold people and ideas up to scrutiny, to start conversations, to attack the fundamental misunderstandings (deliberate or otherwise) about human variation. Because feelings of superiority are how we end up arguing that migrant children in border camps don't really need soap or blankets or safety, it's how the fear of difference and the 'other' leads to Trump and Brexit, how 'knowing' that certain ethnic groups just aren't as clever or industrious means that they're a lost cause, worthless, a burden. It's always useful to blame those being crushed by inequality for their own problems. If they deserve it, there's nothing we can do, right?
If nothing else, this book is an essential reminder about evaluating the quality of the information you access, share, and trust. Where does it come from? Who paid for it? What are they trying to sell you? Who benefits? What Saini's book does is present the ways in which the ideologies behind race science have altered or even determined its conclusions. And if you want to apply the same fact checking to her work, her sources are right there at the back.
ARC via Netgalley
Oh how this resonates in our social media dominated/'fake news' society. Sinha's quote refers particularly to religious extremists but effectively demonstrates the kind of sentiment that underlies the 'science' and ways of thinking that the book works to demolish. That backwards system which starts with ideology and then looks for evidence to support it. Race is not about genetics/ biological difference, it is a social, cultural, political construct. It was created to separate, subordinate, invalidate certain types of people, a way of perpetuating and bolstering the supposed superiority of the great white male. It's the kind of thing that feels like part of the past, and it definitely should be, but Angela Saini shows that not only it it still here, it never went away. Even the Holocaust was not enough to demonstrate the dangers inherent in such ideology, simply pushing those who held these types of views out of the mainstream. For a while at least.
Because now they're back and at the forefront of populist politics- given airtime, given applause, given power. And that's why books like this are so essential, to hold people and ideas up to scrutiny, to start conversations, to attack the fundamental misunderstandings (deliberate or otherwise) about human variation. Because feelings of superiority are how we end up arguing that migrant children in border camps don't really need soap or blankets or safety, it's how the fear of difference and the 'other' leads to Trump and Brexit, how 'knowing' that certain ethnic groups just aren't as clever or industrious means that they're a lost cause, worthless, a burden. It's always useful to blame those being crushed by inequality for their own problems. If they deserve it, there's nothing we can do, right?
If nothing else, this book is an essential reminder about evaluating the quality of the information you access, share, and trust. Where does it come from? Who paid for it? What are they trying to sell you? Who benefits? What Saini's book does is present the ways in which the ideologies behind race science have altered or even determined its conclusions. And if you want to apply the same fact checking to her work, her sources are right there at the back.
ARC via Netgalley
May 30, 2019
Having grown up as part of an ethnic minority group in London during the 1980s and 90s, Angela Saini has first-hand experience of the racism which was rife during these decades. Unfortunately, after being heavily discredited, race science has slowly and insidiously crept back into public discourse over the past 50-70 years. During her formative years, the murder of Stephen Lawrence in close proximity to her childhood home had a big impact on her and what really stuck in her mind was the difference between someone white being murdered and a black individual; it was obvious that fewer resources and time were dedicated to an ethnic minority individual to those who were white. But was this due to scientific or societal issues?
This childhood experience precipitated Saini's intense interest in the subject of race, racial bias and matters surrounding it, and this is an essential and exceptional work which rebuts the idea of racism as a biological issue rather than a social one. Not only does she debunk the lie that inequality is to do with genetics but she goes a long way to proving that it has everything to do with political power. It is a fascinating and beautifully written piece which has clearly been extensively researched. It is a masterfully written, topical piece by one of the most trusted science writers of our time and should be on the reading lists of anyone interested in the history and evolution of this subject from the beginning of time up to present day.
Although it is frequently referred to as race science, I think the most appropriate and fitting terminology is racist science. Many thanks to Fourth Estate for an ARC.
This childhood experience precipitated Saini's intense interest in the subject of race, racial bias and matters surrounding it, and this is an essential and exceptional work which rebuts the idea of racism as a biological issue rather than a social one. Not only does she debunk the lie that inequality is to do with genetics but she goes a long way to proving that it has everything to do with political power. It is a fascinating and beautifully written piece which has clearly been extensively researched. It is a masterfully written, topical piece by one of the most trusted science writers of our time and should be on the reading lists of anyone interested in the history and evolution of this subject from the beginning of time up to present day.
Although it is frequently referred to as race science, I think the most appropriate and fitting terminology is racist science. Many thanks to Fourth Estate for an ARC.
June 6, 2019
This book isn't written from a neutral perspective, and doesn't discuss the scientific research in detail. Or even is up to date with latest genetic research and information.
July 3, 2019
Poor book - despite it's heart being in the right place - does more to damage the thesis she presents by not credibly engaging with the academics she interviews. I think she is a bit out of her depth, perhaps as broadcast journalist she is used to the once-over-lightly feel-good style of journalism that this comes across as. Did not finish.
January 11, 2020
Important subject but somewhat rambling execution. The book doesn't seem to have a coherent trajectory, and repeats over and over the same points. It is essentially a reaction to the resurgence of racisms in today's world. IMHO the missing point is the following: there are facts and value judgments about such facts. Even imagining there are identifiable average differences between different populations (whose grouping might be a social construct) this does NOT imply any different treatment of such people is justified. E.g. in a different domain, ethical vegetarians are ready to admit different capabilities of different species, but they do not derive that humans are justified in slaughtering non human animals. So it's a two step process and the author focuses on the "facts" side ignoring the "value" side, making her argument more confused than what IMHO could be.
Edit: from "who we are and how we got here" by David Reich :
"The right way to deal with the inevitable discovery of substantial differences across populations is to realize that their existence should not affect the way we conduct ourselves."
"I am worried that people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among populations across a range of traits are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science."
"Because of the multidimensionality of human traits, the great variation that exists among individuals, and the extent to which hard work and upbringing can compensate for genetic endowment, the only sensible approach is to celebrate every person and every population as an extraordinary realization of our human genius and to give each person every chance to succeed, regardless of the particular average combination of genetic propensities he or she happens to display."
Edit: from "who we are and how we got here" by David Reich :
"The right way to deal with the inevitable discovery of substantial differences across populations is to realize that their existence should not affect the way we conduct ourselves."
"I am worried that people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among populations across a range of traits are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science."
"Because of the multidimensionality of human traits, the great variation that exists among individuals, and the extent to which hard work and upbringing can compensate for genetic endowment, the only sensible approach is to celebrate every person and every population as an extraordinary realization of our human genius and to give each person every chance to succeed, regardless of the particular average combination of genetic propensities he or she happens to display."
September 29, 2019
A full-length review needs more time than I currently have so TLDR:
- race science is full of crap
- it never went away and is now turning back full force
- "centrists" helped it gain traction because they inherently have racist ideas that they never critically engaged with
- STEM is full of "well-meaning" racists and needs to do fucking better
- white supremacists/nazis/right-wingers/eugenicists/etc. are fucking dangerous and unfortunately for us funded by the wealthies of people. The 0.1%. And they want us dead.
- race science has ruined and taken many lives and it is an ongoing process and if we don't take responsibility - especially White people who have the privilege of their Whiteness - then genocide will spread even further
- also, I have to add my own observation: those who believe in race science and those who don't "believe" (actually more like welcome) climate change/catastrophy is a single circle in a venn diagram (and they also happen to be fundi Christians so have fun with that one)
In short: Read this book because it's not only well-written, excellently researched and highly illuminative, it gives a fantastic overview of the history of race science and how it connects to other problems (see: the financial aspect, meaning that they're funded by the wealthies and most powerful people who literally want to the see the world burn).
A proper review will follow but it'll take some time to write since I have to summarise a really long book full proof and references.
- race science is full of crap
- it never went away and is now turning back full force
- "centrists" helped it gain traction because they inherently have racist ideas that they never critically engaged with
- STEM is full of "well-meaning" racists and needs to do fucking better
- white supremacists/nazis/right-wingers/eugenicists/etc. are fucking dangerous and unfortunately for us funded by the wealthies of people. The 0.1%. And they want us dead.
- race science has ruined and taken many lives and it is an ongoing process and if we don't take responsibility - especially White people who have the privilege of their Whiteness - then genocide will spread even further
- also, I have to add my own observation: those who believe in race science and those who don't "believe" (actually more like welcome) climate change/catastrophy is a single circle in a venn diagram (and they also happen to be fundi Christians so have fun with that one)
In short: Read this book because it's not only well-written, excellently researched and highly illuminative, it gives a fantastic overview of the history of race science and how it connects to other problems (see: the financial aspect, meaning that they're funded by the wealthies and most powerful people who literally want to the see the world burn).
A proper review will follow but it'll take some time to write since I have to summarise a really long book full proof and references.
September 21, 2023
This book keeps floating in and out of my consciousness. At the time of reading this book, I failed to perceive the degree of its importance. As we continue to move into a data point world, some of these metrics can be used in ways that are insidious without really understanding the dangers it will cause. At my organization we have personality tests where if you click on a co workers icon, it will describe the animal the coworker falls under. There are three categories, eagle, parrot and owl. Each represent their own personality traits, owls are supposedly more attuned to attention to detail, eagles will stop at nothing to get a task done and parrots are charismatic, easy going etc. This is a very insignificant example but people in the organization make judgements based on the animal you fall under. The personality assessment questions used to determine these categorical factors provide no context on anything. It gives you choices that are often deeply constrained where if you agree with none of them, you're still forced to pick one. Asking me stupid ass questions like
"Are you willing to create an uncomfortable situation in order to complete a task?".
I mean what is the payoff?
What is the context?
For the love of god what is the situation!?
Re read that question again, Am I the boss, manager, director etc?
Do I have equity in the company?
Do I have stock options?
Are we under a deadline and someone is under performing?
If I get uncomfortable is that even a guarantee that it will help resolve the situation?
How significant is the situation?
If I piss off this co worker, how will it impact our future relations?
None of these context questions are asked so I am blindly being categorized with no context. This is why these assessments have the veneer of science but are in fact a charlatan fraud. Now imagine if you were asked "IQ" questions to determine if a company should hire you? Psychologist and social scientists have engaged in creating tests to measure "intelligence" and then using these findings in the real world once they have established reputations in lucrative consulting contracts. This is how race science gets legitimized. Institutions first label so and so academic hotshot (whose research does not replicate) from {Insert prestigious school here} and then credentialize them with their level of education as a means to validate what they say. This happens everywhere you look and often times these are the biggest frauds. Warren Buffett said it best when he said "Beware of nerds with formulas". This brings us to IQ tests which essentially are a pseudo intellectual.
IQ is a gaussian metric, meaning outliers will not impact the overall mean once a sufficient amount of N is reached aka the law of large numbers. However, wealth is not gaussian. Imagine we have a room with 1k people, lets say the average wealth is 100k which is absurd but lets do it for this example. Now imagine someone walks into the room worth hmmm... Lets say 80 billion, do you think the average is going to change? The average will now be 80 million. This renders the mean useless. So we're effectively comparing two distributions. The studies on IQ as a predictor of wealth do not mention this. this goes back to something I have harped on in previous reviews. That academia, degrees, certifications and standardized tests are not a measure of intelligence. The tests that used these questions are often created by people who spend all their time with these problems. IQ tests are a better measure of being an academic than a measure of being intelligent. This is not the same, its almost as if these sterile classroom activities are used as a one to one comparison of the real world. Which is insane. The classroom does not equal the real world. If you want to test for real world performance, test for the actual activity. Not tasks academics test for. Reality is very messy, there are no direct and clear cut answers unlike an exam. IQ and standardized tests select for people who train to think for a sterile environment vs a dynamic environment. Intelligence is something that we don't have tools to measure yet. These types of "scientific studies" make there way into the mainstream, does anyone remember the famous marshmallow study? This study was infamous and filled the social science and psychology literature for years. A child is seated across from a single marshmallow, the researcher tells the child if they can wait for 15 minutes. The researcher will come back with another marshmallow. This study stated that children who could wait for the full 15 minutes had a higher level of delay of gratification. They would go on to make more money, have stable jobs and stable relationships. This study was done on 90 children, decades later they tested this theory on 900 kids. They found out that nothing replicates. They did find out that the children from single parent homes or from children from less stable economic backgrounds were unable to wait the first 15 minutes in some cases. The original study was not presented like this and the conclusion's are totally different. I believe this scenario is and will be played out with IQ tests today.
I think this is a very important book, I wish the author would have dived more into this topic specifically, academics with the legitimacy of prestigious schools are far more dangerous than bigots using flawed stats to make a racial point of view. This is something to pay attention to in upcoming decades.
"Are you willing to create an uncomfortable situation in order to complete a task?".
I mean what is the payoff?
What is the context?
For the love of god what is the situation!?
Re read that question again, Am I the boss, manager, director etc?
Do I have equity in the company?
Do I have stock options?
Are we under a deadline and someone is under performing?
If I get uncomfortable is that even a guarantee that it will help resolve the situation?
How significant is the situation?
If I piss off this co worker, how will it impact our future relations?
None of these context questions are asked so I am blindly being categorized with no context. This is why these assessments have the veneer of science but are in fact a charlatan fraud. Now imagine if you were asked "IQ" questions to determine if a company should hire you? Psychologist and social scientists have engaged in creating tests to measure "intelligence" and then using these findings in the real world once they have established reputations in lucrative consulting contracts. This is how race science gets legitimized. Institutions first label so and so academic hotshot (whose research does not replicate) from {Insert prestigious school here} and then credentialize them with their level of education as a means to validate what they say. This happens everywhere you look and often times these are the biggest frauds. Warren Buffett said it best when he said "Beware of nerds with formulas". This brings us to IQ tests which essentially are a pseudo intellectual.
IQ is a gaussian metric, meaning outliers will not impact the overall mean once a sufficient amount of N is reached aka the law of large numbers. However, wealth is not gaussian. Imagine we have a room with 1k people, lets say the average wealth is 100k which is absurd but lets do it for this example. Now imagine someone walks into the room worth hmmm... Lets say 80 billion, do you think the average is going to change? The average will now be 80 million. This renders the mean useless. So we're effectively comparing two distributions. The studies on IQ as a predictor of wealth do not mention this. this goes back to something I have harped on in previous reviews. That academia, degrees, certifications and standardized tests are not a measure of intelligence. The tests that used these questions are often created by people who spend all their time with these problems. IQ tests are a better measure of being an academic than a measure of being intelligent. This is not the same, its almost as if these sterile classroom activities are used as a one to one comparison of the real world. Which is insane. The classroom does not equal the real world. If you want to test for real world performance, test for the actual activity. Not tasks academics test for. Reality is very messy, there are no direct and clear cut answers unlike an exam. IQ and standardized tests select for people who train to think for a sterile environment vs a dynamic environment. Intelligence is something that we don't have tools to measure yet. These types of "scientific studies" make there way into the mainstream, does anyone remember the famous marshmallow study? This study was infamous and filled the social science and psychology literature for years. A child is seated across from a single marshmallow, the researcher tells the child if they can wait for 15 minutes. The researcher will come back with another marshmallow. This study stated that children who could wait for the full 15 minutes had a higher level of delay of gratification. They would go on to make more money, have stable jobs and stable relationships. This study was done on 90 children, decades later they tested this theory on 900 kids. They found out that nothing replicates. They did find out that the children from single parent homes or from children from less stable economic backgrounds were unable to wait the first 15 minutes in some cases. The original study was not presented like this and the conclusion's are totally different. I believe this scenario is and will be played out with IQ tests today.
I think this is a very important book, I wish the author would have dived more into this topic specifically, academics with the legitimacy of prestigious schools are far more dangerous than bigots using flawed stats to make a racial point of view. This is something to pay attention to in upcoming decades.
June 29, 2020
Superior: The Return of Race Science, by Angela Saini, is a book looking at the disturbing history and modern application of race science. Saini argues that race science is almost entirely political - differences in humans are almost entirely related to nurture, economic and social differences, and culture. These factors are transferred between parent and child, but are not biological in any sense. Sainin brings together numerous data points and interviews with leading geneticists and biologists to show the science backs up these points. And yet, racial sciences persist. It has even seen a resurgence in recent years, with nationalists globally using racial science as a tool to rewrite history, and change the narrative to promote their own ideals of superiority.
Racial science was a vogue branch of biology with roots in Darwinism, and was often utilized by colonial societies to promote racial hierarchy in highly unequal societies. This branch of science was, historically, related to white supremacy and domination of groups that were enslaved, colonized, or oppressed. The field of racial science was steeped in Darwinism and the idea that if different species of animal diverged, so to must humans. It stands to reason that this would be an assumption; racial differences were often perceived based on visual differences, and socioeconomic differences. Basically, if someone is poor, or colonized, then it stands to reason their must be a natural, genetic reason for this. This thought process led to the development of eugenics; the study of actual biological differences between peoples from different places on Earth. Eugenics was a nasty field of science that informed colonists in Europe, segregationists in the US, and the Nazi movement in Germany, a science steeped in blood.
Saini moves on to analyze why racial science is still has such strong adherents. After WWII, the study of Eugenics went underground, and was re-branded. The word race was no longer an accepted term, and instead, phrases like human diversity, genetics, and biodiversity were used to portray the same ideas. Infamous books such as the Bell Curve - a 1993 study on differences in educational achievement in white and black communities in the US, came to the conclusion that these differences were genetic - that white students may be more capable students due to genetic differences, and not differences in socio-economic advantages. This book is rightly considered pretty pseudo-scientific, but has been influential in right leaning think tanks and magazines like Mankind Quarterly, which have in turn fuelled racialized rhetoric in nations all over the world.
Saini looks at this form multiple perspectives, both from advert racists globally, and the more subtle, and inherent insensitivity and conflict that dog genetic research. Saini argues that genetics do not inform most differences between humans, and that, although an important field of study, genetics is often utilized for poor reasons. White supremacists scroll through academic papers to cherry pick information that conforms to their world view. Hindi nationalists use it to try and reignite the debates on caste and anti-Islamic thought. The list goes on. These deep connections are sought after by humans to try and conform to how they want to see the world, and how they want to perceive themselves. In reality, genetic diversity in humans in massively complex, and we show a remarkable level of human integration. On the plus side here, most racial sciences are considered to be quack, and many openly racists scientist are marginalized. Even so, they still exist, and groups like the Pioneer Fund, and their Mankind Quarterly, exist to fund racial sciences so that the debate on racial differences - largely considered bunk, can continue to influence opinions.
An excellent read through and through, this book is an excellent look at the peer-reviewed world behind racism, and how racial sciences exist to fuel political topics that have little to do with the actual human genome. A solid read, and definitely a recommendation for a great and informative work on racial sciences.
Racial science was a vogue branch of biology with roots in Darwinism, and was often utilized by colonial societies to promote racial hierarchy in highly unequal societies. This branch of science was, historically, related to white supremacy and domination of groups that were enslaved, colonized, or oppressed. The field of racial science was steeped in Darwinism and the idea that if different species of animal diverged, so to must humans. It stands to reason that this would be an assumption; racial differences were often perceived based on visual differences, and socioeconomic differences. Basically, if someone is poor, or colonized, then it stands to reason their must be a natural, genetic reason for this. This thought process led to the development of eugenics; the study of actual biological differences between peoples from different places on Earth. Eugenics was a nasty field of science that informed colonists in Europe, segregationists in the US, and the Nazi movement in Germany, a science steeped in blood.
Saini moves on to analyze why racial science is still has such strong adherents. After WWII, the study of Eugenics went underground, and was re-branded. The word race was no longer an accepted term, and instead, phrases like human diversity, genetics, and biodiversity were used to portray the same ideas. Infamous books such as the Bell Curve - a 1993 study on differences in educational achievement in white and black communities in the US, came to the conclusion that these differences were genetic - that white students may be more capable students due to genetic differences, and not differences in socio-economic advantages. This book is rightly considered pretty pseudo-scientific, but has been influential in right leaning think tanks and magazines like Mankind Quarterly, which have in turn fuelled racialized rhetoric in nations all over the world.
Saini looks at this form multiple perspectives, both from advert racists globally, and the more subtle, and inherent insensitivity and conflict that dog genetic research. Saini argues that genetics do not inform most differences between humans, and that, although an important field of study, genetics is often utilized for poor reasons. White supremacists scroll through academic papers to cherry pick information that conforms to their world view. Hindi nationalists use it to try and reignite the debates on caste and anti-Islamic thought. The list goes on. These deep connections are sought after by humans to try and conform to how they want to see the world, and how they want to perceive themselves. In reality, genetic diversity in humans in massively complex, and we show a remarkable level of human integration. On the plus side here, most racial sciences are considered to be quack, and many openly racists scientist are marginalized. Even so, they still exist, and groups like the Pioneer Fund, and their Mankind Quarterly, exist to fund racial sciences so that the debate on racial differences - largely considered bunk, can continue to influence opinions.
An excellent read through and through, this book is an excellent look at the peer-reviewed world behind racism, and how racial sciences exist to fuel political topics that have little to do with the actual human genome. A solid read, and definitely a recommendation for a great and informative work on racial sciences.
April 16, 2020
The power of nationalism is that it calls to the part of us that doesn’t want to accept being ordinary. It tells people that they are descended from greatness, that they have been genetically endowed with something special, something passed down to them over the generations. It attaches them to origin stories that have existed for hundreds of years, soaking into their subconscious, obscuring truth...Simply outstanding. Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong—and the New Research That's Rewriting the Story was also fantastic, but I think Saini has outdone herself here!
This is, above all, a journalist's exploration on what is happening right now. "Race science" never left, it was never gone, but it is having a resurgence today. Maybe most (some?) scientists have good intentions, but the language they use, the beliefs and biases they bring to their research, all of it has real-life consequences. This is what happens when researchers have already made their conclusions (through an upbringing full of society's social conditioning to believe that some races are inferior to others) before they have the evidence.
‘If you see the genetic markers today that are found in western Europe, people will see those in the past and continue referring to them as western European, even if they’re then also found in Siberia.’ It’s another example of an ‘indexing problem’, when the first available body of evidence influences subsequent thinking. Western researchers tend to have more access to European data because it’s on their doorstep, so later discoveries elsewhere in the world are often interpreted relative to these.Saini beautifully and effectively explains why "race" is not a biological category, but a social, cultural and political one. Scientists insistence to study race as biological has done extreme harm throughout history. First, as Saini explains, racial "difference" was believed to be "in the blood", while today many believe that it is genetic. As Saini frequently stresses, there are far more genetic variations within a "race" than there are between individuals of supposedly different races. There is a constant determination, within some sectors of the scientific community, that eventually they will find their proof of racial difference, that it'll be when the next form of technology comes into use, and the next, and the next...
And this results in a society like this:
...Americans cling to the idea of black exceptionalism when it comes to health may be that, in some way, the idea lets society off the hook. It places the blame for inequality at the foot of biology. If poor health today is intrinsic to black bodies and nothing to do with racism, it’s no one’s fault. ‘It says it’s not our organisation of society that’s somehow unfair or unjust or discriminatory. It’s not that we treat people badly. It’s not that we give people worse life chances,’ he says. ‘It’s just that these people have some genetic defect and it’s just the way they are.’It's disturbing and dispiriting, but Saini's collected evidence shows we cannot ignore this phenomenon any long. Race science was never history. It's still alive and here today.
Overall, a fascinating, readable and stellar read. Everyone and anyone should read this book! Above all, it's important reminder to check your beliefs and check your sources.
February 18, 2020
Ideologically driven, unsupported by science
The way this book was written is the following: "Racism is bad, therefore we have to conclude that race is not real." Otherwise we'd have to face some uncomfortable truths..
What follows is the typical downplaying of race differences, proclaiming everything as superficial. All in accordance to modern liberalism, but little to do with biology. Skip this book if you'd rather stick to reality and the truth.
The way this book was written is the following: "Racism is bad, therefore we have to conclude that race is not real." Otherwise we'd have to face some uncomfortable truths..
What follows is the typical downplaying of race differences, proclaiming everything as superficial. All in accordance to modern liberalism, but little to do with biology. Skip this book if you'd rather stick to reality and the truth.
July 11, 2023
Angela Saini esta definitivamente sola. Que buena comunicadora. Que temas tan pertinentes los que aborda. Que rigor.
Este, su segundo libro, aborda una de las dos problemáticas sociales más acuciantes del presente.
Me refiero, en primer lugar, a la situación de sumisión e inferioridad –y una infinidad de otras problemáticas relacionadas– a la que se ha sometido al conjunto de todas las mujeres –la mitad de la humanidad– a lo largo de la historia. Condición que ha sido aupada, especialmente en los últimos dos siglos, por discursos con un alto prestigio social como la ciencia. Este fue precisamente el tema de su primer libro "Inferior" (mi reseña por aquí).
La segunda problemática es el racismo, tanto el racismo cotidiano, del que difícilmente nos libraremos en mucho tiempo –sus sesgos y vicios nos han conquistado sin remedio–, como los aún más nocivos racismos intelectuales y científicos que, como sucede con el machismo, han contado con un respaldo centenario del sacrosanto edificio de la ciencia. Este es precisamente el tema de su segundo libro, "Superior".
Como me ha pasado con otros libros, demore muchísimo el inicio de la lectura de este texto, aún después de haber devorado "Inferior" en un par de días y de comprobar la capacidad de Saini para atraparte. Como debe pasarles a todas las personas que siempre están leyendo, yo trato de variar los temas de mis lecturas para no aburrirme de una temática particular. Sin embargo, debo reconocer que le di muchas largas a empezar este libro urgente. Me arrepiento y explico más adelante por qué.
Cuando al fin lo comencé, no pude soltarlo.
Como sucede con las lecturas de feminismos, para quiénes hemos pasado por la vida sin reconocer el andamiaje de poder, privilegios y sesgos que sostiene a nuestras sociedades, enfrentarse por primera vez a estas lecturas es realmente asombroso. No sé si le pasa a todo el mundo. Pero al leer de feminismos y ahora de racismo, siento que estoy llegando a un planeta desconocido y quiero saberlo todo. Ya lo he dicho en otras reseñas, pero con este tema me pasaba como cuando estaba más joven y empece a leer mis primeros libros de astronomía: eran como una puerta abierta a un universo desconocido y fascinante.
Bueno, a diferencia de la astronomía, la "fascinación" por los feminismos y las discusiones raciales debe ser matizada por el hecho de que miles de millones de personas han sufrido injustamente.
Lo mejor de los libros de Saini es la combinación armoniosa de buena ciencia, anécdotas personales, opinión profesional y crónica periodística. Este maridaje de buenas prácticas narrativa hace que sus libros sean más fáciles de leer a pesar de estar muchas veces cargados de datos y de detalles técnicos. Esto último, es parte también de lo que admiro de ella. Siendo una profesional del periodismo, me ha impresionado mucho su capacidad para profundizar en temas muy técnicos. En el caso de este libro por ejemplo, es admirable su manejo de temas de genética, evolución animal y en particular humana, incluso de bioquímica. ¡Me quito el sombrero!
En "Superior", usando esa particular combinación de elementos, hacemos un viaje por la historia, no solamente del racismo científico que, según las investigaciones de Saini se remonta a mediados del siglo XVIII cuando se introdujo oficialmente las primeras ideas –casi supersticiones– sobre la "raza", sino también hacemos un viaje por la historia de nuestra propia especie.
Y es que para entender la falacia del concepto de raza debemos también viajar a nuestro pasado remoto, reconstruir, en la medida en la que nos permiten las evidencias arqueológicas y genéticas, el "viaje" de la humanidad entre las colinas figuradas de la evolución.
Con este libro reafirme lo que venía leyendo en otros textos y es la idea de que Homo sapiens, como especie, no esta enteramente separada de sus antepasados. Es una falacia pensar que un día éramos Homo erectus y al día siguiente nacimos humanos. La evolución, al menos la evolución humana, no da saltos. Hubo un tiempo en el que personas mucho más diversas de las que vivimos hoy, a las que habríamos llamado perfectamente humanos, poblábamos la Tierra. Algunas de esas personas se reconocen hoy como de especies diferentes dentro de la taxonomía biológica, pero solo porque necesitamos estos compartimientos para entender el mundo, no porque fueran esencial y profundamente diferentes (incluso con algunos de ellos tuvimos sexo y descendientes, una de las barreras reconocidas por la evolución entre las especies).
Si llegamos a entender que incluso personas que la misma ciencia reconoce como de especies diferentes, pudieron llegar a ser muy parecidas a nosotros, al punto quizás de considerarlas simplemente miembros de otras tribus ¿tiene algún sentido establecer barreras biológicas, como las razas, entre las personas que vivimos en el presente?
Curiosamente esta reflexión la puedo hacer hoy, gracias a las evidencias arqueológicas y genéticas que se han acumulado durante décadas. Sin embargo, durante la mayor parte de la historia de la ciencia, la idea dominante era muy distinta y este es el corazón del libro de Saini.
No solo pensábamos que Homo sapiens era diferente de todas las especies animales, vivas y extintas, incluso otras especies de homininos –como Homo neardentalensis, una idea a la que hoy llamamos especismo –y de la que no habla explícitamente Saini–, sino que aceptábamos, incluso con el sello de calidad de la ciencia, que entre los individuos de nuestra especie existen diferencias genéticas significativas que se ven reflejadas en rasgos superficiales o fenotípicos, el color de piel, la estatura, los rasgos faciales, otros rasgos físicos menos evidentes como la propensión a sufrir de ciertas enfermedades –la hipertensión por ejemplo entre las personas "afroamericanas" de los Estados Unidos– y aún peor, se sostenía que estas diferencias biológicas entre poblaciones humanas se reflejaban en diferencias de aptitudes y comportamientos, la inteligencia, la pereza, la tendencia a la criminalidad, entre muchas otras.
En una palabra: racismo puro y duro.
Leyendo a Saini me di cuenta de las múltiples veces que, supuestamente sin quererlo, he sido racista. Esta es una de las cosas buenas de leer este tipo de libros: problematizan las cosas que has considerado siempre normales, el machismo y el racismo en particular, te hacen ver la viga en el ojo propio.
Sin pensarlo mucho, he compartido y hablado de ideas tales como el efecto de selección que supuestamente se produjo entre los africanos venidos a América durante el holocausto esclavista de la modernidad. Lo he hecho, casi siempre, para decir cosas supuestamente buenas de las personas de esas comunidades; cosas como que "los negros y las negras americanas son más grandes, más lindas, cantan mejor". Creí que le hacía un favor a una minoría cuando en realidad estaba siendo racista. Punto.
Con Saini he aprendido que no hace falta no hablar mal de una minoría, incluso de una comunidad de miles de millones –chinos, indios, africanos, y me refiero aquí a los humanos casi idénticos a nosotros que nacieron y crecieron en esas regiones del mundo– para ser racista. El racismo se manifiesta en el momento en el que crees que hay una barrera biológica, que hay unos determinantes genéticos que nos hacen diferentes.
Saini, nos presenta las posiciones de parte y parte del debate; en su libro no solo leemos las posiciones de los científicos "progre" –el término que han inventado los racistas, homofóbicos y sexistas para descalificar disimuladamente el esfuerzo por hacer un mundo mejor para todos–, sino también de algunos personajes que sostienen el racismo intelectual y científico con la ayuda del financiamiento de fundaciones supremacistas, especialmente en países como Estados Unidos.
La autora nos convence, a la larga, de que la suma de todas las evidencias disponibles y el resultado de debates que llevan años haciéndose en distintos escenarios, demuestra que la idea de "raza" es simplemente una superstición. De que la diversidad genética humana, si bien es más amplia de lo esperado, lo que también debe celebrarse, una especie poco diversa esta condenada, es incapaz de explicar casi cualquiera de las diferencias que los racistas señalan existen entre las poblaciones que quieren menospreciar y a las que, de otro lado, quieren elevar al pináculo de la evolución.
El barniz de cultura que cubre nuestro millonario legado evolutivo, es suficientemente complejo para explicar casi todas nuestras diferencias en inteligencia, en avances sociales, en sensibilidad a las enfermedades, en violencia, etc.
La raza es un concepto científico arcaico usado para sostener estructuras de poder.
El libro de Saini es también una nueva advertencia para quiénes hacemos ciencia.
Es absurdo pensar que los descubrimiento científicos no están también afectados por la política y las ideologías sociales. Y aunque esto afecta a todas las ciencias sin excepción –incluso las aparentemente asépticas disciplinas de la física o la astronomía– es particularmente cierto en las ciencias más cercanas a la experiencia humana, la biología, la sicología, la medicina, la sociología. Si seguimos ciegos al hecho de que la ciencia es también un producto cultural, y uno muy útil para sostener ciertas estructuras de poder, podremos, como ya paso con la eugenesia, un caso ampliamente tratado en "Superior", arrepentirnos después de nuestra ingenuidad.
Bueno, si es que hay tiempo.
El racismo, como denuncia Saini en este excelente libro, está ganando terreno.
Hay que leer a "Superior" para, por lo menos, no convertirse o no seguir siendo cajas de resonancia de estas supersticiones dañinas.
Este, su segundo libro, aborda una de las dos problemáticas sociales más acuciantes del presente.
Me refiero, en primer lugar, a la situación de sumisión e inferioridad –y una infinidad de otras problemáticas relacionadas– a la que se ha sometido al conjunto de todas las mujeres –la mitad de la humanidad– a lo largo de la historia. Condición que ha sido aupada, especialmente en los últimos dos siglos, por discursos con un alto prestigio social como la ciencia. Este fue precisamente el tema de su primer libro "Inferior" (mi reseña por aquí).
La segunda problemática es el racismo, tanto el racismo cotidiano, del que difícilmente nos libraremos en mucho tiempo –sus sesgos y vicios nos han conquistado sin remedio–, como los aún más nocivos racismos intelectuales y científicos que, como sucede con el machismo, han contado con un respaldo centenario del sacrosanto edificio de la ciencia. Este es precisamente el tema de su segundo libro, "Superior".
Como me ha pasado con otros libros, demore muchísimo el inicio de la lectura de este texto, aún después de haber devorado "Inferior" en un par de días y de comprobar la capacidad de Saini para atraparte. Como debe pasarles a todas las personas que siempre están leyendo, yo trato de variar los temas de mis lecturas para no aburrirme de una temática particular. Sin embargo, debo reconocer que le di muchas largas a empezar este libro urgente. Me arrepiento y explico más adelante por qué.
Cuando al fin lo comencé, no pude soltarlo.
Como sucede con las lecturas de feminismos, para quiénes hemos pasado por la vida sin reconocer el andamiaje de poder, privilegios y sesgos que sostiene a nuestras sociedades, enfrentarse por primera vez a estas lecturas es realmente asombroso. No sé si le pasa a todo el mundo. Pero al leer de feminismos y ahora de racismo, siento que estoy llegando a un planeta desconocido y quiero saberlo todo. Ya lo he dicho en otras reseñas, pero con este tema me pasaba como cuando estaba más joven y empece a leer mis primeros libros de astronomía: eran como una puerta abierta a un universo desconocido y fascinante.
Bueno, a diferencia de la astronomía, la "fascinación" por los feminismos y las discusiones raciales debe ser matizada por el hecho de que miles de millones de personas han sufrido injustamente.
Lo mejor de los libros de Saini es la combinación armoniosa de buena ciencia, anécdotas personales, opinión profesional y crónica periodística. Este maridaje de buenas prácticas narrativa hace que sus libros sean más fáciles de leer a pesar de estar muchas veces cargados de datos y de detalles técnicos. Esto último, es parte también de lo que admiro de ella. Siendo una profesional del periodismo, me ha impresionado mucho su capacidad para profundizar en temas muy técnicos. En el caso de este libro por ejemplo, es admirable su manejo de temas de genética, evolución animal y en particular humana, incluso de bioquímica. ¡Me quito el sombrero!
En "Superior", usando esa particular combinación de elementos, hacemos un viaje por la historia, no solamente del racismo científico que, según las investigaciones de Saini se remonta a mediados del siglo XVIII cuando se introdujo oficialmente las primeras ideas –casi supersticiones– sobre la "raza", sino también hacemos un viaje por la historia de nuestra propia especie.
Y es que para entender la falacia del concepto de raza debemos también viajar a nuestro pasado remoto, reconstruir, en la medida en la que nos permiten las evidencias arqueológicas y genéticas, el "viaje" de la humanidad entre las colinas figuradas de la evolución.
Con este libro reafirme lo que venía leyendo en otros textos y es la idea de que Homo sapiens, como especie, no esta enteramente separada de sus antepasados. Es una falacia pensar que un día éramos Homo erectus y al día siguiente nacimos humanos. La evolución, al menos la evolución humana, no da saltos. Hubo un tiempo en el que personas mucho más diversas de las que vivimos hoy, a las que habríamos llamado perfectamente humanos, poblábamos la Tierra. Algunas de esas personas se reconocen hoy como de especies diferentes dentro de la taxonomía biológica, pero solo porque necesitamos estos compartimientos para entender el mundo, no porque fueran esencial y profundamente diferentes (incluso con algunos de ellos tuvimos sexo y descendientes, una de las barreras reconocidas por la evolución entre las especies).
Si llegamos a entender que incluso personas que la misma ciencia reconoce como de especies diferentes, pudieron llegar a ser muy parecidas a nosotros, al punto quizás de considerarlas simplemente miembros de otras tribus ¿tiene algún sentido establecer barreras biológicas, como las razas, entre las personas que vivimos en el presente?
Curiosamente esta reflexión la puedo hacer hoy, gracias a las evidencias arqueológicas y genéticas que se han acumulado durante décadas. Sin embargo, durante la mayor parte de la historia de la ciencia, la idea dominante era muy distinta y este es el corazón del libro de Saini.
No solo pensábamos que Homo sapiens era diferente de todas las especies animales, vivas y extintas, incluso otras especies de homininos –como Homo neardentalensis, una idea a la que hoy llamamos especismo –y de la que no habla explícitamente Saini–, sino que aceptábamos, incluso con el sello de calidad de la ciencia, que entre los individuos de nuestra especie existen diferencias genéticas significativas que se ven reflejadas en rasgos superficiales o fenotípicos, el color de piel, la estatura, los rasgos faciales, otros rasgos físicos menos evidentes como la propensión a sufrir de ciertas enfermedades –la hipertensión por ejemplo entre las personas "afroamericanas" de los Estados Unidos– y aún peor, se sostenía que estas diferencias biológicas entre poblaciones humanas se reflejaban en diferencias de aptitudes y comportamientos, la inteligencia, la pereza, la tendencia a la criminalidad, entre muchas otras.
En una palabra: racismo puro y duro.
Leyendo a Saini me di cuenta de las múltiples veces que, supuestamente sin quererlo, he sido racista. Esta es una de las cosas buenas de leer este tipo de libros: problematizan las cosas que has considerado siempre normales, el machismo y el racismo en particular, te hacen ver la viga en el ojo propio.
Sin pensarlo mucho, he compartido y hablado de ideas tales como el efecto de selección que supuestamente se produjo entre los africanos venidos a América durante el holocausto esclavista de la modernidad. Lo he hecho, casi siempre, para decir cosas supuestamente buenas de las personas de esas comunidades; cosas como que "los negros y las negras americanas son más grandes, más lindas, cantan mejor". Creí que le hacía un favor a una minoría cuando en realidad estaba siendo racista. Punto.
Con Saini he aprendido que no hace falta no hablar mal de una minoría, incluso de una comunidad de miles de millones –chinos, indios, africanos, y me refiero aquí a los humanos casi idénticos a nosotros que nacieron y crecieron en esas regiones del mundo– para ser racista. El racismo se manifiesta en el momento en el que crees que hay una barrera biológica, que hay unos determinantes genéticos que nos hacen diferentes.
Saini, nos presenta las posiciones de parte y parte del debate; en su libro no solo leemos las posiciones de los científicos "progre" –el término que han inventado los racistas, homofóbicos y sexistas para descalificar disimuladamente el esfuerzo por hacer un mundo mejor para todos–, sino también de algunos personajes que sostienen el racismo intelectual y científico con la ayuda del financiamiento de fundaciones supremacistas, especialmente en países como Estados Unidos.
La autora nos convence, a la larga, de que la suma de todas las evidencias disponibles y el resultado de debates que llevan años haciéndose en distintos escenarios, demuestra que la idea de "raza" es simplemente una superstición. De que la diversidad genética humana, si bien es más amplia de lo esperado, lo que también debe celebrarse, una especie poco diversa esta condenada, es incapaz de explicar casi cualquiera de las diferencias que los racistas señalan existen entre las poblaciones que quieren menospreciar y a las que, de otro lado, quieren elevar al pináculo de la evolución.
El barniz de cultura que cubre nuestro millonario legado evolutivo, es suficientemente complejo para explicar casi todas nuestras diferencias en inteligencia, en avances sociales, en sensibilidad a las enfermedades, en violencia, etc.
La raza es un concepto científico arcaico usado para sostener estructuras de poder.
El libro de Saini es también una nueva advertencia para quiénes hacemos ciencia.
Es absurdo pensar que los descubrimiento científicos no están también afectados por la política y las ideologías sociales. Y aunque esto afecta a todas las ciencias sin excepción –incluso las aparentemente asépticas disciplinas de la física o la astronomía– es particularmente cierto en las ciencias más cercanas a la experiencia humana, la biología, la sicología, la medicina, la sociología. Si seguimos ciegos al hecho de que la ciencia es también un producto cultural, y uno muy útil para sostener ciertas estructuras de poder, podremos, como ya paso con la eugenesia, un caso ampliamente tratado en "Superior", arrepentirnos después de nuestra ingenuidad.
Bueno, si es que hay tiempo.
El racismo, como denuncia Saini en este excelente libro, está ganando terreno.
Hay que leer a "Superior" para, por lo menos, no convertirse o no seguir siendo cajas de resonancia de estas supersticiones dañinas.
April 13, 2020
I was so excited to read "Superior", having loved Saini's previous book, "Inferior" - which used science to systematically debunk myths about essential differences between men and women. It was a brilliantly researched and written book, which gave me ammunition in conversations with (sometimes well-meaning) people who say things like "I'm all for equality, but men and women are just wired differently, aren't they."
"Superior" promised to do the same for racism and race science - I expected to see similar analysis and critique of the scientific studies which claim to find essential differences between races. There was some of this, but it came late in the book, and only made up about a quarter of the content.
Instead, a large proportion of the book was dedicated to explaining the history of race & why it's a flawed concept, and following the network of money & influence behind the scientific journals which public race science today. Interesting and worthy topics, but not really what I was expecting, and covered somewhat repetitively in overly painstainking detail.
I was left feeling slightly confused about who the book was targeted at: if Saini is looking to bolster the beliefs and knowledge of anti-racist readers, imo the scientific rebuttal was lacking vs the more conceptual discussions of race (which presumably this group would already be familiar with). Similarly, if she's looking to convert people who believe that there are some essential genetic differences between people with different skin tones, 100+ pages of up-front debate about "but what even is race tho" would probably feel like an evasion, rather than a way to engage and win them over.
It's a shame, because this is such an important topic, but I felt the balance of content and its ordering within the book detracted from the key points Saini was trying to make.
(Also, this is not a genuine criticism, but the cover design gave me occasional concerns that people on the tube [I read this pre-lockdown] would think I was reading a pro-white supremacy book lol.)
"Superior" promised to do the same for racism and race science - I expected to see similar analysis and critique of the scientific studies which claim to find essential differences between races. There was some of this, but it came late in the book, and only made up about a quarter of the content.
Instead, a large proportion of the book was dedicated to explaining the history of race & why it's a flawed concept, and following the network of money & influence behind the scientific journals which public race science today. Interesting and worthy topics, but not really what I was expecting, and covered somewhat repetitively in overly painstainking detail.
I was left feeling slightly confused about who the book was targeted at: if Saini is looking to bolster the beliefs and knowledge of anti-racist readers, imo the scientific rebuttal was lacking vs the more conceptual discussions of race (which presumably this group would already be familiar with). Similarly, if she's looking to convert people who believe that there are some essential genetic differences between people with different skin tones, 100+ pages of up-front debate about "but what even is race tho" would probably feel like an evasion, rather than a way to engage and win them over.
It's a shame, because this is such an important topic, but I felt the balance of content and its ordering within the book detracted from the key points Saini was trying to make.
(Also, this is not a genuine criticism, but the cover design gave me occasional concerns that people on the tube [I read this pre-lockdown] would think I was reading a pro-white supremacy book lol.)
January 17, 2024
I'd like to first acknowledge that I largely agree with a major premise of the work: race, in its casual usage even in scientific work, is largely a social construct without a biological definition. However, Saini's almost complete rejection of genetic effects and categorical thinking (common to her work) is difficult to treat seriously. It reveals that Saini is more polemicist than a neutral reviewer of the science. This delicate and complex topic deserves a more nuanced treatment, and Saini should steelman the arguments of her foes rather than strawman them or devolve to tactics like guilt by association and ad hominem (unfortunately much of the work is predicated on this).
Additionally, I do appreciate Saini's criticism of post hoc fallacies, p-hacking, and other pyschological biases and sloppy methodologies that affect the accuracy and precision of scientific studies. However, it also seems that Saini is not particularly enamored with the scientific method as an epistemology (or system for arriving at truths about human nature and variation), often selling it short when convenient or implying that humans are too constrained by their sociocultural milieu to perform science objectively. This is an unreasonable and wantonly pessimistic perspective on scientific inquiry. Superior is unfortunately not a fair representation of science broadly or the fields that study intra-species diversity in human populations. She essentially insinuates that the fields of behavioral genetics and population genetics are racist and eugenicist by design.
For a more nuanced understanding of how race and human ancestry are related (imperfectly of course), I'd recommend reading David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. Saini interviews Reich in her book, but fails to substantively engage with his science. For instance, the early portion of the book ignores a topical observation about the selection against Neanderthal portions of the human genome. The omission of the relevant fact appears to be motivated by fear that the obvious implication here is that humans are subject to selection pressures (like other species) and hence have allele frequencies that can vary substantially across different sub-population for various reasons (like other species). There are numerous examples of this, which is also why population geneticists are able to use genetic markers to cluster individuals with high confidence by ancestry (which often times but not always correlates with casual understandings of race). Saini doesn't even address this issue directly.
As a geneticist, maybe my biggest gripe is that there really isn't any depth to the discussion of genetics in the book. Saini's Superior repeatedly reveals either a poor or deliberately misleading picture of genetics and genome sciences, including a sophomoric criticism of Mendelian genetics (largely a reality for a quarter of the coding portion of the genome). Ironically, Saini's argument for race as a complete social construct is (unknowingly to her) partially predicated on a world of perfect Mendelian genetics (i.e., the principle of independent assortment).
As one can see by the length of this review (it could go on), there are a lot of sophisticated issues raised by the work, but most are treated without sufficient depth and rigor. Instead, Saini chose to waste ink on tracking down which purported scientific racist got funding from where or is on the editorial board of which journal. I think it's vitally important to criticize and refute faulty science and distortions of scientific data, especially when used for nefarious, racist purposes, but this isn't a license to be sloppy methodologically and intellectually in return. It isn't license to deploy motivated reasoning (like the equal post hoc fallacy of chalking up disparities all to history or racism) and replace science with activism.
Additionally, I do appreciate Saini's criticism of post hoc fallacies, p-hacking, and other pyschological biases and sloppy methodologies that affect the accuracy and precision of scientific studies. However, it also seems that Saini is not particularly enamored with the scientific method as an epistemology (or system for arriving at truths about human nature and variation), often selling it short when convenient or implying that humans are too constrained by their sociocultural milieu to perform science objectively. This is an unreasonable and wantonly pessimistic perspective on scientific inquiry. Superior is unfortunately not a fair representation of science broadly or the fields that study intra-species diversity in human populations. She essentially insinuates that the fields of behavioral genetics and population genetics are racist and eugenicist by design.
For a more nuanced understanding of how race and human ancestry are related (imperfectly of course), I'd recommend reading David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. Saini interviews Reich in her book, but fails to substantively engage with his science. For instance, the early portion of the book ignores a topical observation about the selection against Neanderthal portions of the human genome. The omission of the relevant fact appears to be motivated by fear that the obvious implication here is that humans are subject to selection pressures (like other species) and hence have allele frequencies that can vary substantially across different sub-population for various reasons (like other species). There are numerous examples of this, which is also why population geneticists are able to use genetic markers to cluster individuals with high confidence by ancestry (which often times but not always correlates with casual understandings of race). Saini doesn't even address this issue directly.
As a geneticist, maybe my biggest gripe is that there really isn't any depth to the discussion of genetics in the book. Saini's Superior repeatedly reveals either a poor or deliberately misleading picture of genetics and genome sciences, including a sophomoric criticism of Mendelian genetics (largely a reality for a quarter of the coding portion of the genome). Ironically, Saini's argument for race as a complete social construct is (unknowingly to her) partially predicated on a world of perfect Mendelian genetics (i.e., the principle of independent assortment).
As one can see by the length of this review (it could go on), there are a lot of sophisticated issues raised by the work, but most are treated without sufficient depth and rigor. Instead, Saini chose to waste ink on tracking down which purported scientific racist got funding from where or is on the editorial board of which journal. I think it's vitally important to criticize and refute faulty science and distortions of scientific data, especially when used for nefarious, racist purposes, but this isn't a license to be sloppy methodologically and intellectually in return. It isn't license to deploy motivated reasoning (like the equal post hoc fallacy of chalking up disparities all to history or racism) and replace science with activism.
July 16, 2019
I expected this book to focus on debunking the idea of innate differences in abilities between races. Instead, Saini documents the history of racial prejudice influencing science. The book is stronger for this approach, and I came out wiser, if a little more scared.
In a well-written, often absorbing narrative, Saini documents the thread of eugenics from Darwinism, through fascism, and right to fringe publications, wealthy foundations, and even members of the editorial boards of mainstream science journals. She illustrates how a consistent way of thinking - which emphasises the superiority of European norms and peoples - continues to influence more mainstream thought. In this, the idea that outright racists are still within the Academy - is a little frightening in an era where outright racist ideas are gaining currency.
Saini also looks at modern fields, from genetics to social and neuroscience. She covers the woeful tale of BiDil, which was for many years touted as the forerunner of a wave of racialised medicine. BiDil treats hypertension, which African-Americans suffer from in much higher rates than whites. Many American scientists persist in viewing this as a probable genetic difference, despite Africans (and Afro-Cuban) having quite low levels of hypertension. BiDil was touted as more effective on African-Americans. The issue is that it wasn't - in fact, in seeking approval to have listed as a specific racially targeted drug, BiDil was *only* tested on African Americans. The motivation was what Saini coyly calls "marketing", but was really to keep the drug in patent, and hence not subject to competing with generics. Nearly a decade on, BiDil is mostly a failure, not that surprising given it is marketed at a poor segment of the population but costs a mint, meaning health insurers won't pay for it. Oh, and it appears equally effective on all racial groups. BiDil has turned out to be the birth and death of racialised medicine.
Saini also interviews David Reich, who bedazzles her with his complex net of understanding if how genetically mixed most humans are, descended from waves of people who use their ingenuity to get closer to the rest of the world, before twisting to hold open the "but theoretically we could have cognitive differences between population groups which correspond to race". Saini tackles him on how these ideas have been used - given that while " theoretically" it is possible, we have no evidence that is actually is - despite many goes at proving so. Reich's insistence that science will proof us against prejudice rings uncomfortably naive against the background of the book. It harkens back to the history of the Max Planck Institute/Kaiser Wilhelm institute, whose scientists mostly acquiesced to the Nazis, producing endless science demonstrating the superiority of blond Germans. The resisters were heroic, but they were also small in number and isolated.
This book comes at a crucial time, not only because racism is on the rise, but as our societies seem more than ever riven between those who dismiss scientific experts altogether, and this who regard them as infallible. The book reminds us that scientists are human, part of society, and just as capable of storing their truths to support evil as the rest of us.
In a well-written, often absorbing narrative, Saini documents the thread of eugenics from Darwinism, through fascism, and right to fringe publications, wealthy foundations, and even members of the editorial boards of mainstream science journals. She illustrates how a consistent way of thinking - which emphasises the superiority of European norms and peoples - continues to influence more mainstream thought. In this, the idea that outright racists are still within the Academy - is a little frightening in an era where outright racist ideas are gaining currency.
Saini also looks at modern fields, from genetics to social and neuroscience. She covers the woeful tale of BiDil, which was for many years touted as the forerunner of a wave of racialised medicine. BiDil treats hypertension, which African-Americans suffer from in much higher rates than whites. Many American scientists persist in viewing this as a probable genetic difference, despite Africans (and Afro-Cuban) having quite low levels of hypertension. BiDil was touted as more effective on African-Americans. The issue is that it wasn't - in fact, in seeking approval to have listed as a specific racially targeted drug, BiDil was *only* tested on African Americans. The motivation was what Saini coyly calls "marketing", but was really to keep the drug in patent, and hence not subject to competing with generics. Nearly a decade on, BiDil is mostly a failure, not that surprising given it is marketed at a poor segment of the population but costs a mint, meaning health insurers won't pay for it. Oh, and it appears equally effective on all racial groups. BiDil has turned out to be the birth and death of racialised medicine.
Saini also interviews David Reich, who bedazzles her with his complex net of understanding if how genetically mixed most humans are, descended from waves of people who use their ingenuity to get closer to the rest of the world, before twisting to hold open the "but theoretically we could have cognitive differences between population groups which correspond to race". Saini tackles him on how these ideas have been used - given that while " theoretically" it is possible, we have no evidence that is actually is - despite many goes at proving so. Reich's insistence that science will proof us against prejudice rings uncomfortably naive against the background of the book. It harkens back to the history of the Max Planck Institute/Kaiser Wilhelm institute, whose scientists mostly acquiesced to the Nazis, producing endless science demonstrating the superiority of blond Germans. The resisters were heroic, but they were also small in number and isolated.
This book comes at a crucial time, not only because racism is on the rise, but as our societies seem more than ever riven between those who dismiss scientific experts altogether, and this who regard them as infallible. The book reminds us that scientists are human, part of society, and just as capable of storing their truths to support evil as the rest of us.
July 13, 2020
This book was a bit underwhelming to say the least. I expected something a little stronger from Saini. First off I thought I'd mention, I don't hate this book, in fact I thought some points were extremely well thought out and made sense for all.
However, I'd like to think, not one person believes that scientists are immune to racism and nationalism (whether that be receiving or implementing) in the past. Scientific racism was definitely happening, as was general racism. I personally do not see a need to categorise them differently. It is racism and it is wrong.
As a scientist, the only way to combat hard biological science is with hard biological science, not the less factual sociology and psychology. I understand where most her points stem from and I am ashamed of the history of Europeans (particularly the Brits and Germans) and the scientific community for being a part of it. But I found this should have been a factual history lesson and not an opinionated (one sided throughout) theory. It was very repetitive and did not need to be the length it was.
I'm a little saddened by this. I had high expectations after seeing it on Nature's Top 10 of 2019. I will continue to educate myself on this topic but from a historical standpoint as that beat suits what I am looking for.
However, I'd like to think, not one person believes that scientists are immune to racism and nationalism (whether that be receiving or implementing) in the past. Scientific racism was definitely happening, as was general racism. I personally do not see a need to categorise them differently. It is racism and it is wrong.
As a scientist, the only way to combat hard biological science is with hard biological science, not the less factual sociology and psychology. I understand where most her points stem from and I am ashamed of the history of Europeans (particularly the Brits and Germans) and the scientific community for being a part of it. But I found this should have been a factual history lesson and not an opinionated (one sided throughout) theory. It was very repetitive and did not need to be the length it was.
I'm a little saddened by this. I had high expectations after seeing it on Nature's Top 10 of 2019. I will continue to educate myself on this topic but from a historical standpoint as that beat suits what I am looking for.
August 2, 2020
Detailed look at the interconnection of science(s) and its social & political aspects. Saini gives a good historical perspective and brings the issues forward to the present day to show how persistent and pernicious the effects of racism are on how we study (or try to study) human variation as well as how we apply the results. I appreciated that she took a global perspective, not just focussing on the United States, but had examples from other countries (Great Britain, India), and not only majority white countries showing how deeply embedded these issues are all over.
May 9, 2020
It takes some mental acrobatics to be an intellectual racist in light of the scientific information we have today, but those who want to do it, will. Racists will find validation wherever they can, even if it means working a little harder than usual.
June 20, 2019
An utterly gripping book. An essential read for an era in which pernicious racism is finding new support in bogus science.
November 25, 2020
Once again, Angela Saini has written a book that I think should be required reading for scientists. I loved seeing the growth in her writing style from Inferior to Superior. Her journalism background shines through and brings a unique aspect to her storytelling. She unfolds the focus of each chapter by starting with assumptions the reader/society has, quickly unraveling them and illuminating how there is more to every story. I love how she is able to layer scientific studies, personal stories, history, politics, and interviews together so seamlessly, providing the reader with extensive details to support her narrative. I’ve learned so much about just how deep racism runs in biology through this book, and it’s shown me that I still have a lot further to go in unpacking the subject. There are a lot of questions scientists and academics need to be asking to fix the systemic problems in our field and society as a whole. Would definitely recommend!
October 30, 2020
I found this very interesting and thought provoking. Amazing how we all still refer to ‘race’ without really knowing what it is and this book provides an interesting insight into the mentality of and defences for undeserved ‘superiority’.
I am with Martin Luther King on this one… I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Great writing, love this author.
I am with Martin Luther King on this one… I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Great writing, love this author.
May 23, 2019
I won an advance copy of this book through the website Library Thing. The subject matter is so timely, what with the rise of right wing nationalists in both the USA and Europe. When most people think of racists, they think of creepy inbred guys like the one playing banjo in the movie Deliverance. They think of guys wearing white robes, burning crosses on lawns. They think of Nazis wearing SS uniforms. They don't think of scientists and writers and professors.
It's these white collar, professional racists that are the most dangerous. Using flawed research and misinterpretations of data, they provide the intellectual ballast for right wing politician's political views. By citing "science", the politicians appeal to people's fears while at the same time sounding logical and reasonable. After all, it can't be racist if it's a "fact". No matter that these "facts" are not true, that they do not hold up to peer review or any sort of scrutiny at all. It's all about the presentation. There are a few journals, funded by right wing patrons, that provide a sort of echo chamber for these people. It's the same few names over & over again, taking turns validating each other. It fools people into thinking, "Hey this research is being published so it must be correct." Wrong, anyone with money can start a journal or think tank and then publish anything they want. Science is becomes a tool for the rationalization of political ideas.
This book traces the history of race science, that is, the science of "proving" how white Europeans are better than everyone else. It started in the 1700's with the Age of Enlightenment. People wanted to study the human race. As Saini puts it - "The problem was that, because of the narrow parameters they established of what constituted a human being, setting themselves as the benchmark, other cultures were almost guaranteed not to fit. By seeing themselves as the paradigm, they had laid the foundations for dividing it." It reminded me of a book I read recently about medical research, about how men's bodies are considered the default normal. Disease symptoms, side effects from medicine etc - it's how a man's body reacts that is considered "normal". The fact that women's bodies often react differently from mens is seen as the abnormal reaction. It's the same here. Seeing their own culture and situation as "normal" and others as "abnormal". The initial definitions are wrong and so the science is flawed from the beginning.
"When we study human origins, we don't start at the beginning, we start at the end, with our own assumptions as the basis for inquiry." Data in and of itself doesn't say anything. It's how we interpret the data. Scientists don't live in a vacuum. They are social creatures, who live in a society and their ideas are social constructions. Science is always shaped by the time and the place it is carried out. Saini gives an interesting example using the medical study of hypertension. It used to be seen as a Jewish disease because Jews were an inferior race more prone to health issues. Currently some medical professionals see it as a black disease, that black people are more prone to hypertension because of innate flaws within them. History, culture, environment are dismissed as reasons for differences within groups. The default answer is that it is due to biology.
Saini also delves into the definition of race. Who came up with these categories. Why they came up with the categories. What does genetics and archaeology say about these categories. Why people want/need to separate people into groups. There are no good biological classifiers for race. It hinges on external differences like skin pigmentation and hair texture. There are no internal differences between humans. There is no variant of any gene that has been found to exist in everyone of one "race" and not in another. There is only one race, the human race. Our made up categories come out of humans need to be different from others.
Another great Saini quote - "The power of nationalism calls to the part of us that doesn't want to be ordinary. People like to believe that they are descended from greatness, that they have been genetically endowed with greatness. It's not enough to be who we are now, to be good human beings in the present." It reminds me of people who believe in reincarnation. No one ever says in a past life that they were a peasant farmer, a petty bureaucrat, etc. They were always Napoleon or Cleopatra or Genghis Khan. Someone special! Thinking of humans in terms of different races lets people delude themselves with specialness.The idea of race didn't turn people racist, make them think of other groups as subhuman. The mistreatment was already there & already happening. The concept of race gave a rationale for the mistreatment.
Race is not a universal construct.
Race is not a biological rule.
Race is a story we tell ourselves.
It's these white collar, professional racists that are the most dangerous. Using flawed research and misinterpretations of data, they provide the intellectual ballast for right wing politician's political views. By citing "science", the politicians appeal to people's fears while at the same time sounding logical and reasonable. After all, it can't be racist if it's a "fact". No matter that these "facts" are not true, that they do not hold up to peer review or any sort of scrutiny at all. It's all about the presentation. There are a few journals, funded by right wing patrons, that provide a sort of echo chamber for these people. It's the same few names over & over again, taking turns validating each other. It fools people into thinking, "Hey this research is being published so it must be correct." Wrong, anyone with money can start a journal or think tank and then publish anything they want. Science is becomes a tool for the rationalization of political ideas.
This book traces the history of race science, that is, the science of "proving" how white Europeans are better than everyone else. It started in the 1700's with the Age of Enlightenment. People wanted to study the human race. As Saini puts it - "The problem was that, because of the narrow parameters they established of what constituted a human being, setting themselves as the benchmark, other cultures were almost guaranteed not to fit. By seeing themselves as the paradigm, they had laid the foundations for dividing it." It reminded me of a book I read recently about medical research, about how men's bodies are considered the default normal. Disease symptoms, side effects from medicine etc - it's how a man's body reacts that is considered "normal". The fact that women's bodies often react differently from mens is seen as the abnormal reaction. It's the same here. Seeing their own culture and situation as "normal" and others as "abnormal". The initial definitions are wrong and so the science is flawed from the beginning.
"When we study human origins, we don't start at the beginning, we start at the end, with our own assumptions as the basis for inquiry." Data in and of itself doesn't say anything. It's how we interpret the data. Scientists don't live in a vacuum. They are social creatures, who live in a society and their ideas are social constructions. Science is always shaped by the time and the place it is carried out. Saini gives an interesting example using the medical study of hypertension. It used to be seen as a Jewish disease because Jews were an inferior race more prone to health issues. Currently some medical professionals see it as a black disease, that black people are more prone to hypertension because of innate flaws within them. History, culture, environment are dismissed as reasons for differences within groups. The default answer is that it is due to biology.
Saini also delves into the definition of race. Who came up with these categories. Why they came up with the categories. What does genetics and archaeology say about these categories. Why people want/need to separate people into groups. There are no good biological classifiers for race. It hinges on external differences like skin pigmentation and hair texture. There are no internal differences between humans. There is no variant of any gene that has been found to exist in everyone of one "race" and not in another. There is only one race, the human race. Our made up categories come out of humans need to be different from others.
Another great Saini quote - "The power of nationalism calls to the part of us that doesn't want to be ordinary. People like to believe that they are descended from greatness, that they have been genetically endowed with greatness. It's not enough to be who we are now, to be good human beings in the present." It reminds me of people who believe in reincarnation. No one ever says in a past life that they were a peasant farmer, a petty bureaucrat, etc. They were always Napoleon or Cleopatra or Genghis Khan. Someone special! Thinking of humans in terms of different races lets people delude themselves with specialness.The idea of race didn't turn people racist, make them think of other groups as subhuman. The mistreatment was already there & already happening. The concept of race gave a rationale for the mistreatment.
Race is not a universal construct.
Race is not a biological rule.
Race is a story we tell ourselves.
February 25, 2021
Really well-researched, lots of new information. Really enjoyed reading this. Very seldom that a book this academic is this hard to put down.
January 22, 2021
In our public discourse, we assume that science and scientists are free of the prejudices that afflict others in society. This is because science is in search of truth, and hence scientists are logical. The biases of the rest of society do not influence them. Angela Saini challenges this notion in this combative new book. She says Science and scientists have influenced and advanced Race Science for two centuries. They can be racists as much as other sections of society.
I started reading this book, thinking it is on the science of genetics and race. I was mistaken. It is a book on intellectual racism, the racism of the well-educated, powerful elite, and the scientists. Saini is of Indian origin, born and brought up in the UK. Events like Brexit, Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, and the rise of alt-right in the EU seem like the catalysts for the book. She defines race science as the acceptance that race is biological. It suggests that we may be different species or different breeds as human beings, and there might be a racial hierarchy between us. Genetics and Biology confer legitimacy on such racism and it alarms her. Saini says that scientists have advanced the notion that genes may determine the levels and types of our capabilities. Different races may be born with different sets of genes limiting or expanding our abilities. Hence we cannot do much to overcome this disparity. She counters this with her thesis. There occurs no gene in all members of one racial group and not another. We are all, every one of us, a product of ancient and recent migration. We have always been in the melting pot together. Hence, the differences we see are the offshoots of the environment - natural, social, cultural, and political. They are not inherent and immutable.
The book places the author’s argument in history. The eighteenth-century gave birth to modern science and the Age of Enlightenment. European powers were busy expanding their influence through colonization of far-off lands. The demand for more raw materials, resources, and labor gave rise to slavery, indentured labor, and ruthless exploitation of the colonized land and its people. This practice ran counter to the ideals of Enlightenment and needed intellectual justification. Science stepped in to provide the scaffolding. It suggested that the colonized races were inferior because of biological shortcomings. Besides, they did not achieve the mastery over nature or productivity of Europeans. Hence, it is the natural order of things, the survival of the fittest. The colonized people were not white or European in culture. Hence, it became easier to make such conclusions.
The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus formalized taxonomy, the science of identifying, naming, and classifying organisms. It was the foundation for differentiating humans, a core requirement of colonialism. Later, in the twentieth century, scientists led by Francis Galton developed Eugenics as a method for improving humanity. It studied how to arrange reproduction within a human population. The goal was to increase the number of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Most of the desirable characteristics were the ones white Europeans had. Respected figures like H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt backed Eugenics. The Nazis embraced Eugenics in order to justify their treatment of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people, and other minority groups, resulting in the Holocaust.
As World War II ended, the world recoiled from race science because of the horrors of Nazism. The belief that differences between so-called ‘races’ are genetic became taboo. Scientific racism seemed headed for death. But it didn’t die. Instead, it became active under the radar. In 1994, the book ‘The Bell Curve’ became a bestseller. The book made connections between race and intelligence and suggested policy implications based on these purported connections. It concluded that biological differences between races made racial equality impossible. One conclusion rocked America. It was the implication that black Americans are less intelligent than white Americans. Canadian psychologist, John Rushton, was even more outrageous with his claim that brain and genital size have an inverse relationship. He argued black people were better endowed in their sex organs than white people, but less intelligent.
Saini says modern ideas of race derive from how we look. Our appearance is a shorthand for the stereotypes, She emphasizes humans are less diverse than many animals in terms of genes, including chimps. Any two unrelated human beings on the planet are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequence. Only 0.1% varies. Population geneticists are examining the sections of our tiny 0.1% of DNA to say we are different in terms of biology.
Does all this probing into genetics and race stop us from making important scientific discoveries in medicine and disease control? Saini says race science would only give us dubious conclusions. She takes sickle cell anemia as an example. In the US, we see far higher rates of sickle cell in the black population than the white population. It is wrong to conclude that blacks are more prone to sickle cell. Most whites in the US have European ancestry, while most African-Americans have West African ancestry because of slavery. Sickle cell trait exists in West Africa, where there is a high incidence of malaria. It is a beneficial trait there because sickle cell provides resistance to malaria. So, the cause of the higher incidence of sickle cell in African Americans is geographical and not racial.
Saini writes with passion about how science, by providing an intellectual cover, remains an enabler of racism in our political and cultural discourse. The book is well-researched, and she covers recent work of biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists like Ashley Montagu. David Reich and Richard Lewontin. Resistance to the idea that we are all the same species is not exclusive to the West. Hindu nationalists in India believe Hindus originated in India, have no ancestry anywhere else, not even in Africa, where our species originated. In China, there’s a common belief among both the public and leading academics that Chinese ancestry goes back a lot further than the migration out of Africa. However, data shows that modern Chinese and Indian populations carry as much of a genetic contribution from modern humans who left Africa as other non-African populations do.
It should not come as a big surprise to anyone that scientists have a racial bias. Just like others, they too are products of the society in which they grow up, educate themselves, live, and engage in research. If the ideas and prejudices of race, culture, and color are prevalent in society, scientists also get exposed to them. They feel their influence in their thought process. Some of them internalize those influences. Almost two hundred years ago, Karl Marx wrote in his seminal work ‘German Ideology’ about the relationship between thought and lived reality in society using two concepts called the Base and the Superstructure. He defined culture, art, religion, institutions, power structures, roles, rituals, etc that emerge in society as the Superstructure. The Base comprises the forces and relations of production in society, and the superstructure emerges from it. If the forces of production have a vested interest in viewing society in racist terms to advance its interests, then the superstructure displays racism. Saini doesn’t quote Marx, but her thesis makes me conclude this is one way to understand her argument.
Some sections in the book made me doubt if Saini is trying to bring political correctness into scientific research. Population groups may have developed under different environmental pressures for millenniums. We know that skin color, height, weight, and the risk of cancer get affected by both genes and the environment. Why not cognitive abilities too? How is it racist to contemplate that population groups can differ in their cognitive abilities based on their evolution? The author debates this question at length in the observed result of a 15 point difference between black and white Americans in IQ. She quotes the psychology professor Eric Turkheimer to support her thesis. Turkheimer says that in studies of people with the lowest socioeconomic status, the environment explains almost all the variation researchers see in IQ, with genes accounting for virtually nothing. Hence, it is not biological. However, Saini does not discuss whether IQ itself is the proper measure of human intelligence.
Genetics and Biology are disciplines of science. Whatever they propose must be a scientific claim. As Karl Popper taught us, those claims must be falsifiable. If they are not, then it is not science. So, I wonder why we need to trash some theories as racist or even fascist as some people called the book ‘The Bell Curve’. So long as science cannot falsify some theories of Genetics, I would think they have a right to be in circulation.
This is no doubt an important book in today’s race-charged climate in many countries. The author has not covered how science uses Artificial Intelligence to perpetuate discrimination and false categorization. Perhaps it should be the subject of a book by itself. I found this book thought-provoking.
I started reading this book, thinking it is on the science of genetics and race. I was mistaken. It is a book on intellectual racism, the racism of the well-educated, powerful elite, and the scientists. Saini is of Indian origin, born and brought up in the UK. Events like Brexit, Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, and the rise of alt-right in the EU seem like the catalysts for the book. She defines race science as the acceptance that race is biological. It suggests that we may be different species or different breeds as human beings, and there might be a racial hierarchy between us. Genetics and Biology confer legitimacy on such racism and it alarms her. Saini says that scientists have advanced the notion that genes may determine the levels and types of our capabilities. Different races may be born with different sets of genes limiting or expanding our abilities. Hence we cannot do much to overcome this disparity. She counters this with her thesis. There occurs no gene in all members of one racial group and not another. We are all, every one of us, a product of ancient and recent migration. We have always been in the melting pot together. Hence, the differences we see are the offshoots of the environment - natural, social, cultural, and political. They are not inherent and immutable.
The book places the author’s argument in history. The eighteenth-century gave birth to modern science and the Age of Enlightenment. European powers were busy expanding their influence through colonization of far-off lands. The demand for more raw materials, resources, and labor gave rise to slavery, indentured labor, and ruthless exploitation of the colonized land and its people. This practice ran counter to the ideals of Enlightenment and needed intellectual justification. Science stepped in to provide the scaffolding. It suggested that the colonized races were inferior because of biological shortcomings. Besides, they did not achieve the mastery over nature or productivity of Europeans. Hence, it is the natural order of things, the survival of the fittest. The colonized people were not white or European in culture. Hence, it became easier to make such conclusions.
The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus formalized taxonomy, the science of identifying, naming, and classifying organisms. It was the foundation for differentiating humans, a core requirement of colonialism. Later, in the twentieth century, scientists led by Francis Galton developed Eugenics as a method for improving humanity. It studied how to arrange reproduction within a human population. The goal was to increase the number of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Most of the desirable characteristics were the ones white Europeans had. Respected figures like H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt backed Eugenics. The Nazis embraced Eugenics in order to justify their treatment of Jews, Gypsies, disabled people, and other minority groups, resulting in the Holocaust.
As World War II ended, the world recoiled from race science because of the horrors of Nazism. The belief that differences between so-called ‘races’ are genetic became taboo. Scientific racism seemed headed for death. But it didn’t die. Instead, it became active under the radar. In 1994, the book ‘The Bell Curve’ became a bestseller. The book made connections between race and intelligence and suggested policy implications based on these purported connections. It concluded that biological differences between races made racial equality impossible. One conclusion rocked America. It was the implication that black Americans are less intelligent than white Americans. Canadian psychologist, John Rushton, was even more outrageous with his claim that brain and genital size have an inverse relationship. He argued black people were better endowed in their sex organs than white people, but less intelligent.
Saini says modern ideas of race derive from how we look. Our appearance is a shorthand for the stereotypes, She emphasizes humans are less diverse than many animals in terms of genes, including chimps. Any two unrelated human beings on the planet are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequence. Only 0.1% varies. Population geneticists are examining the sections of our tiny 0.1% of DNA to say we are different in terms of biology.
Does all this probing into genetics and race stop us from making important scientific discoveries in medicine and disease control? Saini says race science would only give us dubious conclusions. She takes sickle cell anemia as an example. In the US, we see far higher rates of sickle cell in the black population than the white population. It is wrong to conclude that blacks are more prone to sickle cell. Most whites in the US have European ancestry, while most African-Americans have West African ancestry because of slavery. Sickle cell trait exists in West Africa, where there is a high incidence of malaria. It is a beneficial trait there because sickle cell provides resistance to malaria. So, the cause of the higher incidence of sickle cell in African Americans is geographical and not racial.
Saini writes with passion about how science, by providing an intellectual cover, remains an enabler of racism in our political and cultural discourse. The book is well-researched, and she covers recent work of biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists like Ashley Montagu. David Reich and Richard Lewontin. Resistance to the idea that we are all the same species is not exclusive to the West. Hindu nationalists in India believe Hindus originated in India, have no ancestry anywhere else, not even in Africa, where our species originated. In China, there’s a common belief among both the public and leading academics that Chinese ancestry goes back a lot further than the migration out of Africa. However, data shows that modern Chinese and Indian populations carry as much of a genetic contribution from modern humans who left Africa as other non-African populations do.
It should not come as a big surprise to anyone that scientists have a racial bias. Just like others, they too are products of the society in which they grow up, educate themselves, live, and engage in research. If the ideas and prejudices of race, culture, and color are prevalent in society, scientists also get exposed to them. They feel their influence in their thought process. Some of them internalize those influences. Almost two hundred years ago, Karl Marx wrote in his seminal work ‘German Ideology’ about the relationship between thought and lived reality in society using two concepts called the Base and the Superstructure. He defined culture, art, religion, institutions, power structures, roles, rituals, etc that emerge in society as the Superstructure. The Base comprises the forces and relations of production in society, and the superstructure emerges from it. If the forces of production have a vested interest in viewing society in racist terms to advance its interests, then the superstructure displays racism. Saini doesn’t quote Marx, but her thesis makes me conclude this is one way to understand her argument.
Some sections in the book made me doubt if Saini is trying to bring political correctness into scientific research. Population groups may have developed under different environmental pressures for millenniums. We know that skin color, height, weight, and the risk of cancer get affected by both genes and the environment. Why not cognitive abilities too? How is it racist to contemplate that population groups can differ in their cognitive abilities based on their evolution? The author debates this question at length in the observed result of a 15 point difference between black and white Americans in IQ. She quotes the psychology professor Eric Turkheimer to support her thesis. Turkheimer says that in studies of people with the lowest socioeconomic status, the environment explains almost all the variation researchers see in IQ, with genes accounting for virtually nothing. Hence, it is not biological. However, Saini does not discuss whether IQ itself is the proper measure of human intelligence.
Genetics and Biology are disciplines of science. Whatever they propose must be a scientific claim. As Karl Popper taught us, those claims must be falsifiable. If they are not, then it is not science. So, I wonder why we need to trash some theories as racist or even fascist as some people called the book ‘The Bell Curve’. So long as science cannot falsify some theories of Genetics, I would think they have a right to be in circulation.
This is no doubt an important book in today’s race-charged climate in many countries. The author has not covered how science uses Artificial Intelligence to perpetuate discrimination and false categorization. Perhaps it should be the subject of a book by itself. I found this book thought-provoking.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 600 reviews