I’m sure the NIH would love to fund research comparing cognitive phenotypes of different races! Just remember to budget for nails and a cross in your proposal.
From Science, March 12 2010, p. 1316:
‘Elsevier told Charlton [editor of a controversial Elsevier non-peer-reviewed journal that published AIDS denial articles] on 22 January that Medical Hypothesis would have to become a peer-reviewed journal. Potentially controversial papers should receive careful
scrutiny, the publisher said, and some topics—including “hypotheses that could be interpreted as supporting racism”—should be off-limits.’
Did I see the word “race” in the comment you’re replying to? No I did not.
To be clear, you made an excellent point, I just think it could be worked around by simply not basing it on race—by location, say, or grandparents location, or surveying a bunch of pheotypes—some physical, some psychological—and identifying clusters (could seems either racist or anti-racist depending on wording.)
I’m sure the NIH would love to fund research comparing cognitive phenotypes of different races! Just remember to budget for nails and a cross in your proposal.
From Science, March 12 2010, p. 1316:
‘Elsevier told Charlton [editor of a controversial Elsevier non-peer-reviewed journal that published AIDS denial articles] on 22 January that Medical Hypothesis would have to become a peer-reviewed journal. Potentially controversial papers should receive careful scrutiny, the publisher said, and some topics—including “hypotheses that could be interpreted as supporting racism”—should be off-limits.’
Did I see the word “race” in the comment you’re replying to? No I did not.
To be clear, you made an excellent point, I just think it could be worked around by simply not basing it on race—by location, say, or grandparents location, or surveying a bunch of pheotypes—some physical, some psychological—and identifying clusters (could seems either racist or anti-racist depending on wording.)