It is the great paradox of this forum to serve both as a platform where individuals aligned with the effective altruism movement raise alarms and invite deep reflection on existential risks—usually with a nuanced, subtle, and cautious approach to these topics—and as a space where individuals adhering to libertarian or transhumanist ideologies also promote rather radical ideas, which themselves might constitute new existential challenges for humanity. I say this not with the intent of disparagement but rather as an observation.
This topic is a fascinating example of this paradoxical mixture. On one hand, the author seems to appeal to fears surrounding the “superintelligence” of artificial intelligence to, in a way, justify the development of a “superintelligence” in humans, or at least a significant enhancement of intelligence for a select group of individuals—an elite of scientists somewhat reminiscent of the “Manthan project,” aimed at solving the alignment problem. These would be heroes of humanity, capable of mastering the hydra of AI in a titanic intellectual struggle.
In reality, I think everyone here is aware that this argument is primarily rhetorical, as the risk associated with AI lies in the loss of control and the exponential growth of AI’s capabilities in the medium or short term, far outpacing the possibilities for enhancing human cognitive abilities within the same timeframe. Moreover, this argument appears mainly in the introduction and does not seem to be the central focus thereafter. To me, this argument serves as an introductory “hook” to delve into the technical discussion.
Indeed, the article quickly and almost exclusively shifts focus to the feasibility aspect. The author demonstrates, with substantial evidence, that there is fundamentally no barrier—given current genomic editing techniques and the latest acquired knowledge—to achieving this goal. Broadly speaking, what can be taken away from the article is that the main obstacle today is strong institutional reluctance for moral or ethical reasons, which the author dismisses out of hand, without attempting to understand or discuss them in detail. For him, there seems to be a bias or taboo on the matter—necessarily conservative, irrational, and detrimental.
However, this is, in my view, the major blind spot of this article. Following the author’s reasoning, if we can do it, why not do it without delay? In reality, this reasoning mirrors those seeking AGI, a subject of much debate on this very forum. Regarding AI, a frequently cited argument is that if we do not develop it, others will, and the advantage will go to the first, as is often the case with technological innovation. This argument could also be applied here. However, just because something is possible does not mean it is desirable. I could jump off a cliff, but upon reflection, I think I’ll refrain. Transhumanism—and notably the development of technical means to enhance intelligence as proposed by the author—must provoke the same kind of questioning as the development of AGI.
First, one must ask whether it is desirable, carefully weighing the pros and cons, the reasonably foreseeable advantages and consequences, and the measures that could be taken to improve the benefit/risk ratio, with particular attention paid to limiting risks (precautionary principle or simply prudence). The pros are relatively straightforward, but the cons may need more elaboration.
The first area of concern is socio-economic. If the proposed technique allows for increasing intelligence without harming health, it would be costly and benefit an elite. The author sells us the idea of a scientific elite. But it is entirely predictable that if such a technique were developed, nearly all the world’s wealthy would rush to pay fortunes to be among the first to benefit. What are the chances that populations in the underdeveloped countries, who currently lack access to education, proper nutrition, and clean water, would ever benefit from this technique? Virtually none, or not for many generations. Furthermore, large segments of humanity would refuse it for religious reasons. The first predictable socio-economic effect would be an increase in inequalities to an unprecedented level in human history. (Edit : an estimate member warned me that I could lost typical readers of LessWrong on this argument, I developed a more clear and detailed argumentation here, the idea is that contrary to previous technological advances like tap water and cellphones the author’s project could increase inequalities in a sense never seen in history because the difference between a “happy few” rich having a IQ artificially increased and the standard layman will be like the difference between a Sapiens and a Neanderthal, or maybe an Erectus).
The second concern, directly linked to the first, is philosophical and moral—or “ethical,” as the term is used to avoid sounding religious. Many here are interested in effective altruism, yet we must not forget that inequality is a major source of suffering, tension, and instability in both present and past human societies (edit : remember that many or most revolutions came from that). Altruism is hardly compatible with inequality. (Edit : I mean “excessive inequalities”. Utilitarism and effective altruism strongly encourages donation or redistribution, a counter-measure against inequality, showing that’s a main concern). One might even envision that the development of such human enhancement technologies could rapidly lead to a form of speciation, as envisioned by Asimov in his Robots series (the Spacers and later the Solarians). (Edit : remember what I was saying concerning the difference of IQ as great as the difference between Sapiens and Neanderthal or Erectus). Of course, if one is among the “happy few” precursors of a new humanity, this could seem appealing at first glance. But is it moral—that is, does it align with the goal of a reasonable maximization of happiness on a global human scale? One may doubt it. A partition of humanity challenges the very idea of humanity. Moreover, history shows that nearly all movements guided by elitist ideology have typically gone very wrong, leading to the worst discriminations and greatest tragedies—even for the elitist side (for what it’s worth, Asimov’s Spacers and Solarians also meet grim ends). If the author often encounters accusations invoking Hitler in academic circles, it might not be due to a bias on the part of these educated individuals, but rather a form of wisdom stemming from their education, culture, and personal reflection on such matters. The author completely overlooks the countless publications, conferences, and ethical committee deliberations on these issues. All this philosophical and ethical reflection is no less valuable or intellectually significant than the genomic research underpinning the article. As with AGI, the question is : is it desirable? It seems reasonable to think this through seriously before rushing to make it happen.
The third area of concern, and not the less, is medical and biological. The author—though seemingly very knowledgeable in the field—admits not being a trained biologist and expresses surprise that professionals in the domain tend to downplay the role of genes. However, the author also seems to dismiss the general consensus of professionals with a wave of the hand. I am not a biologist by training either, but it is well known today that the relationship between phenotype and genotype is complex. The fact that in some specific cases there is a relatively straightforward link (e.g., monogenic diseases, blue eyes, etc.) should not obscure the forest of complexity that applies to the vast majority of other cases.
It is now understood that gene expression is regulated by other genes within the coding portion of the genome, but also by other, less-studied genes within the vast non-coding majority, which was once considered “junk DNA.” Additionally, epigenetic mechanisms play a role, involving interactions between the nucleus and its immediate environment (the cell), less immediate environment (the organism), and even the broader external environment.
To make matters more complex, the author’s subject concerns intelligence. First, we must agree on what “intelligence” means. The author is clear in taking IQ as a reference, as it is a relatively objective indicator, but one could argue that there are many other forms of intelligence not captured by IQ, such as social intelligence (see Gwern’s very interesting comment on this topic). Moreover, it is generally acknowledged by specialists in the field (e.g., Stanislas Dehaene) that the relationship between genetics and intelligence must be approached with caution. Intelligence has a highly diffuse and polygenic genetic basis (as the article itself does not dispute), and it is largely shaped by learning, i.e., education and broader interaction with the environment—something the article appears to give less weight to.
That said, it is difficult to contest the author’s point that genetics does play a role in intelligence and that certain gene combinations may predispose individuals to higher IQs. However, the author focuses entirely on this optimization. Yet natural selection is an optimization process that has been unfolding over approximately 4 billion years, representing an astronomically large computational cost (see Charles H. Bennett’s concept of logical depth). This optimization is by no means wholly directed toward the goal of increasing IQ—far from it. Instead, it involves countless competing constraints, resulting in a series of trade-offs.
For instance, developing a larger brain significantly increases energy demands, as the brain is one of the most energy-intensive organs. Paleoanthropology shows that, as a trade-off for brain development, there has been a proportional reduction in muscle mass, digestive system size (linked to mastery of fire, cooking, and a more carnivorous diet), and an increase in adipose tissue (which consumes little energy and serves as storage). In short, we cannot have it all: we are naturally intelligent but also weak, fat, and have more limited digestive capacities. These trade-offs are found everywhere, even in the smallest details.
For example, the author mentions Alzheimer’s as a disease that could potentially be treated through genomic editing. Wonderful. But recent studies show that carriers of the APOE ε4 allele, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease, exhibit superior cognitive performance in certain tasks, although results vary among individuals and contexts (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09961-y). Similarly, findings suggest that APOE4 may improve neuronal energy functions, which could be beneficial during brain development (https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.03.597106). The idea to edit the APOE ε4 allele would actually be against the author’s original’s goal to increase IQ because we are facing a trade-off. The example is stunning.
Contrary to the author’s implications, it is highly unlikely that these genomic edits would come without negative trade-offs, potentially with harmful effects on health or lifespan. Given the way the genome has been shaped—through optimization via accumulated trade-offs across vast spans of time—it seems very likely, almost inevitable, that most of these edits would increase IQ at the expense of other elements, potentially ones that are difficult to identify initially.
Sometimes the advantages or disadvantages of a gene are only revealed under specific conditions. For instance, certain genes inherited from Neanderthals through hybridization have been found to predispose individuals to greater vulnerability to COVID-19. However, the fact that these mutations were selected for and preserved over 50,000 years indicates they must have had advantages (some speculate they provided adaptations to cold environments, which Neanderthals developed in Europe and which Sapiens, originating from warmer regions, may have benefited from “acquiring”). Similarly, genes predisposing to obesity were, until recently, advantageous for surviving famines and food shortages (and no one knows what the future may hold, maybe AI or superior humans will deprive me of having a snack !).
In conclusion, the idea is interesting but would require extensive prior research before rushing into it headlong. This is not about outright rejection on principle or blind acceptance. As with AI, there is an urgent need to slow down and reflect. After all, isn’t humanity defined as a thinking animal? It would be ironic if brilliant individuals pursuing higher forms of intelligence themselves displayed insufficient reflection in their approach. (End edited to be less polemic).
This reads to me as a good faith effort to engage, but I think there’s a lot of background assumptions/positions that you’re not aware of that leave this comment talking past most readers here. I’ll just mention one.
Your first two critiques are about elites getting access to advanced tech sooner, and inequality being inconsitent with altruism. I don’t see either as a problem, and my sense is it’s pretty standardly accepted around these parts by most that inequality is fine, and that overall free trade and scientific innovation have risen the life outcomes of all people. The quality of medical care, food, access to knowledge, life expectancy, access to technology, has risen massively over the last 300 years for all people. Other than untouched hunter-gatherer tribes there are no people living in the conditions of 1700, and in most developed countries even the lowliest people today have access to better healthcare than the Kings of that time.
I bring it up not as a knockdown response, but simply because you spent a lot of time engaging with an idea without being aware of the counterposition that is common in these waters, which suggests you may wish to read more before pouring such effort into a long comment as this one.
Thank you for your kind advice (I made some edits to my previous comment in consequence). I must have expressed myself poorly because I am in no way questioning the idea that science and technology have greatly contributed to improving the condition of humanity. My remark was about inequality. Scientific development is not inherently linked to the increase in inequalities. On the contrary, many scientific and technological advances are likely to benefit everyone. For instance, in many countries, both the rich and the poor use the same tap water, of good quality. That’s even true for many digital devices (a poor can have a cellphone not that different from the one the rich possesses). Even the poor populations of underdeveloped countries benefit, to some degree, from these advances. There are fewer food-shortage and better healthcare even in these countries, although much remains to be done.
However, on this subject I stand by my arguments reformuled as above :
that too great inequality is a major source of
suffering and social instability (many revolutions came from that) ;
concerning the risk that (contrary to tap water and cellphones) the author’s project could increase inequalities in a sense never seen in history (the difference between a “happy few” rich having a IQ artificially increased and the standard layman will be like the difference between a Sapiens and a Neanderthal, or maybe an Erectus) with a perspective of a partition in human kind or speciation in a short time.
I must say that I am surprised to read that it is common knowledge on this forum that there is no problem with inequalities. If that’s so, I still really disagree on this point, at the risk of being disregarded. Too much inequality is definitely a concern. It is maybe not a big deal for the rich minority (as long as they’re not overthroned, Marie-Antoinette had some trouble), but it is for the poor majority. I could rely on the international publications of the United Nations (https://www.un.org/fr/un75/inequality-bridging-divide) and on numerous authors, such as Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize in Economics) or Thomas Piketty for instance, who are particularly engaged with this issue (and of course Marx in older times, but don’t tag me as marxist please). I also recommend reading James C. Scott’s Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, which demonstrates how early civilizations based on inequality have historically been fragile and subject to brutal collapse (inequality being one main factor, epidemics another).
Edit : I would add that denying the concern of inequalities amounts dismissing most of the work of experts of the subject, that is to say researchers in social sciences, an inclination that may appear as a bias (possibly common among “hard” scientists).
It is the great paradox of this forum to serve both as a platform where individuals aligned with the effective altruism movement raise alarms and invite deep reflection on existential risks—usually with a nuanced, subtle, and cautious approach to these topics—and as a space where individuals adhering to libertarian or transhumanist ideologies also promote rather radical ideas, which themselves might constitute new existential challenges for humanity. I say this not with the intent of disparagement but rather as an observation.
This topic is a fascinating example of this paradoxical mixture. On one hand, the author seems to appeal to fears surrounding the “superintelligence” of artificial intelligence to, in a way, justify the development of a “superintelligence” in humans, or at least a significant enhancement of intelligence for a select group of individuals—an elite of scientists somewhat reminiscent of the “Manthan project,” aimed at solving the alignment problem. These would be heroes of humanity, capable of mastering the hydra of AI in a titanic intellectual struggle.
In reality, I think everyone here is aware that this argument is primarily rhetorical, as the risk associated with AI lies in the loss of control and the exponential growth of AI’s capabilities in the medium or short term, far outpacing the possibilities for enhancing human cognitive abilities within the same timeframe. Moreover, this argument appears mainly in the introduction and does not seem to be the central focus thereafter. To me, this argument serves as an introductory “hook” to delve into the technical discussion.
Indeed, the article quickly and almost exclusively shifts focus to the feasibility aspect. The author demonstrates, with substantial evidence, that there is fundamentally no barrier—given current genomic editing techniques and the latest acquired knowledge—to achieving this goal. Broadly speaking, what can be taken away from the article is that the main obstacle today is strong institutional reluctance for moral or ethical reasons, which the author dismisses out of hand, without attempting to understand or discuss them in detail. For him, there seems to be a bias or taboo on the matter—necessarily conservative, irrational, and detrimental.
However, this is, in my view, the major blind spot of this article. Following the author’s reasoning, if we can do it, why not do it without delay? In reality, this reasoning mirrors those seeking AGI, a subject of much debate on this very forum. Regarding AI, a frequently cited argument is that if we do not develop it, others will, and the advantage will go to the first, as is often the case with technological innovation. This argument could also be applied here. However, just because something is possible does not mean it is desirable. I could jump off a cliff, but upon reflection, I think I’ll refrain. Transhumanism—and notably the development of technical means to enhance intelligence as proposed by the author—must provoke the same kind of questioning as the development of AGI.
First, one must ask whether it is desirable, carefully weighing the pros and cons, the reasonably foreseeable advantages and consequences, and the measures that could be taken to improve the benefit/risk ratio, with particular attention paid to limiting risks (precautionary principle or simply prudence). The pros are relatively straightforward, but the cons may need more elaboration.
The first area of concern is socio-economic. If the proposed technique allows for increasing intelligence without harming health, it would be costly and benefit an elite. The author sells us the idea of a scientific elite. But it is entirely predictable that if such a technique were developed, nearly all the world’s wealthy would rush to pay fortunes to be among the first to benefit. What are the chances that populations in the underdeveloped countries, who currently lack access to education, proper nutrition, and clean water, would ever benefit from this technique? Virtually none, or not for many generations. Furthermore, large segments of humanity would refuse it for religious reasons. The first predictable socio-economic effect would be an increase in inequalities to an unprecedented level in human history. (Edit : an estimate member warned me that I could lost typical readers of LessWrong on this argument, I developed a more clear and detailed argumentation here, the idea is that contrary to previous technological advances like tap water and cellphones the author’s project could increase inequalities in a sense never seen in history because the difference between a “happy few” rich having a IQ artificially increased and the standard layman will be like the difference between a Sapiens and a Neanderthal, or maybe an Erectus).
The second concern, directly linked to the first, is philosophical and moral—or “ethical,” as the term is used to avoid sounding religious. Many here are interested in effective altruism, yet we must not forget that inequality is a major source of suffering, tension, and instability in both present and past human societies (edit : remember that many or most revolutions came from that). Altruism is hardly compatible with inequality. (Edit : I mean “excessive inequalities”. Utilitarism and effective altruism strongly encourages donation or redistribution, a counter-measure against inequality, showing that’s a main concern). One might even envision that the development of such human enhancement technologies could rapidly lead to a form of speciation, as envisioned by Asimov in his Robots series (the Spacers and later the Solarians). (Edit : remember what I was saying concerning the difference of IQ as great as the difference between Sapiens and Neanderthal or Erectus). Of course, if one is among the “happy few” precursors of a new humanity, this could seem appealing at first glance. But is it moral—that is, does it align with the goal of a reasonable maximization of happiness on a global human scale? One may doubt it. A partition of humanity challenges the very idea of humanity. Moreover, history shows that nearly all movements guided by elitist ideology have typically gone very wrong, leading to the worst discriminations and greatest tragedies—even for the elitist side (for what it’s worth, Asimov’s Spacers and Solarians also meet grim ends). If the author often encounters accusations invoking Hitler in academic circles, it might not be due to a bias on the part of these educated individuals, but rather a form of wisdom stemming from their education, culture, and personal reflection on such matters. The author completely overlooks the countless publications, conferences, and ethical committee deliberations on these issues. All this philosophical and ethical reflection is no less valuable or intellectually significant than the genomic research underpinning the article. As with AGI, the question is : is it desirable? It seems reasonable to think this through seriously before rushing to make it happen.
The third area of concern, and not the less, is medical and biological. The author—though seemingly very knowledgeable in the field—admits not being a trained biologist and expresses surprise that professionals in the domain tend to downplay the role of genes. However, the author also seems to dismiss the general consensus of professionals with a wave of the hand. I am not a biologist by training either, but it is well known today that the relationship between phenotype and genotype is complex. The fact that in some specific cases there is a relatively straightforward link (e.g., monogenic diseases, blue eyes, etc.) should not obscure the forest of complexity that applies to the vast majority of other cases.
It is now understood that gene expression is regulated by other genes within the coding portion of the genome, but also by other, less-studied genes within the vast non-coding majority, which was once considered “junk DNA.” Additionally, epigenetic mechanisms play a role, involving interactions between the nucleus and its immediate environment (the cell), less immediate environment (the organism), and even the broader external environment.
To make matters more complex, the author’s subject concerns intelligence. First, we must agree on what “intelligence” means. The author is clear in taking IQ as a reference, as it is a relatively objective indicator, but one could argue that there are many other forms of intelligence not captured by IQ, such as social intelligence (see Gwern’s very interesting comment on this topic). Moreover, it is generally acknowledged by specialists in the field (e.g., Stanislas Dehaene) that the relationship between genetics and intelligence must be approached with caution. Intelligence has a highly diffuse and polygenic genetic basis (as the article itself does not dispute), and it is largely shaped by learning, i.e., education and broader interaction with the environment—something the article appears to give less weight to.
That said, it is difficult to contest the author’s point that genetics does play a role in intelligence and that certain gene combinations may predispose individuals to higher IQs. However, the author focuses entirely on this optimization. Yet natural selection is an optimization process that has been unfolding over approximately 4 billion years, representing an astronomically large computational cost (see Charles H. Bennett’s concept of logical depth). This optimization is by no means wholly directed toward the goal of increasing IQ—far from it. Instead, it involves countless competing constraints, resulting in a series of trade-offs.
For instance, developing a larger brain significantly increases energy demands, as the brain is one of the most energy-intensive organs. Paleoanthropology shows that, as a trade-off for brain development, there has been a proportional reduction in muscle mass, digestive system size (linked to mastery of fire, cooking, and a more carnivorous diet), and an increase in adipose tissue (which consumes little energy and serves as storage). In short, we cannot have it all: we are naturally intelligent but also weak, fat, and have more limited digestive capacities. These trade-offs are found everywhere, even in the smallest details.
For example, the author mentions Alzheimer’s as a disease that could potentially be treated through genomic editing. Wonderful. But recent studies show that carriers of the APOE ε4 allele, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease, exhibit superior cognitive performance in certain tasks, although results vary among individuals and contexts (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09961-y). Similarly, findings suggest that APOE4 may improve neuronal energy functions, which could be beneficial during brain development (https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.03.597106). The idea to edit the APOE ε4 allele would actually be against the author’s original’s goal to increase IQ because we are facing a trade-off. The example is stunning.
Contrary to the author’s implications, it is highly unlikely that these genomic edits would come without negative trade-offs, potentially with harmful effects on health or lifespan. Given the way the genome has been shaped—through optimization via accumulated trade-offs across vast spans of time—it seems very likely, almost inevitable, that most of these edits would increase IQ at the expense of other elements, potentially ones that are difficult to identify initially.
Sometimes the advantages or disadvantages of a gene are only revealed under specific conditions. For instance, certain genes inherited from Neanderthals through hybridization have been found to predispose individuals to greater vulnerability to COVID-19. However, the fact that these mutations were selected for and preserved over 50,000 years indicates they must have had advantages (some speculate they provided adaptations to cold environments, which Neanderthals developed in Europe and which Sapiens, originating from warmer regions, may have benefited from “acquiring”). Similarly, genes predisposing to obesity were, until recently, advantageous for surviving famines and food shortages (and no one knows what the future may hold, maybe AI or superior humans will deprive me of having a snack !).
In conclusion, the idea is interesting but would require extensive prior research before rushing into it headlong. This is not about outright rejection on principle or blind acceptance. As with AI, there is an urgent need to slow down and reflect. After all, isn’t humanity defined as a thinking animal? It would be ironic if brilliant individuals pursuing higher forms of intelligence themselves displayed insufficient reflection in their approach. (End edited to be less polemic).
This reads to me as a good faith effort to engage, but I think there’s a lot of background assumptions/positions that you’re not aware of that leave this comment talking past most readers here. I’ll just mention one.
Your first two critiques are about elites getting access to advanced tech sooner, and inequality being inconsitent with altruism. I don’t see either as a problem, and my sense is it’s pretty standardly accepted around these parts by most that inequality is fine, and that overall free trade and scientific innovation have risen the life outcomes of all people. The quality of medical care, food, access to knowledge, life expectancy, access to technology, has risen massively over the last 300 years for all people. Other than untouched hunter-gatherer tribes there are no people living in the conditions of 1700, and in most developed countries even the lowliest people today have access to better healthcare than the Kings of that time.
I bring it up not as a knockdown response, but simply because you spent a lot of time engaging with an idea without being aware of the counterposition that is common in these waters, which suggests you may wish to read more before pouring such effort into a long comment as this one.
I can recommend looking through the tagged posts in economics, moloch, industrial revolution, or incentives, for more on this particular topic.
Thank you for your kind advice (I made some edits to my previous comment in consequence). I must have expressed myself poorly because I am in no way questioning the idea that science and technology have greatly contributed to improving the condition of humanity. My remark was about inequality. Scientific development is not inherently linked to the increase in inequalities. On the contrary, many scientific and technological advances are likely to benefit everyone. For instance, in many countries, both the rich and the poor use the same tap water, of good quality. That’s even true for many digital devices (a poor can have a cellphone not that different from the one the rich possesses). Even the poor populations of underdeveloped countries benefit, to some degree, from these advances. There are fewer food-shortage and better healthcare even in these countries, although much remains to be done.
However, on this subject I stand by my arguments reformuled as above :
that too great inequality is a major source of suffering and social instability (many revolutions came from that) ;
concerning the risk that (contrary to tap water and cellphones) the author’s project could increase inequalities in a sense never seen in history (the difference between a “happy few” rich having a IQ artificially increased and the standard layman will be like the difference between a Sapiens and a Neanderthal, or maybe an Erectus) with a perspective of a partition in human kind or speciation in a short time.
I must say that I am surprised to read that it is common knowledge on this forum that there is no problem with inequalities. If that’s so, I still really disagree on this point, at the risk of being disregarded. Too much inequality is definitely a concern. It is maybe not a big deal for the rich minority (as long as they’re not overthroned, Marie-Antoinette had some trouble), but it is for the poor majority. I could rely on the international publications of the United Nations (https://www.un.org/fr/un75/inequality-bridging-divide) and on numerous authors, such as Amartya Sen (Nobel Prize in Economics) or Thomas Piketty for instance, who are particularly engaged with this issue (and of course Marx in older times, but don’t tag me as marxist please). I also recommend reading James C. Scott’s Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, which demonstrates how early civilizations based on inequality have historically been fragile and subject to brutal collapse (inequality being one main factor, epidemics another).
Edit : I would add that denying the concern of inequalities amounts dismissing most of the work of experts of the subject, that is to say researchers in social sciences, an inclination that may appear as a bias (possibly common among “hard” scientists).