Turkheimer: "How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science"

A geneticist publishes a guide for censors to know which scientific findings to memoryhole.

From the Hastings Center Report:

How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science

Lucas J. Matthews, James Tabery, Eric Turkheimer

First published: 24 December 2024

https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.4946

Abstract

What makes certain scientific research controversial? And when does scientific research go beyond being merely controversial to be something far worse? We propose a diagnostic framework for distinguishing between scientific research that is merely controversial and that which is abhorrent. Our framework places research projects along two axes of a value-harm map. Most research, fortunately, is both valuable and harmless. However, research may be controversial if it is either valuable but harmful or harmless but valueless. The most concerning quadrant of our value-harm map includes research that is both valueless and harmful, which is abhorrent science. The article's analysis considers a series of case studies, highlighting “new genomic race science” as an exemplar of abhorrent science.

Because, obviously, we know ahead of doing the research which unwanted results might prove harmful and valueless and therefore are abhorrent. That’s just how science works!

At least, that’s how science is increasingly working in the 2020s as more and data is put off limits to scientists who won’t swear to not publish pre-defined “repugnant results.”

There are rare examples of trends in the opposite direction, such as the founding by moral philosopher Peter Singer’s Journal of Controversial Ideas, which publishes both moral philosophers’ late night dorm room brainstorms and, sometimes, empirical research in the human sciences.

Dr. Turkheimer, a behavioral geneticist (see my old post on an earlier co-written Turkheimer attack on abhorrent scientific research by the likes of Charles Murray: “Vox: Charles Murray is 80% right and we can't prove he's wrong about the other 20%”), was invited by Singer’s journal to be part of the endlessly protracted review of a study on the obviously important topic of “Intelligence of Refugees in Germany: Levels, Differences and Possible Determinants” by Heiner Rindermann, Bruno Klauk, and James Thompson.

Eventually, Turkheimer failed to persuade the Journal of Controversial Ideas’ editors to spike the article as too controversial, despite his popular argument that it’s abhorrent for people to be aware of facts relevant to setting policy on topics that Turkheimer prefers them to be ignorant about.

Like this article, my response is partly paywalled, although I like to tell myself I provided a bigger chunk free. You need to subscribe to comment on partly paywalled posts.