WHAT is the difference between 鈥渟uppressing鈥� someone鈥檚 ideas and simply
not wanting to be associated with them? Normally, the distinction between
trampling on someone and ignoring them is fairly obvious, but last week academic
publisher John Wiley appeared to fall into a hitherto unsuspected trap.
On 18 April, Wiley should have launched a book called The g Factor:
General Intelligence and Its Implicationsby Christopher Brand of the
University of Edinburgh. The book, glowingly described in Wiley鈥檚 new catalogue
as 鈥減roviding a focused review that is succinct, authoritative and
up-to-the-minute鈥�, had already gone to reviewers and the media were being
encouraged to contact Brand for interviews.
Alas, Wiley clearly had little idea of the kind of publicity they were about
to get. The Independent on Sunday, followed by several major UK
dailies, discovered that Brand describes himself as a 鈥渟cientific racist鈥�.
Advertisement
Wiley鈥檚 New York management responded by withdrawing the book. They accepted
that the 鈥渢he overall tone of the book is that of a scientific monograph鈥� and
that 鈥渋t does not include direct and sensational pronouncements鈥�. But, they
argued that after his 鈥渋nflammatory statements鈥�, it is possible to 鈥渋nfer some
of the same repugnant views from the text鈥�. Wiley added that 鈥淚t is not for us
to suppress anyone鈥檚 views; we just don鈥檛 want to be the publisher.鈥�
This late discovery of Brand鈥檚 views suggest a peculiar naivety on Wiley鈥檚
part. Brand鈥檚 views on IQ, genetics and race are well known. He has been
involved in several academic battles with those who think the whole concept of
IQ is flawed. Students at the University of Edinburgh have even campaigned to
prevent him from teaching. And to top it all, the opening page of his book
bluntly promises 鈥淣o blandness or cover-up: book to address arguments and
anxieties, including the `political鈥�.鈥�
Wiley鈥檚 big mistake was probably in seeing the book as a textbook, 鈥渙f
interest to the general reader as well as undergraduate students鈥�, as their
catalogue has it. In the field of general intelligence, race and social policy
there are no authoritative textbooks, only battle orders from the opposing
camps. But it is neverthless a great pity that the book will not now be speedily
published, for it is probably the best argued treatise from the general
intelligence camp. For the many that will disagree violently with every step of
its argument, this is the book to stimulate a true scientific debate.
It is a very different book from those written by other advocates of IQ,
particularly the now infamous Bell Curve by Charles Murray and the late
Robert Herrnstein. Such books take the differences in inherited intelligence as
given, and go on to posit that Western nations are becoming stratified according
to intelligence, with an uneducable 鈥渦nderclass鈥� at the bottom.
In contrast, Brand鈥檚 book traverses every step of the chain of logic needed
to see IQ as critical for social and educational policy: that there is something
measurable called general intelligence (鈥済鈥�), that differences in 鈥済鈥� are
strongly influenced by genetic factors (although Brand allows for environmental
factors, he estimates that about 45 per cent of the variation in intelligence is
due to 鈥渘arrow鈥� genetic factors), and that 鈥済鈥� is an accurate predictor of
success in life. Along that chain there are far too many shaky steps for his
thesis to be acceptable to many scientists, whether it is in the way IQ
heritability is measured or the very debatable link between IQ and success.
Brand allows few exceptions to the latter: 鈥淛ust about the only white-collar
occupation for which g is not in demand is that of being a salesman: evidently
there are some `social skills鈥� that are not g-related, even if they may not be
admired by all,鈥� he writes.
Brand rejects the research of James Flynn, which shows that IQ is rising
rapidly everywhere in the developed world, even though nothing has happened to
drastically alter our genes. He dismisses some educational experiments (like the
Abecedarian project, (This Week, 24 February, page 10) which claim permanent
gains in intelligence from special schooling. Indeed, new research from Columbia
and Northwestern universities is being published this month in Child
Development which suggests that the much quoted 15-point difference in IQ
between whites and blacks in the US vanishes if poverty and the home environment
are taken into account.
Brand鈥檚 views can be attacked. That, indeed, is the reason why it would be
good to see the book published. As perhaps the clearest exposition of the
arguments for 鈥済鈥�, its appearance would have focused a muddled and impassioned
debate in which the opponents all too often confuse polemic with logic. Thanks
to endless political squabbles, for many people the IQ debate has become an
issue that it is just not worth arguing about any more. Anything that brings it
back into the scientific fold is welcome: surely everyone would then see that
鈥渟cientific鈥� and 鈥渞acist鈥� are two words that won鈥檛 go together.
