Peter Singer
是否应该谈论人种和智力？
彼得 辛格
纽约，普林斯顿—基因和智力的交汇点是一个智识上的地雷阵。哈佛大学前任校长萨莫斯在2005年试探性地从基因的角度解释为何哈佛大学难以招募到数学和物理学教授的时候就触发了一次爆炸。(他并没有说平均而言在这些领域男子比女子更为有才华，而是说人们有理由相信男子与女子相比，要更为有可能出现在这些领域的能力的最高和最低两个极端。当然，哈佛大学只任命那些在最高端的人。)
现在，我们当今时代最为杰出的科学家之一更为笨手笨脚地误入这一地雷阵，其结果可想而知。因描绘DNA结构而分享1962年诺贝尔奖的沃森十月份在伦敦推销他的回忆录<<避免让人厌倦以及终身致力科学得出的教训>>。在接受伦敦星期天报采访的时候他说他对于非洲的前途感到渺茫，因为“我们所有的社会政策都建立在这一事实基础之上，也就是非洲人的智力是和我们一样的，而所有的试验都说明并非如此。”他补充说他希望人人平等，但是“那些不得不与黑人雇员打交道的人发现并非如此。”
沃森试图在随后与独立报的采访中澄清评论，他说：“当今社会最大的愿望就是假定平等的理性力量是全体人类的遗产。这可能如此。但是仅仅希望如此并不足够。这并非科学。质疑这一点并非是种族主义。”
沃森说质疑这一假定本身并非是种族主义，这是对的。种族主义者对于某一特定人种有一种负面消极的态度。试图了解事实并非有什么种族主义。但是，当对于事实的观点缺乏坚实的科学基础的时候就加以宣扬就会引起种族主义怀疑。
这正是沃森现在承认他所做的事情。有人认为他的评论暗示非洲有点“在基因上低人一等”。回到纽约后，他向这些人道歉。他说，这并不是他的意思，而且更为重要的是，“这一观点没有科学依据。”
他收回他的话为时已晚。科学博物馆取消了沃森预定的一次有关其书籍和事业的讲座。受到来自董事会的压力，沃森辞去了其冷泉港实验室主任的职务。这一实验室曾经在沃森的领导下成为世界顶尖的生物科学研究和教育机构。洛克菲勒大学也取消了沃森原定的一场讲座。
暂且不论沃森在星期天报采访中做出的具体的言论，一个的确难以解答的问题依旧存在，那就是，科学家们是否应该研究种族和智力之间的联系？这一问题是否过于敏感而让科学家们去探索？此类研究结果被错用的威胁是否太大？
其危险明显是足够大的。种族主义者的陈词滥调危害了许多非白人的前途，特别是非洲族裔的人。智力和种族的概念不如我们假定的要清晰明了。科学家们如果要对这两个概念交汇点提出有意义的问题就需要小心处理。
有人说我们使用衡量智力的工具，也就是智商测验本身就有文化上的偏见。<<误量人类>>一书的已故作者古德认为，使用智商测验的跨文化研究是白人展示其优越的企图。但是，如果这是对的话，这一企图适得其反，因为亚洲人更为可能比欧洲人取得更好的成绩。在另一方面，居住在穷国和富国的人在智商测验中成绩的差异受到诸如教育和幼儿早期营养等因素的影响，这明显完全是有可能的。控制这些变异因素是困难的。
但是要说我们不应该在这一领域进行研究就是相当于说我们应该拒绝对不同种族或族裔人们之间收入、教育以及健康差异进行开放心态的调查研究。当人们面临这些重大的社会问题时，宁要无知也不要知识是难以加以辩解的。
科学博物馆在解释为何取消沃森的讲座的时候说，他的言论已经“超出了可以接受的辩论的界限。”科学博物馆随后又要求那些想要了解有关“基因和种族背后的科学”更多情况的人参加将在博物馆举办的其他活动，从而取得合理的平衡。这些活动的演讲者们大概会比沃森更加具有资治来讨论类似种族和智力的话题。如果是这样，人们就只能希望看着沃森倒霉不会阻止他们闯地雷阵。
最后，无论种族和智力的事实如何，他们都不会给种族仇恨以及不尊重不同种族的人提供理由。某些人是否智商更高与此无关。
版权所有：Project Syndicate，2007年
www.project-syndicate.org
译者：赵征
jon 06:28 30 Dec 09
"Yet to say that we should not carry out research in this area is equivalent to saying that we should reject open-minded investigation of the causes of inequalities in income, education, and health between people of different racial or ethnic groups. When faced with such major social problems, a preference for ignorance over knowledge is difficult to defend."
I disagree. Not only are IQ tests inheritantly subject to bias on the basis of what should be tested, they are also far more likely to be indicators of educational (and/or language knowing) status than intelligence (all the tests involve learned skills: especially maths, general knowledge, and language comprehension). In addition, "intelligence" has as much to do with family surroundings as it does education or genetics. (For example: presence or absence of books or television, and their number and quality, hours watched, content watched, etc.; presence of computers, and their uses; topics of, and levels of intelligence of, parental and filial conversations; whether friends are allowed over, what sort and how many, and the friends' conversational intelligence.)
Moreover, even if one argued for a genetic role in intelligence, it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to test for (in humans). It would amount to being able to isolate specific genes involved in intelligence (if single genes alone are active enough to generate specific skills), then turn them off in a large enough sample, and compare them to another group whose aren't turned off. (But this would still be subject to the biases, aluded to above, in intelligence testing. Controlling for such biases would be both highly expensive, and unreliable.) This would have to be carried out for every gene found to have a role in intelligence. (Not all of which are known.) It would also miss the possibility that it is specific sets of genes which control intelligence, not genes at the single-gene level. There is also the problem that some genes require environmental influences for their expression to be turned on or off.
Not only do the above factors make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to accurately claim discovery of genetic differences in intelligence. (Which I agree are probably there.) There is also the problem that it would be politically and socially inadviseable to carry out such research. Even were it possible to make such discoveries, the uses they would likely be put to would be largely uncontrolled, and would include: arguments about racial or national superiority, with concomitant religious arguments - since religious spread can be mapped geographically; arguments about gender superiority/inferiority; arguments justifying eugenics/genetic engineering/sterilisation; arguments justifying genetic elitism/social darwinism; etc.; etc.;
Even though the discovery of differences in race and intelligence "will not justify racial hatred, nor disrespect for people of a different race", that is exactly what they would come to be used for.