Sesrence. IS B81 E92, 17 Nov 1967

Racial Studies: Academy States
Position on Call for New Research

William Shockley of Stanford, who won the Nobel prize for work on tran-
sistors, has lately been arguing for an expansion of research to evaluate the
relative effects of heredity and environment on human intelligence and perform-
ance. Implicit in his proposals is at least the speculation that inferior genetic
inheritance, rather than inferior environment, accounts for the relatively poor
performance of some Negroes in various competitive situations. Specifically,
Shockley has been calling for a study of “disadvantaged children” who have been
adopted from “improvident backgrounds.” As he put it in a talk last spring to
the National Academy of Sciences, the object of the study would be to answer
the question, “can improved environment remedy the obviously enormous social
disadvantages afflicting the illegitimate 25 percent of Negro babies? Or will
genetic inheritance produce such a low ‘social capacity index’ that most will
perform at frustratingly low social levels?”

Shockley’s vigorous advocacy has been a matter of some discomfort to the
Academy, which finds itself situated between its traditional belief in free inquiry
and its realization that the formulation of heredity versus environment adds up
to a loaded question that might be destructively exploited by racists if the Acad-
emy even ratified it as the right question. At the Academy's fall meeting on 23
October, in Ann Arbor, President Frederick Seitz presented the NAS's Council's
response to Shockley’s proposals, though, in fact, the statement made no direct
reference to Shockley himself. The Academy statement, which was prepared with
the assistance of several geneticists (James F. Crow, Wisconsin; James V. Neel,
Michigan; and Curt Stern, University of California, Berkeley) follows:

The Academy has been urged to take
strong measures to reduce the present
uncertainty about the relative impor-
tance of heredity and environment as
causes of human social problems and
as causes of racial differences in be-
havioral traits. It is asked to promote
actively the seeking of answers to such
questions as: To what extent are urban
slums the result of poor heredity? Is
the genetic quality of the human pop-
ulation being seriously eroded by eco-
nomic and medical advances that have
dramatically decreased the death rate,
and by differential birth rates in vari-

ous social, economic, and educational .

groups? Are genetic factors responsible
for a significant part of racial differences

892

in educational and economic achieve-
ments? Could a eugenic program ma-
terially reduce our major social prob-
lems? By concentrating on environ-
mental approaches, is society neglecting
promising genetic possibilities?

The question has been raised as to
whether research in these areas is being
carried out as vigorously and _intelli-
gently as it should be.

Do anthropologists and geneticists
have an environmentalist bias that
discourages research into the heredi-
tary bases of individual and racial
differences in intelligence and ability
to adapt to our society? Is this
research being seriously impeded
by investigators’ fears that the results

might be unfavorable to some ethnic
minorities? /

How urgent is it that such questions
be answered?

We certainly need to know more
about human genetics; as to the desir-
ability of further research there can
be no serious question. Researchers in
experimental and human genetics have
brought deep insights concerning our-
selves and our past. The detailed un-
derstanding of the molecular basis of
heredity is one of the intellectual
triumphs of the twentieth century. New
genetic knowledge is already bringing
practical benefits in the understanding,
prevention, and treatment of genetic

diseases. We can expect continued

rapid progress in this area.

With complex traits like intelligence
the generalities are understood, but the
specifics are not. There is general
agreement that both hereditary and en-
vironmental factors are influential; but
there are strong disagreements as to
their relative magnitudes—which is
another way of saying that the evidence
is not conclusive. Furthermore, it is
not obvious that really substantial in-
creases in this knowledge will come
soon, even if the amount of research
were greatly increased. The problem of
disentangling hereditary and environ-
mental factors for complex intellectual
and emotional traits where many genes
may participate, where measurements
are often not reproducible, where it is
not certain what is -being measured,
and where subtle environmental factors
are involved is extremely difficult. It
is unrealistic to expect much progress
unless new methods appear.

Even greater difficulties
countered in any attempt to assess the
relative role of heredity and environ-
ment in determining racial differences
in intellectual and emotional traits. De-
spite the great number of tests that
have been performed on Negro and
white populations, it is still not clear
whether any differences found are pri-
marily genetic or environmental. For

SCIENCE, VOL. 158

are en-..
example, there is no scientific basis for
a statement that there are or that there
are not substantial hereditary differences
in intelligence between Negro and
white populations. In the absence of
some now-unforeseen way of equalizing
all aspects of the environment, answers
to this question can hardly be more
than reasonable guesses. Such guesses
can easily be biased, consciously or un-
consciously, by. political and social
views.

It is indeed possible that some studies
have not been carried out for fear that
the results might not be acceptable to
some groups. Many researchers prefer
to work in noncontroversial areas
where public feelings are not involved
and where they can work undisturbed.
There is, however, a more valid reason
that might keep scientists from work-
ing in such areas as the separation of
hereditary and environmental contri-
butions to complex human behavioral
traits and to racial differences in these
traits. This is the conviction that none
of the current methods can produce
unambiguous results. To shy away from
seeking the truth is one thing; to re-
frain from collecting still more data
that would be of uncertain meaning
but would invite misuse is another.

Yet, it is not proper to say that we
know nothing about the inheritance of
complex traits, or that the consequences
of a genetic program are not at all
predictable. Animal experiments have
shown that almost any trait can be
changed by selection. The immensely
successful history of animal and plant
breeding, for a long time based on no
more complicated principle than that
“like begets like,” shows this. A selec-
tion program to increase human in-
telligence (or whatever is measured by
various kinds of “intelligence” tests)
would almost certainly be successful
in some measure. The same is probably
true for other behavioral traits. The
rate of increase would be somewhat
_ unpredictable, but there is little doubt
that there would be progress.

On the other hand, it is contrary to
all evidence that social problems such
as poverty, slums, school dropouts, and
crime are entirely genetic. There is
surely a substantial and perhaps over-
riding environmental and social com-
ponent. Therefore, society need not
wait for future heredity-environment
research in order to attempt environ-
mental improvements, nor will it do so.
We can be sure that no amount of
genetic research will demonstrate the
futility of all attempts at environmental
improvements. It should be emphasized

17 NOVEMBER 1967

that the existence of even a strong
hereditary component in any condition,
individual or social, does not imply that
the condition cannot be cured or ame-
liorated.

There are two aspects of cugenics
that, although not entirely different,
are sufficiently distinct to be considered
separately. They are:

1) The reduction of the incidence
of known inherited . diseases. This in-
volves the discovery by medical, chem-
ical, or cyto‘ogical techniques of per-
sons with a high risk of having chil-
dren with gross abnormalities, or with
severe physical or mental disease. A
great deal of human misery, both of
parents and of children, can be pre-
vented through genetic counseling. The
decisions can be made by the individ-
uals involved; social decisions are
ordinarily not needed.

2) Attempts to alter the population
genetically for intellectual and emo-
tional traits that vary continuously, or
to reverse possibly undesirable effects
of differential fertility. To bring about
any substantial change in the next
generation _ would require a _ large
change in reproductive patterns. To do
this by education, by persuasion, by
economic incentives, or by stronger
measures would require social decisions
that are not lightly made.

It is clear that for many important
and complex traits the population could
be changed by either genctic or en-
vironmental means. They are not mutu-
ally exclusive; more likely they are
mutually reinforcing.

Heredity-environment uncertainty is
not the main reason for avoiding
drastic selection measures. The major
impediment to eugenic action is not
genetic ignorance but rather Society’s
uncertainty about its aims and about
the acceptability of the means for at-
taining them. Even if it were known
beyond doubt that the heritability of
social maladjustment is very high, would
we choose to remedy the situation by
eugenic means?

For one thing, our society still se-

verely restricts even the voluntary indi-

vidual application of some available
techniques. Birth contro! is only grad-
ually becoming legally accepted, es-
pecially among the unmarried, long
after it has become widely practiced
among well-to-do and educated peo-
ple. Therapeutic abortion is very
safe when done under proper med-
ical conditions, but is forced under-
ground or to other countries, with the
consequence that it is available safely
only to the privileged. Artificial insem-

ination, although widely practiced, is
in such a questionable legal position
that no accurate records, even of its
frequency, are available. Any program
of genetic improvement, even if en-
tirely voluntary, would be seriously
impeded by inability to make full use
of techniques now known.

Moreover, regardless of the accept-
ability of the methods and regardless
of the success of research in disentan-
gling the role of heredity and environ-
ment in complex social traits, society
is far from ready to interfere to any
significant extent with the reproduc-
tive preferences. of this generation in
order to change the gene pool of the
next. On the other hand environmental
measures have wide and immediate
social acceptability.

Genetic changes are measured in-
generations. Whatever genetic deteriora-
tion is occurring as a result of de-
creased natural selection or by differ-
ential birth rates is slow relative to
many environmental changes, particu-
larly those associated with technologi-
cal innovations. Likewise, genetic im-
provement by any eugenic program that
is likely to be accepted in the near
future by our society would also be
slow. /

For these reasons, we question the
social urgency of a greatly enhanced
program to measure the heritability of
complex intellectual and emotional fac-
tors. This is not to say that such work
should not be done. But we would
not, for example, urge that work in
other parts of genetics be reduced in
order to supply trained personnel to
study this area more intensively.

Likewise, we question the social
urgency of a crash program to measure
genetic differences in intellectual and
emotional traits between racial groups.
In the first place, if the traits are at
all complex, the results of such re-
search are almost certain to be incon-
clusive. In the second place, it is not
clear that major social decisions de-
pend on such information; we would
hope that persons would be considered
as individuals and not as members of
groups.

On the other hand, no promising new
approach to answering these questions
should be discouraged. While existing
methods offer little hope for unambigu-
ous answers, there is always the pos-
sibility that new insights will come from
an unexpected direction. The history
of scientific discovery suggests that the
best strategy would be the support of
basic research from which such in-
sights may arise.

893