Print

Print


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02244-w

BOOKS AND ARTS
23 July 2019
Sports and IQ: the persistence of race ‘science’ in competition
Angela Saini assesses a book examining how bad science lingers.
Angela Saini
[image: Female athletes training on a running track in Iten, Kenya]

Kenyan athletes are often subject to debate over their supposed genetic
advantage at distance running.Credit: Sven Torfinn

*Skin Deep: Journeys in the Divisive Science of Race* *Gavin Evans*
OneWorld (2019)

Hitchhiking in Zimbabwe in 1981, Gavin Evans encountered an
English-speaking couple who told him that the mental capacity of black
Africans was so limited that they would never invent anything. Evans, who
is white, grew up in apartheid South Africa. As he writes in his book *Skin
Deep* (joining his 2014 *Black Brain, White Brain*), his “reassuringly pale
skin” made him privy to the everyday prejudice of other white people who
had been “breast-fed on racism”. Many assumed he would share their
loathsome views. He did not. Horrified, he became determined to fight
prejudice through his writing.

In *Skin Deep*, the writer and media lecturer dissects the dubious
pseudoscientific arguments still used to justify racism. In my latest book,
*Superior*, I cover similar ground (see R. Nelson *Nature* *570*, 440–441;
2019 <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01968-z>). Given that
Stephen Jay Gould’s critique of biological determinism *The Mismeasure of
Man* was published in 1981 — almost 40 years ago — you might think it’s no
longer necessary to reassert that there is no genetic basis for what people
think of as race.

But today’s political environment reminds us that the concept of deep,
unassailable differences between population groups persists. Race ‘science’
— that is, research that looks at the existence and scope of these
differences — has to some extent been purged from biology. The vast
majority of human genetic variation is today understood to be individual —
that is, people from different populations can easily be more similar,
genetically, than people from the same population. But the persistence of
everyday racism, the perception of regional cultural differences and the
use of racial categories such as ‘Caucasian’ in medicine, employment and
official data-gathering blind too many to this fact.

Evans zooms in on two focal points of racial stereotypes: sport and
intelligence. His section on the success of Kenyan marathon runners in
global contests is brilliant: it demolishes the idea of genetic
explanations for any region’s sporting achievements. Some have speculated
that Kenyans might have, on average, longer, thinner legs than other
people, or differences in heart and muscle function. Evans notes, however,
that we don’t make such generalizations about white British athletes when
they do disproportionately well in global athletics. Such claims for
athletic prowess are lazy biological essentialism, heavily doped with
racism.
*True complexity*

On intelligence, Evans dissects the work of twins researcher Robert Plomin,
who has made the claim that IQ is highly heritable (see N. Comfort *Nature*
*561*, 461–463; 2018 <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06784-5>).
Some have interpreted that as implying that there are genetic differences
between population groups. But IQ is malleable. As Evans points out, “One
of the best ways to improve IQ if you are from a poor family is to get
adopted as a baby”. Adoption into well-off families is associated with IQ
gains of as much as 12–18 points. Research has shown that IQ testing still
fails to capture the true complexity and variation in human intellect.
[image: Black and white photo of a woman doing a puzzle at a desk, with
other people waiting around her.]

Potential immigrants undergo intelligence testing at the Ellis Island
inspection station in the 1920s.Credit: Granger Historical Picture
Archive/Alamy

As a white South African, Evans has not experienced the hard end of
apartheid. But his lifelong familiarity with the countries of southern
Africa is his strength. A problem that plagues writing on the science of
human difference is that some authors — particularly in Europe and the
United States — have scant understanding of history, cultures and
environments beyond their own. Race cannot be discussed without
appreciating the subtle effects of language, politics, habits, religion and
diet, which constitute the bulk of what many perceive to be ‘racial’
difference. I read too many popular-science books that treat these factors
as peripheral, as if having a grasp of genetics is all you need to debunk
scientific racism. With his sensitive knowledge of place and people, Evans
avoids this trap.

The politics of our age demand that we counteract ‘scientific’ racism not
only with rigour, depth and empathy, but also without fear. Evans takes no
prisoners. He skewers the psychologist Steven Pinker, for instance, for
entertaining the theories of anthropologists Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy
and the late Henry Harpending, who claim that evolutionary pressures have
led to psychological differences between populations. In 2009, at the
‘Preserving Western Civilization’ conference in Baltimore, Maryland,
Harpending stated, bizarrely: “I’ve never seen anyone with a hobby in
Africa.” Evans goes on to damn US psychologists more generally as giving a
“faux-scientific gloss to unscientific assumptions”, particularly that IQ
is a rigorous or reliable measure of intelligence.

There are also those who betray a deep internalized bias of which they’re
not aware. To answer the bigger question of why people are racist, a useful
companion to this book is *Biased* (2019) by psychologist Jennifer
Eberhardt. She explains how stereotypes become rooted in all of us from
such a young age that, as adults, abandoning these world views takes
prolonged, conscious effort.

And then there are those whose prejudice is deliberate, motivated by hatred
and politics. The danger is that it’s not always easy to spot them. In
trying to gain a foothold in academia, ‘scientific’ racists often adopt the
language of scholarly debate. They might call for more academic freedom and
‘diversity of opinion’, complaining that mainstream scientists and the
media are trying to silence them. Evans calls out this duplicity. He pours
scorn on those who attempt to mask their prejudice in a “martyr complex —
the sense that they are the intrepid truth-tellers, following the
scientific breadcrumbs”.

Evans’s work is bold, but one problem I have with it is that he seems to
fail to appreciate that racists do not become racist because a faithful
examination of the science has convinced them that certain populations are
inferior to others. In reality, they were convinced of it from the start.
Arguing with racists on points of fact is a game with no winners. Debating
with them on their own terms, as Evans does, serves only as grist to their
mill.

Racist ‘science’ must be seen for what it is: a way of rationalizing
long-standing prejudices, to prop up a particular vision of society as
racists would like it to be. It is about power. This is why, historically,
work claiming to show deep racial differences has been of dismal quality.
Racists don’t care if their data are weak and theories shoddy. They need
only the thinnest veneer of scientific respectability to convince the
unwitting. That said, we still need scientific arguments refuting
biological race, of the sort found in *Skin Deep*. We can only hope that
people unaware of the falsity of the racial views they hold might read such
books, and become less susceptible to manipulation by hardened racists with
political agendas.

A world in thrall to far-right politics and ethnic nationalism demands
vigilance. We must guard science against abuse and reinforce the essential
unity of the human species. I am grateful that in Evans we have someone
conscientious, brave and willing to do that.

Nature *571*, 474-475 (2019)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02244-w