Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-4nnqn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-25T03:52:54.067Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Should Some Knowledge Be Forbidden? The Case of Cognitive Differences Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Janet A. Kourany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For centuries scientists have claimed that women are intellectually inferior to men and blacks are inferior to whites. Although these claims have been contested and corrected for centuries, they still continue to be made. Meanwhile, scientists have documented the harm done to women and blacks by the publication of such claims. Can anything be done to improve this situation? Freedom of research is universally recognized to be of first-rate importance. Yet, constraints on that freedom are also universally recognized. I consider three of these constraints and argue for tighter restrictions on race- and gender-related cognitive differences research on their basis.

Type
Agnotology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 779 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

For interesting, informative, and very lively exchanges about this material, I am grateful to audiences at the University of Western Ontario, Saint Louis University, Universität Bielefeld, University of Chicago, Lewis and Clark College, and the University of Edinburgh.

References

Ceci, Stephen, and Williams, Wendy M.. 2009. “Darwin 200: Should Scientists Study Race and IQ? YES: The Scientific Truth Must Be Pursued.” Nature 457 (7231): 788–89.. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457n7231/full/457788a.htmlCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceci, Stephen, and Williams, Wendy M. 2010. The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cello, Jeronimo, Paul, Aniko V., and Wimmer, Eckard. 2002. “Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template.” Science 297:1016–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dar-Nimrod, Ilan, and Heine, Steven J.. 2006. “Exposure to Scientific Theories Affects Women’s Math Performance.” Science 314 (5798): 435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1992. Myths of Gender. 2nd ed. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne 2000. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Flynn, James. 2009. “Would You Wish the Research Undone?” Nature 458 (7235): 146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coll, Garcia, Lamberty, Cynthia Gontran, Jenkins, Renee, McAdoo, Harriet Pipes, Crnic, Keith, Wasik, Barbara Hanna, and García, Heidie Vázquez. 1996. “An Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children.” Child Development 67:1891–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Colin. 2008. Cognition and Sex Differences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotez, Peter J. 2008. “Neglected Infections of Poverty in the United States of America.” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2 (6): 1–11.. http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0000256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, Ronald J., et al. 2001. “Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 by a Recombinant Ectromelia Virus Suppresses Cytolytic Lymphocyte Responses and Overcomes Genetic Resistance to Mousepox.” Journal of Virology 75:1205–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Editors, Journal and Group, Authors. 2003. “Uncensored Exchange of Scientific Results.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (4): 1464. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/4/1464.full.pdf+html.Google Scholar
Karafyllis, Nicole C., and Ulshofer, Gotlind. 2008. Sexualized Brains: Scientific Modeling of Emotional Intelligence from a Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobasa, Darwyn, et al. 2007. “Aberrant Innate Immune Response in Lethal Infection of Macaques with the 1918 Influenza Virus.” Nature 445 (January 18): 319–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kourany, Janet. 2012. “Feminist Critiques: Harding and Longino.” In Philosophy of Science: The Key Thinkers, ed. Brown, James Robert. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, Ray, and Joy, Bill. 2005. “Recipe for Destruction.” New York Times, October 17. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/opinion/17kurzweiljoy.html.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Research, Behavioral. 1979. “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” Regulations and Ethical Guidelines, National Institutes of Health. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2004. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
Rose, Steven. 2009. “Darwin 200: Should Scientists Study Race and IQ? NO: Science and Society Do Not Benefit.” Nature 457 (7231): 786–88.. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457786a.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Sue. 1994. Women’s Health—Missing from U.S. Medicine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa. 1989. The Mind Has No Sex? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa 1999. Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Steven J., Steele, Claude M., and Quinn, Diane M.. 1999. “Stereotype Threat and Women’s Math Performance.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35:4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Claude M. 1997. “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance.” American Psychologist 52 (6): 613–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taubenberger, Jeffery K., Reid, Ann H., Lourens, Raina M., Wang, Ruixue, Jin, Guozhong, and Fanning, Thomas G.. 2005. “Characterization of the 1918 Influenza Virus Polymerase Genes.” Nature 437 (7060): 889–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tumpey, Terrence M., et al. 2005. “Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus.” Science 310:77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Aken, Jan. 2006. “When Risk Outweighs Benefit.” EMBO [European Molecular Biology Organization] Reports 7 (Special Issue): S10–S13. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n1s/full/7400726.html.Google ScholarPubMed
von Bubnoff, Andreas. 2005. “Special Report: The 1918 Flu Virus Is Resurrected.” Nature 437 (October 6): 794–95.Google Scholar
Woolf, Virginia. 1929. A Room of One’s Own. London: Hogarth.Google Scholar