BLURRING THE LINE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RACISM

The terms "genetic determinism" or "biological determinism" have evoked images of a revival of the sort of racism and discrimination that characterized this country up until the triumph of the civil rights movement. Genetic or biological determinism is the theory that the behavior of people, and especially general behavioral characteristics of races, is controlled largely by heritage. It attributes the differences between the races to innate traits rather than social factors. The basic concept has been around for centuries, but the recent explosion in genetic knowledge has stimulated new interest in determinism.

Theories based upon genetic determinism have been used by some to produce old racist wine in a somewhat new, scientific bottle, although with certain novel twists. One highly speculative scenario suggests that children who are somehow ascertained, most likely through genetic screening, to be predisposed to crime may be "treated" at a young age. Yet to be determined is whether such testing and treatment would be voluntary or mandatory. Other proponents of genetic determinism are basically old-fashioned swastika types. They would, in effect, like to condemn all black people to lives of servitude and injustice - in other words, they want apartheid or worse. But the whole story isn't that simple. Some researchers pursuing studies in this field are apparently motivated by legitimate scientific curiosity. And not all of the racists are white. Notorious white biological determinists such as Shockley and Jensen have their black counterparts. Washington, D.C. psychiatrist Frances Welsing, for example, espouses the theory that melanin makes blacks racially superior.

How the black community responds to this threat is very important. Some would like an outright prohibition of government support of any studies examining a possible link between racial genetics and behavior. This was evident last year when the University of Maryland attempted to conduct a seminar entitled "Genetic Factors in Crime." Following a torrent of protests, the seminar was postponed, only to be quietly held later. What had been accomplished by protesting the conference? A case may be made that a state facility such as a university is not an appropriate forum to present such a racially divisive issue, but even assuming every presenter to be heard kept a picture of Hitler next to their bed and a white hood in the closet, there is still freedom of speech. Proponents of genetic determinism then go about loudly proclaiming that the truth is being suppressed. It would be better for this issue to be dealt with openly, forcing proponents of racism to defend their views on the scientific and ethical grounds which should be the means by which we evaluate all ideas. This cannot be allowed to be portrayed as merely another battle over "political correctness" in which we are afraid to meet the issues head-on. Racist notions must be defeated intellectually as well as politically.

The threat to basic rights posed by some advocates of genetic determinism cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, it would be counterproductive to become hysterical. Racism is pretty much the same as it has always been, only expressed with new jargon. The growing understanding of human genetics is just like any other form of knowledge: unstoppable. The only thing we can and should do is ensure that the science is sound and that the knowledge is used wisely.