The first point is that Sarich and Meile maintain that known (average) phenotypic differences between races could have a genetic basis. (“Races” can be operantly defined as populations defined by differences in average ancestral heritage — does Miss Oubre seriously maintain that “African-Americans” have no “ancestral” differences relative to “European- (or Asian)-Americans”?) That there are (average) phenotypic differences, particularly with regards to the substantially biological general intelligence (g), is no longer seriously debated both in the fields of psychometrics and neurology. Nor is it debated that these differences are socially import. What is debated is their etiology and the extent of their importance (1).

The second point is that Sarich and Meile do not maintain that the said social behaviors are fixed or unchangeable. They do not discuss absolute differences but the relative differences between ancestral populations. As such, evidence of the impact of environmental influences is irrelevant, per se. What would be relevant, would be evidence that environmental influences can shift population means in general intelligence; if Ms. Oubre believes there is such evidence, she should cite it.

The third point would be that Sarich and Meile do not supply “replicable empirical evidence” for the genetic mediation of differences because there is a dearth of evidence either for or against such differences. Their concern in this book was to establish the prior plausibility of such differences and so encourage research, research that is currently being suppressed (as testified by the responses to the 2007 Nature symposium: “Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ”) Ms. Oubre is effectively arguing that they need to provide “replicable empirical evidence” to substantiate their claim that differences would be found if research was done.

Forth, as for a fair presentation of data, Sarich and Meile’s presentation is consistent with the nature of scientific discourse in general; with regards to discourse on this subject in particular, they are at least as balanced as the advocates of the alternative models (cf. Nisbett, 2010; Flynn, 2010; ). Ms. Oubre is implicitly maintaining that hereditarians are obliged to maintain stricter standards of research; her prejudice on this matter is likely informed by a paradigm that is rejected by hereditarians (i.e. minorities are oppressed as evidenced by disparity; established genetic differences would, potentially, exasperate this oppression).

As for Ms. Oubre purported counter evidence, I would mention the following:

1. “Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena”

Ms. Oubre is contending that there couldn’t be a genotypic basis to differences; that there could has long been acknowledged by serious defenders of the environmental position (Nisbett, 2005; Flynn, 1980). Since the publishing of her analysis, recent research as substantiated this (2-4)

2. “Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.”

Ms. Oubre is contending that there is no consensus on phenotypic differences in g. Yet she cites evidence from 1996. However, between 1996 and the time of Ms. Oubre’s article, research has demonstrated the veracity of Spearman’s hypothesis (5). Most environmentalist now no longer dispute this (e.g Nisbett, 2005)

3. “Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products.”

Where one to accept Ms. Oubre standards, one might contend that she failed to provide relevant evidence which calls her model into question, for example, that the IQ (g) differences persist across SES. This however misses the larger point: to resolve this question, research needs to be done using the methods laid out by Jensen and Rushton (2005) and others (hybrid studies using modern genotyping analysis).

4. “Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g”

Ms. Oubre maintains that since researches are not certain of the neurophysiologic basis of g, they can not posit genetic mediated differences in g. It is sufficient, however, that g is heritable within populations and that is represents a manifold of correlations. One need only maintain that this manifold is heritable between populations. Oddly, when discussing differences within populations, few demand that an exact understanding of general intelligence is needed.

5. “While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population.”

With regards to African-Americans the IQ of all African’s in irrelevant; what is relevant is the genotypic IQ of the specific ancestral African populations from which African-Americans hail.

6. “If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control”

Hybrid studies using modern genotyping would answer this. Of course, Sarich and Miele can’t cite these because researchers are unwilling to do these. As ms. Oubre would have it, they would need to cite such studies, before they could make there case that such studies should be done.

(1) Gottfredson, 2010. Intelligence and Social Inequality: Why the Biological Link

(2) Hawks, Wang, Cochran, Harpending, and Moyzis, 2007. Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution

(3) Land, Odling-Smee, and Myles, 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together

(4) Coop, Pickrell, and Novembre, 2009. The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation

(5) Roth, Bevier, Bobko, et al., 2001. Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis

(6) Flynn, 2010. The spectacles through which I see the race and IQ debate

It provides a better multi-disciplinary outline of the “reality” of these differences.