Why Is Studying the Genetics of

Intelligence So Controversial?
By j a me s ta b e ry

rancis Galton was the first to envision a science

that would assess the extent to which a trait like
genius was due to nature or due to nurture. In
Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, Galton documented several centuries worth of British judges, poets,
and statesmen and concluded that these eminent men
were confined to a relatively small number of families,
which he took to point to the hereditary origin of such
genius.1 From the very beginning, then, studies of nature and nurture were focused on understanding human
intelligence.
Galtons interest in investigating the nature and
nurture of intelligence was more than mere curiosity
about the phenomenon. He wanted to intervene in the
world. If human intellect was as hereditary in origin as
speed was in dogs, Galton reasoned, then just as the
dog breeder could produce a variety of dog with great
running ability, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages
during several consecutive generations (p. 1). In addition to introducing and developing a science of nature
versus nurture, Galton envisioned a social program that
would draw on the results of that science to shape future
generationswhat he eventually called eugenics.2 For
Galton, eugenics was largely a matter of encouraging
individuals with desirable traits like high intelligence
the fitto breed more. However, as Galtons eugenic
vision gathered momentum and followers, others focused their efforts on encouraging individuals deemed
to have undesirable traits like low intelligencethe un-

James Tabery, Why Is Studying the Genetics of Intelligence So

Controversial? The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of
Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5
(2015): S9-S14. DOI: 10.1002/hast.492

fitto breed less. And when encouragement alone was

not enough to discourage the unfit from breeding, eugenicists resorted to more drastic measures, such as sterilization.3 From the very beginning, then, studies of the
nature and nurture of intelligence were closely associated
with an interest in intervening, and those interventions
were surrounded by controversy.
The nature of those controversies has not always been
the same, however. Geneticists today who study the heredity of genius are separated by nearly 150 years from
Hereditary Genius. In that time, the science and technology have changed dramatically, and so have the interventions that have been envisioned in light of those
developments. A scientist today can search for particular
stretches of DNA and assess whether differences in those
stretches are associated with differences in a human trait
of interest; a genetic counselor today can genetically test
an individual (be it an embryo, fetus, newborn, child, or
adult) and provide information about what that genetic
result means, allowing for interventions that can range
from terminating a pregnancy to prescribing a special
diet or chemotherapy. Such a study and such interventions would have been unimaginable to Galton, who
had no idea about genes, let alone about DNA and genetic testing. So when one asks a question like, Why is
studying the genetics of intelligence controversial?, it is
important to realize up front that the answer will be, It
can be controversial for a variety of different reasons, and
those reasons have evolved over time.
The purpose of this essay is to provide a survey of
the controversies that surround genetic studies of intelligence. With the survey in place, I will then draw out
several lessons both for scientists who study the genetics of intelligence as well as for science studies scholars
(bioethicists, philosophers, historians, sociologists) who

SPECIAL REP ORT: T h e G enet ic s o f I n t elligen c e : E th i c s a n d th e C on d u c t of Tru s tw orth y Re s e a rc h

S9

reflect and comment on the controversies surrounding that

research.
Race, Equality, and Discrimination: Controversies
Arising from the Study of Group Differences

enetic studies of intelligence today are, for the most

part, undertaken by behavioral geneticists. Behavioral
genetics took shape as a discipline in the 1950s and became institutionalized in the 1960s with the creation of
the Behavior Genetics Association and the publication of
textbooks and journals devoted to studying the genetics of
complex behaviors. Aaron Panofsky (a contributor to this
special report), in his history of the scientific discipline,
points out that the first generation of behavioral geneticists actively sought to break ties with the earlier eugenic
era.4 By the 1950s, the eugenic vision from the previous decades had failed, partly due to scientific factors and partly
due to social ones. On the scientific side, developments in
genetics and the social sciences showed that there was no
clear divide between nature and nurture. A trait like intelligence was the developmental product of interactions
among many genes and many environmental exposures.
On the social side, it became clear that the entire eugenic
vision was based on inherent biases concerning what made
one person more valuable than another. The very conceptions of fit and unfit were wrapped up in racist and
classist ideas about the superiority of middle- and upperclass whites and the traits exhibited by them in comparison
to working- and lower-class minority groups and the traits
found among them. So the eugenic idea that upper-class
whites should breed more because they are the intelligent
ones and lower-class minority groups should breed less because they are the less intelligent ones was doubly doomed
to fail; intelligence was not solely hereditary in origin, and
the presumption that it was fed off the personal biases of
the eugenicists promoting the vision.
Behavioral geneticists, Panofsky explains, were intimately aware of this recent history when they sought to create
a scientifically and socially respectable discipline that could
disassociate itself from the eugenic past. On the scientific
side, behavioral geneticists aimed to form a field that was
inherently interdisciplinary, one that would bring together
both biological and social scientists so that no single emphasis on nature or nurture could dominate. On the social
side, the behavioral geneticists explicitly deemed certain
investigations outside the bounds of the discipline; in particular, the study of group differences (that is, differences
between races and ethnicities) was too closely aligned with
the eugenic shortcomings of the past, and so those studies
were omitted from the disciplines early scientific agenda.
The early behavioral geneticists efforts to create a controversy-free discipline were interrupted in 1969 when

S10

Arthur Jensen published How Much Can We Boost IQ

and Scholastic Achievement?5 By the 1960s, it was widely
recognized that there existed on average a gap in IQ scores
between black and white Americans, and the gap was quite
substantialabout fifteen points. The received view at the
time was that the gap had an environmental explanation;
one of the groups was systematically exposed to things like
slavery and poor schooling for several hundred years, while
the other was not. To eliminate the gap, then, the thought
was that efforts should be targeted at the environmental
source of the problem, and so compensatory educational
programs like Head Start were created to target and enrich the early educational environments of disadvantaged
children. Jensen, drawing on behavioral genetic research,
argued that the IQ gap could not be explained entirely by
appeal to environmental differences; rather, much of it was
due to genetic differences between blacks and whites. And
if this was the case, then efforts aimed at eliminating the gap
with environmental interventions were misguided, since
black and white Americans were intellectually separated in
part by genetic differences. Jensens publication kicked off
what came to be called the IQ controversy, and it was
indeed controversial. The data on which he relied were said
to have been fabricated; the methodology he used to assess the heritability of differences in IQ (that is, the extent
to which they were attributable to differences in heredity
as opposed to differences in environment) was criticized
for being unable to say anything about the actual causes
of intelligence; the assumption that there were biologically
distinct black and white races was questioned. Still, Jensen
had his supporters. A number of prominent scientists defended Jensens genetic hypothesis, as well as his academic
freedom to study such a controversial subject.6
Importantly, these controversial episodes where genetic
differences were used to explain race differences were by no
means confined to the 1960s and 1970s. In 1994, Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murrays book The Bell Curve took
Jensens genetic hypothesis one step further by arguing
that the higher intelligent and lower intelligent populations were gradually moving farther and farther apart as
individuals within those populations tended to reproduce
more often with mates of similar intelligence.7 And then, in
2007, James Watson, who had won the 1962 Nobel Prize
for discovering the double-helical structure of DNA, told
an interviewer that he was inherently gloomy about the
prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based
on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours
whereas all the testing says not really; while he hoped all
people were equal, Watson continued, [P]eople who have
to deal with black employees find this not true.8 (These
comments were widely condemned, and Watson quickly
retracted them.9)
September-October 2015/ H A S T I N G S CE NTE R RE P O RT

Certain genetic studies of intelligence have been used to claim that

educational efforts designed to eliminate the IQ gap between
blacks and whites are a waste of money. This research has been
forcefully attacked from within the behavioral genetics discipline
as well as from outside it.
One variety of controversy that can attend genetic studies of intelligence, then, follows from studies of group
differences generally and race differences specifically. The
studies are controversial because they are interpreted to
suggest that it is biologically justifiable to treat people from
different races differently. They are also controversial because they are interpreted to support a fatalistic acceptance
of the IQ gap as an immutable biological reality. So the
controversy in this case is about using the genetic studies
to justify not interveningthat is, appealing to the genetic
difference between blacks and whites to claim that educational efforts designed to eliminate the gap are a waste of
money. For some critics of this research, the very fact that
the studies support such ideas implies that it is racist science.10
It is crucial to point out that this research was forcefully
attacked from within the behavioral genetics discipline as
well as from outside it. In 1972, when some politicians
used Jensens research to call for pulling governmental
support from compensatory educational programs, Irving
Gottesman (who has coauthored an essay in this special report) was called before the U.S. Senate to explain what behavioral genetics did and did not support, and Gottesman
testified that, while genetic differences contributed something to differences in IQ, that did not mean the IQ gap
between blacks and whites was explained by genetics. In
fact, he countered, the relatively impoverished educational
environment of blacks was the much better explanation.11
And in response to Watsons comments, Eric Turkheimer
(another contributor to this special report) pointed out
that the Nobel Prize winner, although an expert on the
structure of DNA, was no expert on the genetics of intelligence or race differences. He is, of course, still entitled to
his opinion, Turkheimer granted, but famous scientists
and intellectuals have some responsibility not to use their
fame in the service of dangerous ideas that are ultimately
outside their real expertise. Watson got in trouble for casually stating poorly informed opinions about a deeply serious subject.12 For behavioral geneticists like Gottesman
and Turkheimer (both past presidents of the Behavioral
Genetics Association), the race controversies are costly distractions since they can be used by critics outside behav-

ioral genetics to claim that the discipline is corrupt with

racism. The genetic studies of intelligence to which they
contribute are aimed at investigating both the genetic and
environmental contributions to intelligence, with the goal
of using that information to better understand how nature
and nurture interplay to contribute to the development of
a trait as complex as intelligencethe very research that
the first generation of behavioral geneticists envisioned
would define the field.13
Genetic Testing, Genetic Essentialism, and
Responsibility: Controversies Arising from the
Search for Genes

ehavioral genetics underwent a massive shift in the

1990s. Traditionally, its methods had included a variety
of family, adoption, and twin studies, where the goal was to
assess how much of the total variation in a trait of interest
was attributable to the various genetic and environmental causes of variation. The heritability score was one such
product of these methods. And while a heritability score
could say something about how much of the variation in
IQ in some population was due to the genetic differences
in that population, it could not say which genes were implicated in those differences or what biological mechanisms
linked up the genetic differences to the variation in IQ. In
the 1990s, behavioral geneticists co-opted developments in
molecular genetics, such as linkage and association studies, as well as developments in the public funding of science, such as the Human Genome Project, to transition to
searching for specific genes.
The behavioral geneticist who most embodies this evolution in the field is Robert Plomin. Plomin has been investigating the genetics of intelligence for four decades now,
and over that time, he has undertaken a variety of studies
of twins and adoptees to assess the extent to which genetic
differences are associated with differences in intelligence.14
Those studies have shown, for example, that the heritability of intelligence increases with age (that is, that genetic
differences account for more and more of the variation in
intelligence as people get older) and that subcomponents of
intelligence (such as verbal ability, spatial ability, and mem-

SPECIAL REP ORT: T h e G enet ic s o f I n t elligen c e : E th i c s a n d th e C on d u c t of Tru s tw orth y Re s e a rc h

S11

ory) have their own unique heritability scores.15 Starting in

the 1990s, Plomin supplemented those twin and adoption
studies with molecular studies aimed at discovering the
genes responsible for differences in intelligence.16
Despite early optimism, however, even advocates for this
research like Plomin have come to admit that the process
has gone slower than expected.17 There are apparently no
genes that have a large effect on variation in intelligence in
the normal range, and so studies that include even several
thousand participants with a broad range of intelligence
levels have failed to identify promising genetic candidates.18 One approach to this problem has been to undertake studies with much larger sample sizes. A study with
over 100,000 participants, for example, allowed researchers
to identify three promising genetic variants.19 Nonetheless,
those three variants accounted for only a small fraction of
the variation in intelligence; an individual who received
both copies of all three variants would on average score less
than two IQ points higher than someone who inherited
none of them.20 Another approach to the problem has been
to focus more attention on the very high end of the intelligence spectrum. In 2007, Plomin oversaw the creation
of the Consortium on the Genetics of High Cognitive
Abilities,21 which in 2012 teamed up with the Cognitive
Genomics division of BGI, a Chinese genome-sequencing
institute, to examine whether the genetic architecture of
the very high end of the intelligence spectrum could shed
light on the general phenomenon and also help elucidate
the genetic origins of intellectual disability.22
A new set of controversies arose from these molecular searches for genes. Whereas the earlier controversies
stemmed from group membership and differences between
groups, the hunt for specific genes raises concerns that pertain more to individuals with their individual genomes.
When news broke of BGIs interest in the genetics of high
intelligence, one story, headlined China Is Engineering
Genius Babies, suggested that the research was part of a
larger plan for global domination.23 With even the most
promising genetic candidates accounting for a very small
fraction of variation in intelligence, Galtons early eugenic vision of creating a highly-gifted race of men is farfetched to say the least. Still, there is a genuine concern
that when it comes to a technology like preimplantation
genetic diagnosis, where one or more embryos are selected
for implantation rather than other embryos based on the
genetic profiles of the embryos, something like a new eugenics might emerge.24 It is ludicrous to label an individual
with an IQ of 101 fit and an individual with an IQ of 99
unfit, but if parents are deciding which of two embryos
to implant and the genetic counselor explains that one embryo has the genetic variants associated with the ever-soslightly increased IQ found in the 2014 study to which
Plomin contributed, would they take that into considerS12

ation when deciding which embryo to implant? If they

did, it is hard not to interpret it as a judgment about what
makes one potential life more valuable than anothereven
if the difference between the two is practically negligible.
That act of ranking the value of others lives harkens back
to the eugenic ideology of the past, and so genetic testing
technologies of the present bring with them that controversy.
Molecular technologies also raise concerns about genetic
reductionism and genetic essentialism, as well as about the
impact on issues ranging from moral responsibility to personal identity.25 It is one thing to say genes are somehow
involved in the existence of differences in intelligence
and thats all the early twin and adoption studies could say.
The molecular search for individual genes, in contrast, attempts to implicate specific genesspecific causal agents,
with specific names (like KNCMA1) and specific functions (like producing proteins involved in neurotransmission). This explanatory act of genetic reductionism often
brings with it an associated aura of genetic essentialism,
wherein the genetic aspect to the explanation swamps other
causally relevant factors, resulting in the conceptualization
of the trait of interest as a genetic trait.26 Genetic essentialism, in turn, brings with it a range of cognitive biases
concerning, for example, the immutability of the genetic
trait.27 If genes associated with intelligence are found, the
concern goes, then no matter how small the genetic effect,
people will think of intelligence as a genetic trait, will pay
less attention to environmental influences on intelligence
(with even greater effect sizes), and will shift responsibility
for cognitive achievement from individuals to individuals
genes.
Lessons from the Controversies

here are lessons to be drawn from this brief survey of

the controversies surrounding genetic studies of intelligencelessons for both the scientists who do that research and the outsiders (such as bioethicists, philosophers,
and historians) who reflect and comment on those controversies. Let me start with the latter. Controversial science
is intriguing and garners attention, so it is not surprising
that commentators from a variety of disciplines are drawn
to the topic. Historians uncover the origins of controversy; philosophers assess the epistemological stakes of controversy; sociologists investigate the social structures that
facilitate and perpetuate controversy; bioethicists consider
the ethical, legal, and social implications of controversy;
science journalists explain controversy for the public.
For commentators on genetic studies of intelligence,
the first lesson to bear in mind is that the research can be
controversial for a variety of reasons, and it is important to
bear those differences in mind when assessing the science.
September-October 2015/ H A S T I N G S CE NTE R RE P O RT

There is a genuine concern that when it comes to preimplantation

genetic diagnosis, where one or more embryos are selected rather than
others based on their genetic profiles, something like
a new eugenics might emerge.
Now, occasionally a scientist will undertake and publish
research that spans both the gene-hunting and groupdifferences controversies; Bruce Lahn, for instance, made
headlines in 2005 when he reported identifying two genes
associated with brain development that were common
in Eurasian populations and rare in sub-Saharan African
populations, a difference that purportedly accounted for
what were deemed to be the historically more significant
cultural achievements of the former in comparison to
the latter.28 But this overlap need not exist. For example,
a molecular geneticist searching for genes associated with
intelligence may have no interest at all in finding different
frequencies of those genes in different racial groups (and no
expectation of finding them). That researcher would face
all the controversy associated with attempting to link up
individual differences in intelligence to differences in individuals genomes, but it would be unfair to associate her
research with the controversy surrounding something like
racial discrimination, since no race differences were sought
or expected.
The second lesson is that a scientist can be interested in
studying the genetics of intelligence with no interest in and
no expectation of finding either genetically influenced race
differences or specific genes that account for individual differences in intelligence. Turkheimer occupies this space.
He has spent decades drawing on the tools of behavioral
genetics to understand the nature and nurture of intelligence, but throughout that period he has also been highly
critical of both efforts to explain the IQ gap between blacks
and whites by appeal to genetic differences as well as efforts
to identify specific genes that will account for any significant portion of the individual differences in intelligence.
Turkheimer has instead studied and emphasized environmental differences between blacks and whites and drawn
attention to the effects of random life experiences on individual differences.29 This research receives less scrutiny
from outsiders precisely because it does not lend itself to
charges of discrimination or of fostering a new eugenics.
But for any commentator interested in assessing genetic
studies of intelligence, an analysis that focuses only on the
controversial science does a disservice to the range of ways
that that research can be undertaken, not all of which necessarily contribute to controversy.

There are also two lessons for the scientists who undertake research on genetic contributions to intelligence, both
having to do with keeping a distance from race-differences
research in the field. As mentioned above, practicing behavioral geneticists often bemoan episodes like the IQ controversy, the Bell Curve debate, and Watsons comments; the
study of the genetic contributions to race differences is seen
as fringe research that too often distracts attention from
other research in the field. But the scientist aiming to keep
race research at arms length must remember that genetics is
the study of differences, and race differences are just one of
many differences that can be examined when genetic studies are undertaken. An individual scientist might say that
he is not personally interested in studying race differences,
and an entire discipline such as the first generation of behavioral geneticists could deem race-differences research
outside the bounds of mainstream work. But the prospect
of work on race differences will always lurk at the edges because it will always be possible to ask, for any given genetic
difference, whether that genetic difference influences a race
difference. That is precisely what Jensen did in 1969. He
simply took a wide body of behavioral genetics research
(having nothing to do with race) concerning the contribution of genetic differences to individual differences in IQ
and extended it to try to explain a group difference. The
same goes for contemporary molecular genetic research
searching for specific genes associated with differences in
intelligence. The scientists doing that research may say
they have no interest in investigating race differences in the
genes they seek. But that does not prevent another scientist
from investigating whether the genes identified are distributed with different frequencies in different racial groups.
Moreover, and this is the second lesson for the scientists,
it is important to remember that even if the community
could keep race research at bay and out of the newspaper
headlines, research on the genetics of intelligence would
still not be expunged of all controversy. For, as the survey
of gene-hunting studies above conveys, there are a whole
set of unique controversies that surround that side of the
research. Concerns about genetic testing facilitating a new
eugenics, concerns about genetic explanations contributing
to misleading ideas about genetic essentialism, and concerns about responsibility and blame eroding in the face of

SPECIAL REP ORT: T h e G enet ic s o f I n t elligen c e : E th i c s a n d th e C on d u c t of Tru s tw orth y Re s e a rc h

S13

that genetic essentialism all arise from molecular genetic research even if no race differences are ever sought or found.
1. F. Galton, Hereditary Genius, an Inquiry into Its Laws and
Consequences (London: Macmillan and Co., 1869).
2. F. Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Development
(London: Macmillan and Co., 1883).
3. D. J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of
Human Heredity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
4. A. Panofsky, Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the
Development of Behavior Genetics (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 2014); see also A. Panofsky, What Does Behavioral Genetics
Offer for Improving Education?, The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics
and the Conduct of Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings
Center Report 45, no. 5 (2015): S43-S49.
5. A. R. Jensen, How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic
Achievement?, Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969): 1-123.
6. For an overview of the many sides to the controversy, see S. H.
Aby and M. J. McNamara, eds., The IQ Debate: A Selective Guide to
the Literature (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990).
7. R. J. Herrnstein and C. Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and
Class Structure in American Life (New York: The Free Press, 1994).
8. C. Hunt-Grubbe, The Elementary DNA of Dr. Watson, The
Sunday Times, October 14, 2007.
9. C. Dean, Nobel Winner Issues Apology for Comments about
Blacks, New York Times, October 19, 2007.
10. A. Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New
Scientific Racism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980).
11. I. Gottesman, Testimony Submitted to United States Senate
Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, February
24, 1972 (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational
Opportunity, 1972).
12. E. Turkheimer, Race and IQ, Cato Unbound, November 21,
2007, accessed July 28, 2015, at http://www.cato-unbound.org.
13. E. Turkheimer et al., Socioeconomic Status Modifies
Heritability of IQ in Young Children, Psychological Science 14
(2003): 623-28; R. E. Nisbett et al., Intelligence: New Findings
and Theoretical Developments, American Psychologist 67 (2012):
130-59; see also E. Turkheimer, Genetic Prediction, The Genetics
of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of Trustworthy Research, special
report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5 (2015): S32-S38.
14. R. Plomin and J. C. DeFries, Genetics and Intelligence:
Recent Data, Intelligence 4 (1980): 15-24.
15. G. McClearn et al., Substantial Genetic Influence on
Cognitive Abilities in Twins 80 or More Years Old, Science 276
(1997): 1560-63; C. M. A. Haworth et al., The Heritability of

S14

General Cognitive Ability Increases Linearly from Childhood to

Young Adulthood, Molecular Psychiatry 15 (2010): 1112-20.
16. R. Plomin and S. A. Petrill, Genetics and Intelligence: Whats
New?, Intelligence 24 (1997): 53-77; R. Plomin, Genetics and
General Cognitive Ability, Nature 402 (1999): C25-C29.
17. R. Plomin, J. K. J. Kennedy, and I. W. Craig, The Quest for
Quantitative Trait Loci Associated with Intelligence, Intelligence 34
(2006): 513-26.
18. O. S. Davis et al., A Three-Stage Genome-Wide Association
Study of General Cognitive Ability: Hunting the Small Effects,
Behavior Genetics 40 (2010): 759-67.
19. C. A. Rietveld et al., Common Genetic Variants Associated
with Cognitive Performance Identified Using the Proxy-Phenotype
Method, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (2014):
13790-94.
20. B. Benyamin and P. Visscher, Intelligence InheritanceThree
Genes that Add to Your IQ Score, The Conversation, September 8,
2014.
21. C. M. A. Haworth et al., A Twin Study of the Genetics of
High Cognitive Ability Selected from 11,000 Twin Pairs in Six
Studies from Four Countries, Behavior Genetics 39 (2009): 359-70.
22. E. Yong, Chinese Project Probes the Genetics of Genius,
Nature 497 (2013): 297-99.
23. A. Eror, China Is Engineering Genius Babies, VICE, March
15, 2013, accessed July 28, 2015, at http://www.vice.com/en_us.
24. G. Allen, Is a New Eugenics Afoot?, Science 294 (2001):
59-61.
25. E. Parens, Genetic Differences and Human Identities: On
Why Talking about Behavioral Genetics Is Important and Difficult,
supplement, Hastings Center Report 34, no. 1 (2004): S1-S36.
26. D. Nelkin and M. Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a
Cultural Icon (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004).
27. I. Dar-Nimrod and S. J. Heine, Genetic Essentialism: On the
Deceptive Determinism of DNA, Psychological Bulletin 137 (2011):
800-18.
28. On this controversy, see S. S. Richardson, Race and IQ in the
Postgenomic Age: The Microcephaly Case, BioSocieties 6 (2011):
420-46, as well as Richardsons contribution to this special report:
The Trustworthiness Deficit in Postgenomic Research on Human
Intelligence, The Genetics of Intelligence: Ethics and the Conduct of
Trustworthy Research, special report, Hastings Center Report 45, no. 5
(2015): S15-S20.
29. E. Turkheimer, Three Laws of Behavior Genetics and What
They Mean, Current Directions in Psychological Science 9 (2000):
160-64; Nisbett et al., Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical
Developments, 130-59.

September-October 2015/ H A S T I N G S CE NTE R RE P O RT