An Elsevier journal plans to issue a retraction notice this week about a widely criticized 2012 paper claiming to find links between skin color, aggression, and sexuality.
Earlier this month, we reported that the journal, Personality and Individual Differences (PAID), would retract the study “Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?” by the late authors Philippe Rushton and Donald Templer, published in 2012.
The paper was the subject of a highly critical Medium post in November 2019, and of a petition with more than 1,000 signatures sent to Elsevier earlier this month.
The four-page retraction notice, provided to Retraction Watch by Elsevier, begins with a description of the history, policies and procedures at the journal, then launches into a litany of issues with the paper:
It has recently come to our attention that the following article published in PAID contains sufficient errors and misrepresentation to require our attention, review and action:[Rushton & Templer (2012)]
It continues:
Rushton & Templer (2012) contend that animal studies show that dark skin pigmentation is reliably related to increased aggression and sexual activity. They speculate that the same may be true in humans, and claim that the psychological literature supports this contention that is grounded in evolutionary theory. Their thesis is that genetic differences, related to darkness of skin colour, explain supposed racial differences in sexual behaviour and violence.
Both authors are now deceased, and so we cannot speculate about their motivations and intents when publishing this work. Whilst we regard their views expressed in this paper as deeply offensive to particular minorities, we also maintain that they did not provide a fair representation of the literature of that time which was available to them, and further did not draw valid inferences from it.
The notice lists some of the errors on which Rushton and Templer built their claims, based on a review over the past several months by a geneticist and neuroscientist solicited by the journal.
It turns out that one ecological study which the authors relied on did look at ties between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality, but was “mainly based on birds and fish.”
The notice says:
The correspondent and geneticist each comment that the genes responsible for skin pigmentation in humans are completely different to the genes in these animals. It therefore makes no sense to extrapolate from these animal studies to humans.
The notice says the authors also cited a widely criticized PAID paper by Richard Lynn which claimed significantly different rates of psychopathy in black and white people, but that the authors ignored a 2004 paper which showed that these differences were “negligible.”
It goes on to say:
Rushton & Templer ignored obvious social and educational explanations for higher levels of violence, HIV infection etc. in African and Caribbean countries whilst favouring a genetic theory.
Amanda Warr, Alexis Gkantiragas, and Eray Özkural, three of the researchers who wrote the petition, told Retraction Watch they were “pleased to hear that this paper has been retracted.” They write:
The retraction notice describes some of the paper’s flaws and references the thorough critique sent to the Editor-in-Chief several months ago.
However, we are disappointed that there has not been further investigation into how this paper came to be published, nor discussion of additional measures to prevent similarly flawed and biased research being published in the future. We also feel that the authors’ failure to disclose conflicts of interest and the damage wrought by the paper’s false conclusions during the its eight years in circulation ought to have been highlighted.
Nevertheless, this is a welcome start. The issue raised here of low-quality pseudoscience is no isolated incident, but is symptomatic of broader issues within academic publishing. We encourage the editors to scrutinise existing and future work in their journal to a higher standard.
Meanwhile, Rushton’s former colleagues at Western University posted a statement about his work last week, including these passages:
Although Rushton published on a variety of topics in the field of personality and individual differences, much of his research was racist, and attempted to find differences in intelligence between racialized groups and to explain them as caused by genetic differences between races.
Although Rushton ceased teaching for the Department of Psychology in the early 1990s, he continued to conduct racist and flawed studies, sometimes without appropriate ethics approval [1] for two more decades.
The statement concludes:
Despite its deeply flawed assumptions and methodologies, Rushton’s work and other so-called “race science” (currently under the pseudonym of “race realism”) continues to be misused by white supremacists and promoted by eugenic organizations. Thus, Rushton’s legacy shows that the impact of flawed science lingers on, even after qualified scholars have condemned its scientific integrity. Academic freedom and freedom of expression are critical to free scientific inquiry. However, the notion of academic freedom is disrespected and abused when it is used to promote the dissemination of racist and discriminatory concepts. Scientists have an obligation to society to speak loudly and actively in opposition of such abuse.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Is this a case of isolated demands for rigor or honest check for scientific integrity. Let’s find out. Will they apply the same standards to similarly flawed papers they’ve published, or just to ones that are offensive to the sensibilities of the PC crowd?
Go do the work of identifying the flaws and bringIng then to the journal’s attention! If you aee flawed research out there, go analyze it! Tell the editors! Then you will know!
But you can’t do that, can you?
It seems clear that we have different standards for studies and conclusions about humans and about other animals, and that this study is a victim of those double standards.
Why is this double standard appropriate? Shouldn’t we aim to make science free of bias? Isn’t using different standards only for studies involving our own species (and arguably only for studies that could upset members of our own species) anti-scientific?
“Rushton & Templer ignored obvious social and educational explanations for higher levels of violence, HIV infection etc.”
Okay – so two entirely different continents thousands of miles apart with zero shared experiences for generations now share identical social and educational explanations, but not skin color? Even Caribbean nations who’ve been non-white dominant for centuries?
I can’t say I’ve delved deeply into race-based research, largely because one cannot even whiff funding it unless you want ousted from the scientific community and many times over, any researcher who even proposes looking into ANYTHING that explains negative attributes (even cultural) among any other race but white, but these explanations for retractions make zero sense. Is it possible skin color has nothing to do with anything ever? Well, no.
We do know darker skin tones more closely related generationally to Africa have a higher risk of sickle cell trait. So clearly, there are genetic negatives coded in. Since we have yet to isolate a “mean gene”, the best we have (and the best chance for targeted funding to go after root causes, such as providing more funding into HIV avoidance in black communities for example) is comparative based on existing population risks, outcomes and the like. Anyone who tries is blasted, though. These types of studies used to be absolutely vital to directing the best ways and methods to help all communities based on need and predilection – whether it’s cultural or genetic, but we also need to know which to help best. Is it possible skin color has nothing to do with aggression or sexuality? Yes. We just aren’t allowed to find out and we are socially – not scientifically – removing and retracting all studies, regardless of submission date as opposed to challenging them with fresh studies with the same data, then challenging it with data a new researcher deems more appropriate.
When a genetic discrepancy made be found and could be looked into, the immediate demands for retraction are that the issues are cultural. When cultural issues are looked into, the issue is due to the skin color/genetics. The explanation this time is culture is to “blame” for the discrepancy. The reality is in the quoted explanation – they actually have to admit there IS a discrepancy to explain it in an opposing direction.
The authors freely admit the hypothesis is predicated upon animals and seeing if it mirrors in another species. This is the root basis for a HUGE swath of papers on all types of species, even across varied genus. Example, a study in 2009 compared muscles of fish to humans in evolutionary theory. “From fish to modern humans – comparative anatomy, homologies and evolution of the pectoral and forelimb musculature”
Does that study no longer have validity because it’s comparing a trait of non-humans to humans? Should it be retracted? As well as the (quick peruse) of at least 27,000 studies available in English and a crude search that utilize compare humans to *random genus/species*?
I mean, clearly this quote…
“It turns out that one ecological study which the authors relied on did look at ties between pigmentation, aggression, and sexuality, but was “mainly based on birds and fish.””
…means all studies which determine compare and contrast between species, genus, etc. would be invalid too. We know genetics affects a myriad of things in other mammals. Dog breeds are a prime example – they’ve been explicitly bred for tasks and dogs in one family versus another (i.e. terriers compared to shepherds) function entirely differently. Logic itself dictates it does in humans. Why are we any exception to animalistic tendencies? Because we are sentient?
“Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Drug Use and Abuse Among College Students” was an interesting study that showed whites and Hispanics were more likely to be drug users before college. The entire point of the paper was to enhance and better target drug prevention programs. Is it now no longer applicable because it shows any one race is more likely to be drug users before college because blacks are less likely to go to college in the first place?
“The findings of the present study reveal several important racial/ethnic differences in drug use and abuse that need to be considered when developing collegiate drug prevention and intervention efforts.”