A journal has retracted a controversial 2010 article on intelligence and infections that was based on data gathered decades ago by a now-deceased researcher who lost his emeritus status in 2018 after students said his work was racist and sexist.
The article, “Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability’, was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, by a group at the University of New Mexico. Their claim, according to the abstract:
The worldwide distribution of cognitive ability is determined in part by variation in the intensity of infectious diseases. From an energetics standpoint, a developing human will have difficulty building a brain and fighting off infectious diseases at the same time, as both are very metabolically costly tasks.
Overlaying average national IQ with parasitic stress, they found “robust worldwide” correlations in five of six regions of the globe:
Infectious disease remains the most powerful predictor of average national IQ when temperature, distance from Africa, gross domestic product per capita and several measures of education are controlled for. These findings suggest that the Flynn effect [which posits that average national IQs increase over time] may be caused in part by the decrease in the intensity of infectious diseases as nations develop.
The study – and a related paper by a different group of authors – caught the attention of the popular science media. The Washington Post covered the research (pointing out some shortcomings), as did Science, and the lead author, Christopher Eppig, wrote about it for Scientific American. In that article, Eppig wrote:
In our 2010 study, we not only found a very strong relationship between levels of infectious disease and IQ, but controlling for the effects of education, national wealth, temperature, and distance from sub-Saharan Africa, infectious disease emerged as the best predictor of the bunch. A recent study by Christopher Hassall and Thomas Sherratt repeated our analysis using more sophisticated statistical methods, and concluded that infectious disease may be the only really important predictor of average national IQ.
But as the journal notes in the retraction, Eppig and his colleagues based their study on an analysis of data published in 2004 by Tatu Vanhanen and Richard Lynn, who died in 2023:
Following the publication of this article, Proceedings B was recently made aware of potential problems with the underpinning datasets used in the analyses, which were drawn from published sources [1,2]. The editors’ attention was drawn to the fact that the datasets on between-country variation in IQ had been the subject of several critiques claiming that they contain substantial inaccuracies and biases that throw substantial doubt on inferences made from them, and that these problems had not been resolved in revised versions of the dataset used by Eppig and colleagues. Upon detailed scrutiny, the editors found these claims to be convincing and asked Eppig and colleagues for their response. While the authors acknowledged at least some of the claimed flaws, they maintained that the inferences from the data were nevertheless reliable.
Proceedings B publishes research of outstanding scientific excellence and importance, conforming to recognized standards of scientific procedure in terms of methodology and ethical standards. Journal policy stipulates retraction where editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable (and may invalidate the conclusions of the paper). After carefully considering the dataset, the critiques, the authors’ response and the potential harms created by using a dataset that appears to portray human populations in some geographical regions as of below normal intelligence on average, the editors concluded that the manifest problems in the data warranted retraction in order to uphold these standards.
Lynn’s career, and views, have been highly visible for many years in the United States in the United Kingdom, where he worked. In 2018, Ulster University, where he was a professor emeritus, agreed to demands from students that the school revoke his academic status – news covered by the BBC among other outlets (including this one).
We emailed the chief editor of the journal, and received a reply from a spokesperson for the Royal Society, who told us:
In July 2023, the editorial team was made aware of criticism about the dataset used by Eppig et al. in a 2010 paper in Proceedings B. After considering a wide array of evidence, including the original data set, subsequent critiques and the authors’ response, the editors concluded problems with the study were sufficient to call its conclusions into question and warrant retraction.
The decision to retract was made in January 2024, and the authors were informed at that time, the spokesperson added.
Randy Thornill, the last author of the paper, did not respond to our request for comment.
So what about the other paper that used Vanhanen and Lynn’s data? Hassall and Sherratt told us that in light of the retraction, they would ask Intelligence, where they published their paper in 2011, to revisit the research. Hassall, of the University of Leeds, in England, told us:
Our paper was really focused on statistical issues when looking at spatial patterns in anything, but with IQ data as a case study (prompted by the fact that Eppig et al (and many others) were doing these kinds of analyses). As a result, I’d be hesitant to retract the whole thing as it has value as (and was always intended as) a methodological contribution.
However, both researchers agreed the journal ought to do something to indicate the work was potentially fraught. Hassall said:
researchers are clearly using our work to support the idea of an IQ-disease link.
Taken together, it’s a complicated picture:
- The point of our paper is the method and the method is sound and important, independent of data
- Our analysis yields quantitatively the same conclusions whether based on a problematic dataset (IQ) or on a robust dataset (PISA) that is measuring something similar
- Researchers cite our work sometimes for the methods and sometimes for the (potentially questionable) results.
Sherratt, of Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, added:
While our paper does a service by educating researchers on why autocorrelation matters and how to address it, at very least there needs to be a “public health warning” on the data set on which our methods paper is based. We should insist on this. A corrigendum might do the trick if it is seen whenever a reader views our paper … The fear is that if we don’t do anything then, now that Epigg et al. (2010) has been taken out of circulation, our paper can still be used to provide general support for the relationship!
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
*”… lost his emeritus status in 2018 after students said his work was racist and sexist…. In 2018, Ulster University … agreed to **DEMANDS** from students that the school revoke his academic status.”*
Wow, such a solid reason! He was not punished because of fraud or unethical science or harassment or any misconduct, but only because some nagging woke feminist BULLIES were not **happy** with his ideas!
That’s a new low.
His ideas were the same old racism, with new scores. Ideas with less racism baked in are generally preferred. If you want to know more about the current state of intelligence and IQ research, especially transnational findings, ask. Or, if you know an excellent source, say so. At some point, all scientists hit their ‘use-buy date’.
Tell us you didn’t read the article, without saying you didn’t read the article.
I didn’t care one bit about that part of the article, i.e., the research on IQ. I cared about the ‘cancel culture’ and oppression part.
What does science have to do with one’s opinions? Science is all about objective evidence and data, not ideology or political correctness. If new and better evidence refutes one’s earlier conclusions, all resources like textbooks and articles get updated in an unbiased and fair way.
Why demanding to oppress and throw out a professor because of his opinions? If you are not happy with his ideas, simply do new, better research to see if his ideas or conclusions hold or if they are refuted or challenged by new evidence. All in a neutral, mature, and friendly tone.
Or if you feel he is evil, take him to the court. Sue him. Let the court decide.
Instead of all these, those entitled students and their principal themselves oppressed and assassinated the professor’s character and carrier because *they deemed fit* (as if they are authorized and entitled to decide about others’ lives). This is the worst form of modern ideological oppression.
“Science is all about objective evidence and data.”
Is that so?
Problem is, data must be gathered, processed and interpreted. At every step “one’s opinions” and “ideology” may and do sneak in. Just to give a concrete example, admittedly null-hypothes-breaking data may be dismissed as “an unknown source of variation” if the resulta are otherwise unpalatable for the authors and their sponsors. Or a single questionable measurement may become the bedrock of unnumerable further investigations providing jobs for the boys. The list could go on.
Tito, what you said is a given (obvious). All you said in basically called “evidence”. And you’re right, evidence should be free of bias or conflict of interest. No doubt about it; any junior researcher knows that.
And I clearly stated that even if his conclusions were wrong or biased, the students can and should simply do better research to challenge or even reject his ideas. Didn’t I?
So what was the point of lecturing me about the alphabets of research and data? Care to elaborate?
“some nagging woke feminist BULLIES”
The comment seems to relate more to the rent-free occupants of Woke forever’s head than to the actual situation.
Emeritus status is not an entitlement. There is no tenure. Ulster University decided that recognising Lynn was not enhancing their corporate image, and stopped. Market forces at work.
Smut Clyde: “was not enhancing their corporate image, and stopped. Market forces at work.”
Yes, exactly *market force*. The point is science is not market. People are not commodities. Science or people should not be treated like a market. Science should not be forced. Though this story was harsher than market force at play; it was sort of a ‘cancel-culture’ and inhuman bullying.
Smut Clyde: “Emeritus status is not an entitlement.”
Actually it is. eg, Wikipedia: The term emeritus does not necessarily signify that a person has relinquished all the duties of their former position, and they may continue to exercise some of them.
We had 2 old professors (emeritus) who died (both from cardiac arrest) a couple of months after the shock of being forcefully and suddenly thrown out of the university. So it *is* a pleasant entitlement for its (old) holder and carries value and weight.
Smut Clyde: “…the rent-free occupants of Woke forever’s head…”
Don’t throw insults or personal attacks. Thanks.
——————————————
Cris: “How can you be so ignorant?”
Your insult tells me you are just another bully! Perhaps a woke feminist one!
——————————————
Stewie’s reflection: “Tell us you didn’t read the article, without saying you didn’t read the article.”
If I hadn’t read the article, how could I quote different parts of it??!!!
The point is science is not market.
Lynn’s habit of faking / cherry-picking data-sets might have contributed to his loss of his honorary status. However, that loss is not science per se. You wrote yourself that you “didn’t care one bit about that part of the article” – the science part.
Smut Clyde: “Lynn’s habit of faking / cherry-picking data-sets might have contributed to his loss of his honorary status.”
Well if data fabrication was really the case, that would be a totally different story than a cancel culture and bullying story. But I guess it was not because in such a scenario, (1) The students shouldn’t DEMAND any punishment, because in the case of misconduct, punishment is AUTOMATICALLY in order without any force needed; the university or other governing bodies would automatically do the punishment without hesitation. There remains no room for any “demanding” by the students. (2) In the case of misconduct, the punishment should have been much harsher than just getting away his emeritus status. They should have given him hell –even heavy fines or jail time, besides multiple retractions.
The RW article said something else that resembled more a cancel culture bullying pattern than a legit punishing of a fraudster.
Though if the punishment was because of scientific misconduct, they should have punished him much harder.
—————————————
Smut Clyde: “However, that loss is not science per se.”
Actually it is purely science per se. And this is all I am talking about.
Why it is science? Because assassinating the character and career of a scientist just for ideological and political reasons sends a clear message to all scientists that they are next. Now, scientists would self-censor themselves out of fear of losing their jobs and/or reputation. This is a huge SCIENTIFIC bias.
* Again, if the reason for his punishment was real scientific misconduct, then he really deserved to be punished very harshly. But the RW article implied that the reason was not fraud or misconduct, but the bully students and market forces at play.
—————————————
Smut Clyde: “You wrote yourself that you “didn’t care one bit about that part of the article” – the science part.”
No, you misquoted and misunderstood me. I never said I didn’t care about the SCIENCE part. And the science part is NOT just the IQ research part.
I said “I didn’t care one bit about that part of the article, i.e., the research on IQ. I cared about the ‘cancel culture’ and oppression part.”
The other part, i.e., “the cancel culture and oppression” part is purely scientific. Actually, it is even more important than the IQ research, in terms of being about science, hence grabbing my attention.
Where are these examples of “faking” data in Lynn’s work that you are so casually throwing around, Smut Clyde? The articles referenced here and elsewhere seem to point more towards anger that the work was done or exists at all?
I’ve been pretty dubious of the supposed investigations by the editors of Proceedings B since they declined to retract a paper shown to have been dry labbed, They looked into it and decided it was fine. That’s about all the detail they gave. (https://www.science.org/content/article/journal-declines-retract-fish-research-paper-despite-fraud-finding).
In the present case, on the information given by Proceedings B it’s hard to know if it’s the science or the topic that’s more problematic. Do the unpublished critiques give new evidence 13 years on that the underlying data were fundamentally unreliable? Or is the topic is so fraught the journal wished they hadn’t published it in the first place? There are no PubPeer comments, for example. Be nice to see more transparency in journal “investigations”. Show your analyses, not just your conclusions, editors.
Reply to “Entitled Woke Foreversays:
March 22, 2024 at 2:20 am
“So what was the point of lecturing me about the alphabets of research and data? Care to elaborate?”
The point I am making is that “ideological” bias is not an outlier, but foundational for current mainstream “science” and for its huge corporate supporting cast. The example I mentioned above and the corresponding quote of a null-hypothesis-breaking “unknown source of variation” refer to an influential Nature paper. Futher info is just one click away.
PS Are you sure that you are immune from bias yourself? You never wave away outlandish claims as nonsense without carefully examinimg the evidence?
Thanks Tito for clarifying. I understand and agree. Of course I have subjective bias. But I don’t have **dogma**. I don’t assassinate scientists’ characters or career whenever what they say is against my subjective bias. I don’t oppress them into self-censorship or oblivion. In short, I am not an ideological bully –the way entitled woke feminists are. If I don’t *like* the results of an honest study, I don’t **demand** to fire the professor. Instead, I simply challenge his study or wait for experts to challenge it. Not to mention that challenging one’s study does not mean refuting it. It is quite possible that future studies started to challenge a study actually reproduce and confirm it! In this case, no hassle; I simply change my mind in accordance with the verified evidence.
Dr. Lynn was a very brilliant man and a good scientist who was completely ethica and honest. Revocation of his emeritus status was unjustified, and should be itself revoked. All scientific publications are, and have always been, subject to improvement as new evidence is published, and there is nothing wrong or deceitful in this process. I hope that Dr. Lynn’s critics eventually come around to studying the large amount of work he produced in his long and fruitful career and thereby learn from his example.
Excellent comment. Well said. What these woke feminists do to scientists reminds me of what Church used to do to Galilei and other scientists.