Separate races - or one human race ?

The 1991 Reith lectures, broadcast on BBC's Radio 4, were given by Dr Steve Jones, reader in genetics at University College, London. The fifth lecture dealt with the past scientific efforts to define distinct, pure biological races of man. The anthropologists involved had a major influence on peoples' attitudes and vocabulary. For example, we use the word `Caucasian'to describe white-skinned people. Why? It goes back to the claim that the white race had spread from the Caucasus mountains, a remote area where their genes were unpolluted by interbreeding with other races. The word `Aryan' is derived from the idea of a talented eastern people, the Arya, who migrated from their homelands and brought their genes and language to the West. Though presented as a scientific approach to the study of the races of mean, with hindsight, we must say that they came far short of the standards they professed to maintain. 

`The history of race illustrates more than anything else, the way science can be used to support prejudice, . . . 
The story of scientific racism, as it was once known, is a grim one.'
(All quotations are from an edited version of the Reith Lectures, published by The Independent. The fifth lecture appeared on 12 December 1991). 

Dr Jones spoke of the German embryologist Haeckel who founded the Monist League. This group, which had thousands of members in Germany prior to World War I, `argued for the application of Darwinism to society; for the survival of some races - supposedly the fittest - at the expense of others.'Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf or `My struggle', echoes this school of thought. Systematic programmes of disposing of `unfit'people and breeding from `the best' were later implemented, and provide distressing examples of the fruits of these so-called `scientific'convictions. 

`Half of those at the Wannsee Conference, which decided on the "final solution of the Jewish problem", had doctorates, mainly in anthropology; and many of them justified their crimes on scientific grounds'. 

Several other countries took these ideas to heart when making important political decisions. The USA passed an Immigration Act in the Twenties which was justified by reference to the theory of pure races. Second-rate educational programmes for black and working-class children have been defended using erroneous arguments based on the results of IQ tests.

There has been much ugliness in this corner of the academic world! Some probing questions need to be asked! 

`Much of the story of the genetics of race - a field promoted by some eminent scientists - turns out to have been prejudice dressed up as science; a classic example of the way that biology should not be used to help or understand ourselves.'

Clearly, there is a need to improve our understanding of what science is all about, and how prejudice can hi-jack science so effectively. What influence does a scientist as a person have on the scientific work that he or she undertakes?

Dr Jones gives us his explanation of this abuse of science - he argues that science does not have anything to say about moral questions: 

`I have always felt that the moral issues raised by our own biology - racism, sexual stereotypes, and claims that selfishness, spite and nationalism are driven by genes - are just that: issues of morality rather than science; and that science has nothing to do with how we perceive or treat our fellow human beings'. 

As often happens in discussions of this kind, this statement comes towards the conclusion of the lecture. The explanation is given, and further elaboration is thought unnecessary. But we need to ask: what is the basis for morality? Is it a private matter that cannot be handled in a way that commends itself to the academic community?

Steve Jones is moving through a minefield here, because he argues for a compartmentalisation of knowledge. One box is labelled `science' and a separate box is labelled `morality'. Whilst the analysis is convenient for distancing himself from views he does not agree with, Jones leaves too many unanswered questions. We need further elucidation about the role of prejudices in science. We need a different perspective if we are to progress in our quest for an integrated worldview.

What is the basis for morality? The Christian response has always been to direct people to their Maker: his holy nature establishes what is right and wrong. Those who reject the authority of this God have always had a problem with moral questions. Some have adopted an existential approach and abandoned the use of their rationality. Others have turned to the only source of truth they recognise - science - and sought to clarify moral principles by looking at how things are done in the living world. Social Darwinism provides a good example: its advocates have accepted that the principle `survival of the fittest' describes a fundamental truth about the way organisms interrelate, and seek to apply the principle to human society and morality. These people would deny Jones's argument saying - we have no source of understanding outside science. Since Jones does not point his hearers to their Creator God as the source of all truth, including science and morality, he leaves them in a vacuum. We have a box labelled morality with nothing in it!

The more one studies the history of scientific ideas, the more one finds that personal prejudices do make an important contribution. The implication is clear: we must address the issue of presuppositions in science. What personal beliefs and convictions do scientists bring to their study of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, anthropology, and so on? It is widely accepted today that scientists operate within adopted worldviews or paradigms - and that they carry out their work within a culture-related framework. If this is so, questions of morality should not be placed in a separate compartment from science, but should be seen as part of the paradigm which the scientist brings to his work.

Is this issue important? Why pursue this difference with Dr Jones? It is because the policy of compartmentalising science/morality/religion/etc has created numerous problems in its own right. It is not difficult to find examples. Scientists have had to take the lead in developing nuclear weapons, but have very little to say on the morality of nuclear war. Genetic engineering is big business, but why are so few geneticists providing moral leadership about applications? Why is there not a greater outcry from the medical profession at the large-scale slaughter of unborn children which goes on year after year? Why do scientists working for the pharmaceutical industry remain quiet about evidences of exploitation? There are many more of these questions! They suggest that there are too many people with knowledge in compartments, unable and often unwilling to make connections.

The scientific racialists were predisposed to the views they promulgated so successfully. But this is not an isolated example of presuppositions in science - it represents the norm! The scientific community is, like all of us, a child of its day. How can we escape something of the cultural straitjacket that binds us? The Christian is released by receiving God's revelation in its fullness and acting upon it. It has the answer to scientific racialism: all people are descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. By creation, we bear God's image, which is our dignity; because of sin, we bear Adam's image, which is our shame. The different nations can be traced back to the Babel incident, where God judged a rebellious and arrogant people. Created variability, rather than mutation, is sufficient to explain the diversity of racial groups that now live on God's Earth. Sinful cultures and sinful individuals rather than genes promote inequalities. The good news is that Christ restores unity to humanity where there is repentance and faith in him. 

David Tyler (1992)

Return to top of page