Who Needs Genetics?

This is absolutely shameful and deeply counterproductive:

American geneticists now face an even more drastic form of censorship: exclusion from access to the data necessary to conduct analyses, let alone publish results. Case in point: the National Institutes of Health now withholds access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory. The source at issue, the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), is an exceptional tool, combining genome scans of several million individuals with extensive data about health, education, occupation, and income. It is indispensable for research on how genes and environments combine to affect human traits. No other widely accessible American database comes close in terms of scientific utility.


I don’t know if people on here are aware but my husband is a quantitative analyst working in the area of statistical research in the field of genetics. They are looking for genetic causes of cancer, trying to come up with early interventions. If there’s a kind of work that we all want to continue unimpeded, it’s that. Is there anybody on here who hasn’t lost somebody to cancer? Anybody who is not terrified of the very word?

This is high-level research. It doesn’t live in the world of political correctness because political correctness isn’t science. In genetics research, genes are real, racial categories are real, biological sex is real. There’s a reality outside of our imagination, and it doesn’t care about our fads or whims.

What a shame this all is, my friends. What a bloody shame.

And there’s more:

“And Galton was an out-and-out racist, in public and private, throughout his life. Pearson was a horror, a racist and antisemite.”

When institutions celebrate the likes of Galton and Pearson, it “sends a clear [chilling] message to people who we should be going out of our way to include in science”, Rutherford says. Having better representation is important not just for diversity and equity, but because it encourages better science. “That seems like a no-brainer.”


I’m sure Galton was an unpleasant person. Despicable, even. But his contribution to science and to the things that have an unparalleled importance to all of us is such that not an army of politically correct holders of the only true beliefs can compensate. An inability to separate a scientist’s or artist’s work from his personal characteristics is a mark of undeveloped brains that are forever stuck in the early childhood stage of socialization. And these are the primitive, undisciplined brains we are allowing to thwart our scientific advances.


9 thoughts on “Who Needs Genetics?

  1. There will always be institutional resistance to unpleasant truths. We may be equal in the sight of God, but after that our inequality at all levels is a proven fact. This truth offends those who want to extend equality from the practical, i.e. giving people an equal chance, to the ridiculous notion of equality of outcome. Correlation of genetics with life outcomes – health, wealth and procreation – scares the bejesus out of some people since it exposes their belief as a fraud.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You are right. There’s a whole belief system erected around the idea that different outcomes can only be a result of oppression. For that to be true, everything must be malleable, fluid in nature and, thus, capable of being changed through social engineering. This means that genetics as a discipline must not exist. This is why the USSR hated genetics and murdered geneticists.

      None of this is new, yet it keeps being defended and proclaimed as some sort of higher truth.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Equality of outcome is totally achievable provided you accept that everyone will be equally poor. Apart from the supreme leader and his cronies of course.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ok, good point. I stand corrected. It was definitely achieved back in the USSR. Good to see that the dream is still alive.

        These absolute morons. I don’t know, this idiocy must be genetic.


        1. “definitely achieved back in the USSR”

          AFAICT big parts of the left either never gave up on the USSR, only knew revisionist tankie versions of its history or… are hobbled by some combination of both….


          1. And the ones who did are now arguing it was “right-wing.” The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was right-wing. People would tell themselves anything.


  2. OT, Content Warning (scenes of Soviet reality): unedited footage (taken by an American) of a Soviet “supermarket” in Moscow around 1990-91.

    And keep in mind this is the capital and half the things here wouldn’t be found elsewhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Interesting, I was under the impression your husband was some kind of software engineer working in a math-heavy part of the business …

    Although if his job mainly consists of building software for genetic quantitative analysis, that’s also more or less spot on.


    1. He can write code, too, of course but he doesn’t like it. It’s like me and teaching Spanish 101. I can do it but I feel kind of ridiculous when I do it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.