As usual, Sasha makes compelling and well-considered arguments about balancing the harms and benefits of genomic data sharing in the face of bad faith race science - ThreadSky

stairwaytokevin.bsky.social • 41 days ago

As usual, Sasha makes compelling and well-considered arguments about balancing the harms and benefits of genomic data sharing in the face of bad faith race science

Reposted from Sasha Gusev

I wrote about the ongoing debates over genomic data sharing and the use of such data for "abhorrent science", including some perspective papers that came out last month. A few key points: 🧵

Comments

stairwaytokevin.bsky.social•41 days ago

I agree about the greater emphasis on scientific validity. The biggest barrier seems to be the way different fields define valid research. This is a big social/organizational challenge to overcome imo. As noted, Intelligence research journals frequently eschew norms found in genetics and evolution.

stairwaytokevin.bsky.social•41 days ago

Ironically enough, this often doesn’t come down to any grounded scientific argument on their end, but rather a particular strain of non-epistemic scientific values held by psychologists (and Intelligence research in particular).

rhacodactylus.bsky.social•41 days ago

my only qualm about this is that it's akin to saying that in the fight against creationism we need more emphasis on scientific validity. i mean, sure, i guess, it couldn't hurt. but misunderstandings of the lack of rigor in creationist "research" is not really what's driving the successes it has.

stairwaytokevin.bsky.social•41 days ago

I think about it in terms of convincing other research communities and the public about the lack of validity. But maybe you’re still right that won’t ever address the deeper dynamics that got us here in a way that changes much

rhacodactylus.bsky.social•41 days ago

yea. the way i see it, no amount of clearly defined terms or precise measures will stop a racist scientist from finding enough acceptable wiggle room (read: QRPs) to come to a racist conclusion and making it look sciencey. and they don't need to be right, they only need to be convincing

rhacodactylus.bsky.social•41 days ago

issues of scientific validity affect every science. including a lot of the non-racist stuff. so while i 100% agree we should do more to talk about what counts as valid scientific practice, we should be doing that for everything anyway. what makes the race science different? the racism.

sashagusevposts.bsky.social•41 days ago

I take your point that the online fever swamps of unabashed racism will not be solved by defining our estimands more precisely. But there are also normal people being gradually radicalized by bogus memes about candidate gene studies of crime or admixture regressions.

lcdriammdmph.bsky.social•41 days ago

I'm left unimpressed here. Who defines "valid" and how? The Behavioral Geneticists think a GWAS for favorite cheese flavor is valid so long as it "complies with standards of the field". Even the BG disagree if non-sibling GWAS is valid. "Our field is valid b/c the experts in our field say so"

ba55fr33k.bsky.social•41 days ago

.. i dont agree with any of this .. misuse is misuse and bad faith race science will always be disproven

if we have to tread on egshells in science then we might as well pack it in

put all the data out, the idiots will always find something to be idiots about and unauthorized use can be prosecuted

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply