> 'It's just the opposite,' says Richard Haier, of the University of California, Irvine, who works with Thompson. 'If it's genetic, it's biochemical, and we have all kinds of ways of influencing biochemistry.'"

There is good evidence that several compounds can increase intelligence (albeit temporary in most cases). A good example is several stimulants. The best way would probably be to alter the genetics directly. This however does not take away the fact that it is still innate and most people are not likely to see their intelligence changed.

> Very likely engaging in challenging education brings about biochemical changes that result in changes in IQ.

Is there any evidence that this is the case (i.e. research studies)? This may happen – but I have not seen any documented evidence of that this is the case.

If this was the case, children adopted at birth in middle class families would have general intelligence factors matching their step-parents (this is not the case). Also, the general intelligence factor would be changed with learning – but there has not been any evidence that this is the case.

> First of all, let me say very forthrightly that maybe mainstream journalism operates on an equal-time principle, but science manifestly does not.

That is true. Views of science with which the majority of scientists agree is generally represented as the opposite in the public press. A good reason for that is in the public sphere the “ought to” become “is” and scientists reinforcing that is given publicity.

There are several books like that (a lot of them by Gould).

> It actually makes no difference at all who says anything in science, because it should be examination of the data that leads to a conclusion, not examination of a scientist's reputation.

This is not entirely true. I am the last person to say a dissenting scientists should be silenced but the public simply cannot go into detail in any of several subjects. A good example is client change – no single person in the public is smart enough to know all facets of climate change science.

The public view is largely made up of the consensus view of a lot of scientists – but that does not mean that there is no place for the Bjorn Lomburgs.

The intelligence debate is the same – we should not rely on a single scientist. No single scientist is a master of all the fields (from neurobiology to psychometrics).

It is unfortunate that the politically correct view (the “ought to”) is promoted over the actual science. Public press is not representative in what goes on in the research.

> “Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil,

That is true – and Jensen is correct in that. Flynn is in many cases the most prominent proponent of many views. My problem with Flynn is twofold.

The first problem is that he is a political scientists and he tries to defend the “ought to” - instead of trying to search for the “is”. If he was just active in intelligence research (instead of politics) it would be fine.

The second problem is that several scientists near the intelligence debate is viscously attacked for where they get their funding (in a politically motivated attempt to cut of funding). Their scientific objectivity was questioned and it is really ugly. Flynn is active in politics – yet no one attacks his scientific objectivity. It is a double standard that is simply not right.