Mainstream Science on Intelligence
"Mainstream Science on Intelligence" was a public statement issued by a group of researchers of topics associated with intelligence testing. It was published originally in "The Wall Street Journal" on December 13, 1994, as a response to criticism of the book "The Bell Curve" by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which appeared earlier the same year. The statement defended Herrnstein and Murray's controversial claims about race and intelligence. The statement was drafted by Linda Gottfredson, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Delaware. It was sent to 131 researchers whom Gottfredsen described as  experts in intelligence and allied fields. Of these, 52 signed the statement, 48 returned the request with an explicit refusal to sign, and 31 ignored the request. According to a 1996 response by former American Psychological Association president Donald Campbell, only ten of those who signed were actual experts in intelligence measurement. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported that 20 of the signers were recipients of funding from the white-supremacist organization the Pioneer Fund, including Gottfredson herself. During subsequent years, both the substance and the interpretation of this letter have received criticism from scientists. Background. Gottfredson was prompted to  write the statement by what she considered to be "outdated, pseudoscientific notions of intelligence" promoted by critics of "The Bell Curve" in the controversy that resulted from the publication of the book. She contacted David Brooks of "The Wall Street Journal", who was willing to publish a short statement signed by experts describing what he considered mainstream in the study of intelligence. Gottfredson drafted the statement, had it vetted by several researchers, and finally solicited signatures for it from experts in several disciplines, including anthropology, behavior genetics, mental retardation, neuropsychology, sociology, and various specialties in psychology. The experts invited to  sign the statement were not given an opportunity to revise it, nor was anyone told who else had been invited or who had already given his or her signature. The invitation to sign was sent to 131 researchers, of whom 100 responded by the deadline. The signature form asked whether the respondent would sign the statement, and if not, why not. 48 sent back the request with an explicit refusal to sign and 31 ignored the request. According to Gottfredson, seven of those who explicitly refused to sign did so "because they thought the statement did not represent the mainstream , 11 because they did not know whether it did, and 30 for other reasons". 52 respondents agreed to sign the statement. Statement. The letter to "The Wall Street Journal" set out 25 numbered statements it termed "conclusions regarded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence" and "fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence": Response and criticism. A 1995 article by Joseph L. Graves & Amanda Johnson was critical of the scientific basis on which "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" rested. The article stated that the statements in "Mainstream Science in Intelligence" In a posthumous article in 1996, Donald  T. Campbell, a former president of the American Psychological Association, included his own analysis of the "Wall Street Journal" statement, drafted previously as a letter to that newspaper. Campbell first remarked that: He remarked that the rhetorical organization of statements in the letter seemed to him to imply, inadvertently or deliberately, the conclusion that the black-white racial gap had a genetic cause. He said that for statement 5, no provision had been allowed for differences in educational opportunity. Later on regarding statement 14, he judged that the claims for heritability had been made without mentioning that it was based  on twin studies, where environmental opportunities had been excluded as possible factors. For statement 23, he said out that it was not possible to compare children of black and white parents that were "equally" educated, because in these circumstances the opportunities in the quality of education, both before and at college, would differ. For statement 25, Campbell remarked that Jensen had himself published policy recommendations concerning rote learning. As reports in his discussion of the editorial, there is not any general agreement about what is meant by intelligence. The editorial gave the following general definition of intelligence: general property or  quality ... of the brain," "reaction-time and physiological measures," "many different information-processing abilities" and "the rate with which learning occurs or the time required for learning." in the same volume describe intelligence as what is measured by intelligence tests: "What we mean by intelligence is general cognitive functioning (g) as assessed in the psychometric tradition of a general factor derived from a battery of diverse cognitive ability tests". The validity of the "mainstream science" described in the editorial was also questioned by , who argued that the signatories were attempting to revive the "pseudo-scientific inquiry" of biological determinism. In  a 2001 article in "Trends in Cognitive Sciences", Ian J. Deary noted that "The Wall Street Journal" "... is an odd place for such a document, and readers might view the signatories as one-sided, largely committed to the psychometrics-based intelligence research they were endorsing". With a few exceptions, the list of cosigners reads like a Who's Who of those theorists (e.g., Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., John B. Carroll, Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Linda S. Gottfredson, Seymour W. Itzkoff, Arthur R. Jensen, Robert Plomin, J. Philippe Rushton and Vincent Sarich) who have continued Spearman's tradition of factor  analyzing intelligence test scores to generate a theory of general intelligence — "g" — and some of whom (e.g., Thomas J. Bouchard, Robert Plomin) believe that behavior genetic research supports the conclusion that "g" is highly heritable, and others of whom (e.g., Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Seymour Itzkoff) have written highly emotionally charged articles arguing that the research supports the conclusion that group differences on intelligence tests reflect genetic differences. Anthropologist Robert Wald Sussman criticized the statement in his 2014 book "The Myth of Race", writing, "In this letter, the members of the new bigot brigade claimed that since as many  as fifty-two scientists signed this letter, the contents of the book [i.e. "the Bell Curve"] and of the letter must be true. Using this logic, since the vast majority of anthropologists and other social scientists and of geneticists do not agree with the conclusions of this volume, does that mean it must be false? Obviously not. However, it is the actual science that began with Boas and his colleagues and that has continued to this date that makes these authors’ beliefs and approach untenable at any level." The Southern Poverty Law Center states that some of the editorial's  signatories "...had no relevant qualifications at all. Garrett Hardin, for example, was an ecologist and anti-immigration activist, while Vincent Sarich was an anthropologist who gained notoriety for making racist and homophobic claims in his undergraduate courses (he later admitted to "The New York Times" that these assertions were not based on established scientific facts)." After citing Campbell's estimate that only 10 signatories were experts on the measurement of intelligence, the Center noted that "...at least 20 [signatories] were recipients of money from the Pioneer Fund, including one director of the Fund, R. Travis Osborne, and two future presidents , J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn." In a 2015 interview, behavior geneticist Robert Plomin was asked whether he regretted signing the statement. He reiterated his support for the factual assertions in the letter, but rejected interpretations of that data in "The Bell Curve":