Thanks to Bob Dimand for publicly questioning Rushton. "Academic freedom"   
and "tenure" might keep him employed, but social responsibility means that we   
all have a responsibility to hold him accountable for what he writes.  
  
To draw together 2 lines -- it might be interesting to check out the "race"   
entry in the Wikipedia. In response to Albert Himoe, I quote from it the   
following:  
  
"A 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992) asked 1,200 scientists how many   
disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the   
species Homo sapiens." The responses were:  
  
biologists 16%   
developmental psychologists 36%   
physical anthropologists 41%   
cultural anthropologists 53%   
The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was   
slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing.  
  
(This survey did not specify any particular definition of race; it is   
impossible to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in   
taxonomic or population terms.)"  
  
I'd like to see an update. I'm frankly astonished that any social scientist   
believes that "race" is other than a social construct insofar as it is   
correlated with social outcomes -- like IQ or ... the Wealth of Nations.  
  
Evelyn L. Forget