| Galton Institute Home Page | March 1997 Newsletter Contents | Newsletter Index |
Once upon a time there lived a publisher who had a new book to take to market. It was attractively bound, reasonably priced, and described in his catalogue as "providing a focused review that is succinct, authoritative, and up to the minute." Review copies were sent out and the publisher slept peacefully, dreaming of selling all 2000 copies. But when the publisher awoke a few days later before going to the market he found that a good fairy, self-appointed but politically correct, had decided that the book was wicked. Immediately the academic rent-a-mob demanded it be banned. Almost all had not - could not have - read or even seen the book but that did not matter. They had been told what to think. So the publisher locked all the copies in his warehouse and very few people indeed were allowed to read it.
Is this a grim fairy tale based on life in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia? Sadly, no. It happened in Britain in 1996. The publisher was John Wiley & Sons and the book was The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications written by Chris Brand of Edinburgh University. Wiley withdrew the book not, it seems, because of its contents since they are reported to have accepted that "the overall tone of the book is that of a scientific monograph" and that "it does not include direct and sensational pronouncements." Brand’s book was suppressed because of his alleged statements to reporters which included that he is a "scientific racist", whatever that may be. The publishers find this idea repugnant and believe it is possible to infer such views from his text. If so why did they agree to publish the book in the first place?
I am one of the few who has been allowed to read Brand’s book. It is an up-dated account of the nature versus nurture, inheritance versus environment controversy about intelligence which seems to constantly excite psychologists. Brand takes a strongly hereditarian view but there is nothing really new in this and such views have been widely published in the past. It is quite possible to hold the opposite view and to their credit a number of distinguished academics who do so have defended Brand’s right to publish. What I cannot find in the book is the incitement to racial hatred apparently found by others. There are differences in the average IQs of different groups, however defined. The important word here is average, there will be very bright and very dim individuals in both groups.
The interesting question is why anyone thought it desirable to try to suppress Brand’s book especially as by doing so they gave it, and the views they find repugnant, much wider publicity than it would otherwise have achieved. Exactly what IQ measures, whether the g factor really exists, and the relative contributions of genes and environment to expressed intelligence are questions which can only be answered by research and open discussion of the results. To suppress a scientific monograph backed by around 300 references to previous work can only delay a resolution of these questions. I hope that Brand will find another publisher so that everyone who wishes to do so will be free to read it and make their own evaluation of its worth.
John Timson