The 1999 Conference

The Galton Institute’s 1999 Conference was brought to an end part way through its final morning by several dozen protestors who forced their way into the Zoological Society Meeting Rooms.

The objective of the protestors was to prevent the delivery of papers by two speakers. Their objections to these speakers were apparently twofold – firstly, some allegations that one had allowed his name to be associated sympathetically with political movements in the United States and, secondly, that they had published papers supporting the view that personality differences, especially differences in intelligence, have a significant genetic component and are therefore not wholly amenable to eradication by social and environmental factors.

The Institute would like to make its position in these matters absolutely clear. All speakers at the Conference were chosen on the basis of academic reputation and recommendation and were asked to address exclusively scientific issues, and their ethical ramifications, within the scope of the subject matter of the Conference. The political views of the speakers, alleged or real, were not a factor in choosing them; and the organisers were unaware of the particular allegations made by the protestors. The Institute does not support any political movements, does not offer a forum for expressing political views and would deplore any attempt to use the Institute to disseminate such views. Nor does the Institute seek to promote particular scientific views on the basis of the political views that they might be thought to support.

With the benefit of hindsight, the Institute accepts and regrets that the choice for a single conference of several speakers whose views are very much from the “nature” end of the spectrum in the “nature versus nurture” debate might have given rise to misinterpretation. The Institute is not concerned to promote one of those factors against the other, only to seek to establish objectively the relative roles of the two in determining differences in physical and mental characteristics. In this, as in the many other topics of interest to the Institute, we encourage contributions from people with a wide range of opinions and a review of speakers at the Institute’s conferences over many years will show that overall a very fair balance has been struck. The imbalance at this one conference, although unfortunate, was not deliberate.

In acknowledging that the range of views at the 1999 Conference might have looked imbalanced, the Institute does not accept – indeed it totally rejects – that violence, intimidation and the suppression of free speech are appropriate or acceptable responses. The Institute is very ready to provide a forum, either at its conferences or through its Newsletter, for anyone wanting to debate matters within its remit. Anyone who wants to set out a reasoned argument against the views expressed by any speaker at any conference or any contributor to the Newsletter is very welcome to submit a paper for publication in the Newsletter – we will gladly accept any paper that attempts to address serious scientific or ethical issues in a sober and thoughtful way. We are also happy to receive suggestions for topics and speakers for future conferences.

It was also apparent that some of the protestors had an antipathy to the Institute that was more general than the content of this particular conference. Insofar as the reasons for this antipathy could be ascertained, they clearly represented a serious misunderstanding of how the Institute sees its role now and in the future. That people could so fundamentally misconceive the Institute’s activities and objectives suggests that we have not been communicating as well as we might. We will certainly try to do better in future and we will be reviewing our communications strategy over the coming months. However, we would also like to enter into a more direct dialogue with our critics. We feel quite certain that those who are hostile to the Institute would find their fears groundless if they would only talk to us. So if any of our critics are reading this and are interested in the truth, please drop us a line with your concerns.

Finally, we apologise to those whose enjoyment of the 1999 Conference was spoiled by its premature end. We wish we could have found a way to continue despite the protests, but the attitude of the protestors and the wish of the Zoo authorities to avoid further damage to the premises made that impossible. We will do everything we can to organise a stimulating and successful conference for 2000.