Genes, Brains, and Human Potential The Science and Ideology of Intelligence

PREFACE

1. E. F. Keller, “From Gene Action to Reactive Genome,” Journal of Physiology 592
   (May 2014): 2423.
   
   
   1. PINNING DOWN POTENTIAL
   
   
   
   


2. Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Sci-
   ence,” Science 349 (August  28, 2015): 943–945, 943, http:// dx. doi. org / 10. 1126 / science
   . aac4716.


3. For a brief overview, see E. Rhodes, “Replication: Is the Glass Half Full, Half Empty,
   or Irrelevant?” Psychologist, March 9, 2016.


4. D. Sarawitz, “Reproducibility Will Not Cure What Ails Science,” Nature 525 (September
   2015): 159.


5. F. Galton, Inquiry into Human Faculty and Its Development (London: Macmillan,
   1883), 199.


6. D. A. P. Delzell and C. D. Poliak, “Karl Pearson and Eugenics: Personal Opinions
   and Scientifi c Rigor,” Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (September 2013): 1057–1070.


7. L. M. Terman, “Feeble Minded Children in the Public Schools of California,” School
   and Society 5 (1917): 161–165, 162.


8. A. C ohe n , Imbeciles: Th e Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of
   Carrie Buck (New York: Penguin, 2015); T. C. Leonard, Illiberal Reformers: Race,
   Eugenics and American Economics in the Progressive Era (Prince ton, N.J.: Prince ton
   University Press, 2016). Cohen points to a 1913 New York Times article headlined
   “Social Prob lems Have Proven Basis of Heredity.” How little things have changed.
   (Th anks to Jay Joseph for this snippet.)


9. M. C. Fox and A. Mitchum, “Confi rming the Cognition of Rising Scores,” PLoS One 9
   (May 2014): e95780.

Notes

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:59:14 UTC