Category Archives: Social issues ( be civil ! )

Who said this?

“You have to take care of all the sectors in —- as much as you can,” he said, “and if it’s entirely a numbers game and numeric representation, then obviously you would be talking to half of the people in —– who earn less than $1,800 a month.”

The present system serves to “insulate candidates from popular pressure to create a welfare state, and would allow the city government to follow more business-friendly policies.”

Clue: It is not a Republican dinosaur or the Koch brothers.

No it’s the Beijing-appointed leader of Hong Kong, Leung Chun-ying as reported 2 days ago in the New York Times — http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/asia/leung-chun-ying-hong-kong-china-protests.html?_r=0

Amazing isn’t it? Well, perhaps not. In March 2013 my wife and I saw Bentley dealerships in Beijing. In the Causeway Bay area of Hong Kong, there appeared to be one high end jewelry store (Cartier, etc. etc.) per block.

What’s a fellow-traveller to do?

An experiment of nature

Yesterday’s post https://luysii.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/ebola/ concerned the fact that 2 nurses taking care of a patient in Texas had been infected (presumably even after taking all the recommended precautions). Given that, I was concerned about the possibility of airborne spread.

Bryan wrote in to say the following:

“It seems doubtful airborne spread was involved. Remember, the Texas patient was initially sent home after showing symptoms, yet none of his family members were infected. Only those health workers directly involved in his care (and thus exposed to infected bodily fluids) have been infected, consistent with the idea that the disease can be transmitted only though contact with infected bodily fluids.”

I certainly hope he is right.

In something right out a novel, the possibility of airborne spread is now going to be empirically tested, as one of the two infected nurses flew to Cleveland, and then back to Texas in the 24 hours prior to her diagnosis. She apparently had a slight fever on boarding. So 100+ people were in a confined space with her for a few hours.

It’s why I don’t read fiction — reality is far more fantastic than anything writers can produce.

One more bizarre development. Here in Massachusetts, legislators today are scheduled to hear about the readiness of the state’s hospitals to handle Ebola. Amazingly, they will only get input from hospital CEOs. No nurses, thank you. Naturally the nurses are pissed as they should be (and so should you if you live in the state). If there were ever a time to hear from boots on the ground about Ebola readiness, it is now.

Addendum 17 Oct ’14

The Obama administration has just appointed a former chief of staff for former vice-president Gore and present vice-president Biden as the “Ebola czar”. Presumably, not for his medical expertise but for his ability to coordinate various governmental agencies, which was hardly the problem in the CDC’s response to the Texas cases. Hopefully, this will not be another case of “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” but I’m not optimistic — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown

Now for some molecular biology. The genome of Ebola is RNA which mutates much more rapidly than DNA genomes. It does this so quickly that at death from AIDS (another RNA virus), there are so many viral variants present that the infecting ensemble is called a quasiSpecies. With a large population infected in Africa there is more Ebola virus extant than at any time in the past. There is some reason to hope that natural selection for a more transmissible form of Ebola in the large infected human population will not occur (the AIDS virus hasn’t become more infectious over the years). This is only a hope.

Ebola

This morning (15 October) it was announced that a second health care worker at the Texas hospital where an ebola patient died has ‘tested positive’ for it. If ebola can spread in a hospital environment where presumably precautions were taken, once it gets out into the populace at large it can spread much faster. This had to be human to human transmission — no other animal vector is involved (as it probably is in Africa).

How does it spread? We don’t know, but the two Texas cases probably imply that airborne spread is possible.

What to do?

In our case it means not getting into a confined space with over 100 people we don’t know from all over the world for an 8 – 16 hour period (e.g. an international flight). Have you ever been on a flight where no one had a cold?

For the USA, it should mean banning all flights from endemic countries. This has been the case in the past. My cousin’s wife has a lot of relatives in Brazil, because the people on the boat had lots of pink eye, and the boat was simply turned away over 100 years ago.

It should mean caring for Ebola patients in specialized facilities where only they are cared for –e.g. not in a general hospital since we don’t know how it spreads.

The greatest way to spread the disease (the Hajj — millions of people from all over the world crowded together for days followed by worldwide dispersal) has mercifully just ended before the disease escaped Africa to any extent.

Will ISIS or Al-Qaeda try to bring Ebola to the USA? Of course.

We live in a society where children have supervised play dates, and where walking unattended to school is almost considered child abuse. What will happen to such a risk-averse society when there is actual risk to going out to (the mall, the school, to work)?

Maryam Mirzakhani

“The universal scientific language is broken English.” So sayeth Don Voet 50+ years ago when we were graduate students. He should know, as his parents were smart enough to get the hell out of the Netherlands before WWII. I met them and they told me that there was some minor incident there involving Germans who promptly went bananas. They decided that this wasn’t the way a friendly country behaved and got out. Just about everyone two generations back in my family was an immigrant, so I heard a lot of heavily accented (if not broken) English growing up.

Which (at last) brings us to Maryam Mirzakhani, a person probably not familiar to chemists, but a brilliant mathematician who has just won the Fields Medal (the Nobel of mathematics). Born in Teheran and educated through college there, she came to Harvard for her PhD, and has remained here ever since and is presently a full prof. at Stanford.

Why she chose to stay here isn’t clear. The USA has picked up all sorts of brains from the various European upheavals and petty hatreds (see http://luysii.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/hitlers-gifts-and-russias-gift/). Given the present and past state of the middle East, I’ve always wondered if we’d scooped up any of the talent originating there. Of course, all chemists know of E. J. Corey, a Lebanese Christian, but he was born here 86 years ago. Elias Zerhouni former director of the NIH, was born in Algeria. That’s about all I know at this level of brilliance and achievement. I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Hopefully more such people are already here but haven’t established themselves as yet. This is possible, given that they come from a region without world class scientific institutions. Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the great German departments of Mathematics and Physics and the USA (and England) picked up the best of them.

Given the way things are going presently, the USA may shortly acquire a lot of Muslim brains from Europe. All it will take is a few random beheadings of Europeans in their home countries by the maniacs of ISIS and their ilk. Look what Europeans did to a people who did not physically threaten them during WWII. Lest you think this sort of behavior was a purely German aberration, try Googling Quisling and Marshal Petain. God knows what they’ll do when they are actually threatened. Remember, less than 20 years ago, the Europeans did nothing as Muslims were being slaughtered by Serbs in Kosovo.

Not to ignore the awful other side of the coin, the religious cleansing of the middle East of Christians by the larger Muslim community. The politically correct here have no love of Christianity. However, the continued passivity of American Christians is surprising. Whatever happened to “Onward Christian Soldiers” which seemed to be sung by all at least once a week in the grade school I attended 60+ years ago.

These are very scary times.

Among the castrati

Yesterday being my wife’s birthday, we drove to an art museum. While there I glimpsed homo castratus, a rare and delicate species seen only in such places, art galleries and Whole Foods. They are very easy to spot by their plumage, posture and mate. He is invariably clad in short pants of drab coloration in most seasons. His mate (always female for although he is quite correct politically, he is not gay) is invariably wearing pants, usually jeans. He usually is slumped forward, particularly about the head and neck which, when combined with his expression, makes him resemble a basset hound. His mate invariably walks erect, shoulders back, head forward looking at all comers directly. This affords another clue as to the species. Look him in the eye and he turns his head and looks away. Look her in the eye, and she’ll try to stare you down. I’ve been in several amusing contests of this nature, which can be won by smiling pleasantly.

My wife says that this is reaction formation, as I was forced to wear short pants to grade school until the 5th grade. Perhaps.

Since most readers of this post are techies of one form or another, here is some fatherly advice. Marry a non-techie, or if you must, someone far outside your field. You’ll learn a lot and life will be more interesting, and perhaps you’ll be as well.

Watch this space

I know far more about head trauma than any neurologist should. For three and a half years I worked with two active neurosurgeons covering a huge area of an eastern state. Our drawing radius ranged from 35 to 125 miles depending on direction. I was on first call every other night and weekend, and covered all the patients (including the neurosurgical ones) during those times. It’s amazing what you’ll do to get your kids through college. I was the first to see any head trauma cases that came in whether our service admitted them or not (multiple trauma cases usually went to general surgery and/or orthopedics, with out group following them as consultants).

So it’s time to talk about orbital (eye socket) fractures. This has great relevance for the case against Darren Wilson, the cop who killed Michael Brown. As far as I can tell, whether Wilson did or not sustain an orbital fracture is extremely controversial, with statements and denials all over the internet (most of them 5 -6 days old).

The truth of the matter will be very easy to establish once his X-rays (and CAT scans) are available. If Wilson sustained any head trauma at all, it is inconceivable to me that he didn’t have X-rays and CAT scans out the gazoo (technical term).

Some orbital fractures are very easy to see with a CAT scan, which shows bone beautifully. The orbit is adjacent to sinuses (air filled spaces) below and toward the nose. Fractures bleed. Normally the sinuses are filled with air which doesn’t stop X-rays, so they normally look black. Bone stops X-rays so they look white on CAT scan. Blood (or mucus) is very easy to see in a sinus on a CAT scan.

There is always a question about how old a fracture is, but if blood is found in a sinus adjacent to the fracture, you can conclude that the fracture is new.

Sometimes there is a sinus (the frontal sinus) above the orbit, but not always. The side of the orbit toward the ear is just bone.

So the data is out there somewhere. Watch this space for more interpretation should Wilson actually have sustained one.

The only other data available for all to see, are the convenience store videos, which show how Brown was acting shortly before he was killed. It isn’t pretty. I’m sure there are better links to it, so ignore the right wing chatter, and just look at the data. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/18/Michael-Brown-Allegedly-Bum-Rushed-Officer-Punched-Him-in-Face-Grabbed-Gun-Taunted-Him

Brown was big (reportedly 6′ 4” and 300 pounds), and the video shows him pushing a clerk who doesn’t even come up to his shoulder, when the clerk (who also appears to be a person of color) confronts him.

A Troublesome Inheritance – IV — Chapter 3

Chapter III of “A Troublesome Inheritance” contains a lot of very solid molecular genetics, and a lot of unfounded speculation. I can see why the book has driven some otherwise rational people bonkers. Just because Wade knows what he’s talking about in one field, doesn’t imply he’s competent in another.

Several examples: p. 41 “”Nonethless, it is reasonable to assume that if traits like skin color have evolved in a population, the same may be true of its social behavior.” Consider yes, assume no.

p. 42 “The society of living chimps can thus with reasonable accuracy stand as a surrogate for the joint ancester” (of humans and chimps — thought to be about 7 megaYears ago) and hence describe the baseline from which human social behavior evolved.” I doubt this.

The chapter contains many just so stories about the evolution of chimp and human societies (post hoc propter hoc). Plausible, but not testable.

Then follows some very solid stuff about the effects of the hormone oxytocin (which causes lactation in nursing women) on human social interaction. Then some speculation on the ways natural selection could work on the oxytocin system to make people more or less trusting. He lists several potential mechanisms for this (1) changes in the amount of oxytocin made (2) increasing the number of protein receptors for oxytocin (3) making each receptor bind oxytocin more tightly. This shows that Wade has solid molecular biological (and biological) chops.

He quotes a Dutch psychologist on his results with oxytocin and sociality — unfortunately, there have been too many scandals involving Dutch psychologists and sociologists to believe what he says until its replicated (Google Diederik Stapel, Don Poldermans, Jens Forster, Markus Denzler if you don’t believe me). It’s sad that this probably honest individual is tarred with that brush but he is.

p. 59 — He notes that the idea that human behavior is solely the result of social conditions with no genetic influence is appealing to Marxists, who hoped to make humanity behave better by designing better social conditions. Certainly, much of the vitriol heaped on the book has come from the left. A communist uncle would always say ‘it’s the system’ to which my father would reply ‘people will corrupt any system’.

p. 61 — the effect of mutations of lactose tolerance on survival on society are noted — people herding cattle and drinking milk, survive better if their gene to digest lactose (the main sugar in milk) isn’t turned off after childhood. If your society doesn’t herd animals, there is no reason for anyone to digest milk after weaning from the breast. The mutations aren’t in the enzyme digesting lactose, but in the DNA that turns on expression of the gene for the enzyme (e.g. the promoter). Interestingly, 3 separate mutations in African herders have been found to do this, and different from the one that arose in the Funnel Beaker Culture of Scandinavia 6,000 yers ago. This is a classic example of natural selection producing the same phenotypic effect by separate mutations.

There is a much bigger biological fish to be fried here, which Wade doesn’t discuss. It takes energy to make any protein, and there is no reason to make a protein to help you digest milk if you aren’t nursing, and one very good reason not to — it wastes metabolic energy, something in short supply in humans as they lived until about 15,000 years ago. So humans evolved a way not to make the protein in adult life. The genetic change is in the DNA controlling protein production not the protein itself.

You may have heard it said that we are 98% Chimpanzee. This is true in the sense that our 20,000 or so proteins are that similar to the chimp. That’s far from the whole story. This is like saying Monticello and Independence Hall are just the same because they’re both made out of bricks. One could chemically identify Monticello bricks as coming from the Virginia piedmont, and Independence Hall bricks coming from the red clay of New Jersey, but the real difference between the buildings is the plan.

It’s not the proteins, but where and when and how much of them are made. The control for this (plan if you will) lies outside the genes for the proteins themselves, in the rest of the genome. The control elements have as much right to be called genes, as the parts of the genome coding for amino acids. Granted, it’s easier to study genes coding for proteins, because we’ve identified them and know so much about them. It’s like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because that’s where the light is.

p. 62 — There follows some description of the changes of human society from hunter gathering, to agrarian, to the rise of city states, is chronicled. Whether adaptation to different social organizations produced genetic changes permitting social adaptation or were the cause of it isn’t clear. Wade says “changes in social behavior, has most probably been molded by evolution, through the underlying genetic changes have yet to be identified.” This assumes a lot, e.g. that genetic changes are involved. I’m far from sure, but the idea is not far fetched. Stating that genetic changes have never, and will never shape society, is without any scientific basis, and just as fanciful as many of Wade’s statements in this chapter. It’s an open question, which is really all Wade is saying.

In defense of Wade’s idea, think about animal breeding as Darwin did extensively. The Origin of Species (worth a read if you haven’t already read it) is full of interchanges with all sorts of breeders (pigeons, cattle). The best example we have presently are the breeds of dogs. They have very different personalities — and have been bred for them, sheep dogs mastifs etc. etc. Have a look at [ Science vol. 306 p. 2172 '04, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vol. 101 pp. 18058 - 18063 '04 ] where the DNA of variety of dog breeds was studied to determine which changes determined the way they look. The length of a breed’s snout correlated directly with the number of repeats in a particular protein (Runx-2). The paper is a decade old and I’m sure that they’re starting to look at behavior.

More to the point about selection for behavioral characteristics, consider the domestication of the modern dog from the wolf. Contrast the dog with the chimp (which hasn’t been bred).

[ Science vol. 298 pp. 1634 - 1636 '02 ] Chimps are terrible at picking up human cues as to where food is hidden. Cues would be something as obvious as looking at the containing, pointing at the container or even touching it. Even those who eventually perform well, take dozens of trials or more to learn it. When tested in more difficult tests requiring them to show flexible use of social cues they don’t

This paper shows that puppies (raised with no contact with humans) do much better at reading humans than chimps. However wolf cubs do not do better than the chimps. Even more impressively, wolf cubs raised by humans don’t show the same skills. This implies that during the process of domestication, dogs have been selected for a set of social cognitive abilities that allow them to communicate with humans in unique ways. Dogs and wolves do not perform differently in a non-social memory task, ruling out the possibility that dogs outperform wolves in all human guided tasks.

All in all, a fascinating book with lots to think about, argue with, propose counterarguments, propose other arguments in support (as I’ve just done), etc. etc. Definitely a book for those who like to think, whether you agree with it all or not.

“A Troublesome Inheritance” – III — the first two chapters

Most scientific types I’ve known aren’t terribly interested in history (even of their own fields). The first two chapters of Wade’s book (to p. 38) are mostly about the history of the concept of race, and worth reading. I doubt that any open minded reader reading them will think Wade admires the fruits of racism past. If your definition of racism and racist is someone who believes that races of man exist, then Wade is.

All sorts of fascinating tidbits are to be found here, such as the fact that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin (he refused), and that the originator of the term Caucasian (Blumenbach 1795) meant it to apply the peoples or Europe, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Trouble started early, with Gobineau’s book “An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races” 1853. Darwin himself was against the idea of race, and incidentally didn’t originate “the survival of the fittest” which was due to Herbert Spencer. But he did use it.

There then follow (pp. 28 – 38) the very sad history of race, eugenics and its perversion racism. Read these pages to understand why the whole concept of racism arouses such visceral loathing in civilized people. Classmate Dan Kevles’ book (which I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t read) “In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Heredity” is cited.

I haven’t read many of the reviews of Wade’s book, but most of his severest critics probably didn’t read the conclusion of chapter 1. “Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of economics and evolution.” I suppose he could have prefaced each his chapters with this, since few will read a book like this from start to finish, particularly those pointed to particular passages by reviews.

However Wade clearly reveals his political orientation (p. 27) “Intellectuals as a class are notoriously prone to fine-sounding theoretical schemes that lead to catastrophe, such as Social Darwinism, Marxism or indeed Eugenics.” As a med school classmate from the University of Chicago would often say –“OK. That’s how it works in practice, but how does it work in theory?”

Happy 4th of July

Having spent our 50th anniversary in London, a few Independence Day thoughts are in order.

First, while watching the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, with all the pomp and rigidity of the occasion, I found it amazing that democracy originated out of this. But it did and the world owes them.

Second, the security surrounding the royals is intense and thorough. Guys with submachine guns with fixed bayonets etc. etc. I haven’t seen things like that since NY State penitentiary denizens were brought to my office for neurologic evaluations. I wouldn’t want to live like that.

Third, I can begin to see why 50+ years ago in grad school at Harvard, the US was regarded as somewhat crude, slow and inelegant. It was the era of the ugly American etc. etc. This, despite Don Voet’s observation that the Universal Scientific Language was broken English.

Going through London’s excellent museums one can see why people who’d been to Europe back then might have thought this way. But the museums are all about the past (except for an incredible exhibit at the natural history museum on epigenetics complete with research professor and two graduate students). What did the next 50 years bring? They’re all carrying cell phones over there, and iPads, and using Google and of course the internet, all originating in the USA. Compare the Science the USA has produced during that time to that of Europe: equal at the worst.

Never mind that we did it with European castoffs (4 of the 7 Nobels in the Harvard Chemistry department during this time, were Jewish refugees or their children). That’s the great strength of America, they’re as American as anyone else, just like Sergey Brin the cofounder of Google, a Russian Jew by birth. Or Andrew Grove, etc. etc.

Even back in the 60s, I never thought Europe was so wonderful. Two world wars, the concentration camps, Stalin and the Gulags to atone for. So I never regarded them as particularly civilized, something only strengthened in the 90s, with their atrocious handling of genocide in Kosovo.

Lest you think this is all in the past, my cousin the month we were in London was on some sort of river cruise down the Danube, and their tour of Vienna had to be rerouted because of a NeoNazi rally. They appear to have learned nothing from their awful history.

So happy 4th of July. Glad to be back in the good ol’ USA.

“A Troublesome Inheritance” – II – Four Anthropological disasters of the past 100 years

Page 5 of Wade’s book contains two recent pronouncements from the American Anthropological Association stating that “Race is about culture not biology”. It’s time to look at anthropology’s record of the past 100 years. It isn’t pretty.

Start with the influential Franz Boas (1858 – 1942) who taught at Columbia for decades. His most famous student was Margaret Mead.

He, along with his students, felt that the environment was everything for human culture and that heredity had minimal influence. Here’s what Boas did over 100 years ago.

[ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. vol. 99 pp. 14622 - 14623, 14436 - 14439 '02 ] Retzius invented the the cephalic index in the 1890s. It is just the widest breadth of the skull divided by the front to back length. One can be mesocephalic, dolichocephalic or brachycephalic. From this index one could differentiate Europeans by location. Anthropologists continue to take such measurements. Franz Boas in 1910 – 1913 said that the USA born offspring of immigrants showed a ‘significant’ difference from their immigrant parents in their cephalic index. This was used to reinforce the idea that environment was everything.

Boas made some 13,000 measurements. This is a reanalysis of his data showing that he seriously misinterpreted it. The genetic component of the variability was far stronger than the environmental. Some 8500 of his 13,000 cases were reanalyzed. In a later paper Boas stated that he never claimed that there were NO genetic components to head shape, but his students and colleagues took the ball and ran with it, and Boas never (publicly) corrected them. The heritability was high in the family data and between ethnic groups, which remains in the American environment.

One of Boas’ students wrote that “Heredity cannot be allowed to have acted any part in history.” The chain of events shaping a people “involves the absolute conditioning of historical events by other historical events.” Hardly scientific statements.

On to his most famous student Margaret Mead (1901 -1978) who later became the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1960). In 1928 she published “Coming of Age in Samoa” about the sexual freedom of Samoan adolescents. It had a big play, and I was very interested in such matters as a pimply adolescent. It fit into the idea that ” “We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions.”. This certainly fit nicely with the idea that mankind could be reshaped by changing the system — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man one of the many fantasies of the left promoted by academia.

Subsequently, an anthropologist (Freeman) went back to Samoa and concluded that Mead had been hoaxed. He found that Samoans may beat or kill their daughters if they are not virgins on their wedding night. A young man who cannot woo a virgin may rape one to extort her into eloping. The family of a cuckolded husband may attack and kill the adulterer. For more details see Pinker “The Blank Slate” pp. 56 –>

The older among you may remember reading about “the gentle Tasaday” of the Philippines, a Stone age people who had no word for war. It was featured in the NY times in the 70s. They were the noble savages of Rousseau in the 20th century. The 1970 ”discovery” of the Tasaday as a ”Stone Age” tribe was widely heralded in newspapers, shown on national television in a National Geographic Society program and an NBC special documentary, and further publicized in ”The Gentle Tasaday: A Stone Age People in the American journalist, John Nance.

In all, Manuel Elizalde Jr., the son of a rich Filipino family, was depicted as the savior of the Tasaday through his creation of Panamin (from presidential assistant for national minorities), a cabinet-level office to protect the Tasaday and other ”minorities” from corrosive modern influences and from environmentally destructive logging companies.It appears that Manuel Elizalde hoodwinked almost everybody by paying neighboring T’boli people to take off their clothes and pose as a ”Stone Age” tribe living in a cave. Mr. Elizalde then used the avalanche of international interest and concern for his Tasaday creation to create the Panimin organization for control over ”tribal minority” lands and resources and ultimately deals with logging and mining companies.

Last but not least is “The Mismeasure of Man” (1981) in which Steven Gould tore apart the work of Samuel Morton, a 19th century Anthropologist who measured skulls. He accused Morton of (consciously or unconsciously) manipulating the data to come up with the conclusions he desired.

Well, guess what. Someone went back and looked at Morton’s figures, and remeasured some of his skulls (which are still at Penn) and found that the manipulation was all Gould’s not Morton’s. I posted about this when it came out 3 years ago — here’s the link http://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/hoisting-steven-j-gould-by-his-own-petard/.

Here is the relevant part of that post — An anthropologist [ PLoS Biol. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071;2011 ] went back to Penn (where the skulls in question reside), and remeasured some 300 of them, blinding themselves to their ethnic origins as they did. Morton’s measurements were correct. They also had the temerity to actually look at Morton’s papers. They found that, contrary to Gould, Morton did report average cranial capacities for subgroups of both populations, sometimes on the same page or on pages near to figures that Gould quotes, and therefore must have seen. Even worse (see Nature vol. 474 p. 419 ’11 ) they claim that “Gould misidentified the Native American samples, falsely inflating the average he calculated for that population”. Gould had claimed that Morton’s averages were incorrect.

Perhaps anthropology has gotten its act together now, but given this history, any pronouncements they make should be taken with a lot of salt. In fairness to the field, it should be noted that the debunkers of Boas, Mead and Gould were all anthropologists. They have a heavy load to carry.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers