It would be disappointing to hear any self-respecting scientist say that they declined to pursue a promising line of research because they were afraid of what they might learn. This plainly seems to contradict the entire purpose of science; that is, the painstaking and daunting search for the truth. Accordingly, I could not believe my eyes when I read this part of the August 20, 2026 edition of the Wall Street Journal regarding a man for whom I previously had great respect:
“I think he’s dangerously tactless in a radioactive topic” and “should exercise more caution,” Steven Pinker, author and Harvard University evolutionary psychologist, said of Cofnas’s rhetoric on genetics’ role in intelligence. Pinker said examining potential racial discrepancies in intelligence “could cause harm to African Americans” and lead to discrimination against them. “There’s times in science where the best policy is don’t go there,” he said.
The WSJ story in which Pinker’s urges us to “don’t go there” concerns Nathan Cofnas’s central role in exposing the academic fraud committed by the now-deceased Prof. Jason Arday. Cofnas holds a Ph.D in philosophy from Oxford University and before being expelled, a faculty position at Cambridge. He espouses the controversial theory of “hereditarianism” which, as this story notes, holds “that human intelligence and personality are largely shaped by a person’s inherited genetics, rather than the environment they grew up in.” He claims that if his theory is correct, in the meritocracy he advocates blacks would hold very few if any elite academic positions.
As mentioned, Pinker criticizes Cofnas for pursuing his theory because it could “cause harm” to blacks. It would be helpful if Pinker clarified the nature of the harm he envisions, but to the best of my knowledge he has not done so since. In any case, it is bizarre to hear Pinker lodge such a charge, for he seems guilty for inflicting the same “harm” in his writings on Jewish genetics.
His essay “Groups and Genes,” published in The New Republic, June 25, 2006, defended a scientific paper published by Utah geneticists Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending (“CH&H”), titled “”Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence.” As Pinker describes it, this paper hypothesized that,
Ashkenazi Jews have a genetic advantage in intelligence, and that the advantage arose from natural selection for success in middleman occupations (moneylending, selling, and estate management) during the first millennium of their existence in northern Europe, from about 800 C.E. to 1600 C.E.
As one might imagine, this proposal drew swift and harsh denunciations of “racism” from those academics and pundits who are committed to the view that all differences in average group intelligence are environmental. Of course, if Ashkenazim have a genetic advantage in this regard over all (or most) other groups, then such groups are genetically inferior, and some probably more than others. That in turn implies that not all disparities in material outcomes (wealth, intellectual achievements, status, etc.) are attributable to social injustice.
Pinker examines each component of this paper’s hypothesis in depth and concludes that, “CH&H, then, have provided prima facie evidence for each of the hypotheses making up their theory…By that criterion, the CH&H story meets the standards of a good scientific theory, though it is tentative and could turn out to be mistaken.” Although he equivocates a bit, it seems clear that Pinker does not wish to see such research abandoned or suppressed:
The problem with this line of thought is that it would restrict research based on its intellectual content rather than on its physical conduct. Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.
It is hard for me to understand how the potential “harm” inflicted by CC&H’s research differs from Cofnas’s.
Pinker also courted controversy when he defended Larry Summers, then President of Harvard, for saying that biological sex differences might explain some part of male outperformance in STEM fields. Here, Pinker expressly endorsed Prof. Diane Halpern’s view that: “Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences.”
Despite the possibility that this theory might promote discrimination against women, he supported the continued investigation of the question because:
Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way….The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism.
I wholeheartedly agree with Pinker that “the truth cannot be sexist.” What astonishes me is that it turns out that in his view, “the truth can be racist,” and therefore we “should not go there.”
My final point is that Pinker’s current opinion seems plainly at odds with his previous support of Confas’s research. In April of 2024, Cambridge University announced that it would expel Cofnas for expressing the same “race realist” views that are quoted in the WSJ story quoted above. Pinker was then among a dozen or so distinguished academics, mostly philosophers, who published an open letter in The Times, dated May 2, 2024, denouncing this decision, and asserting that: “Freedom of speech within the law is a right that sits at the heart of the University of Cambridge. We encourage our community to challenge ideas they disagree with and engage in rigorous debate.” The letter urged the University “to call off their investigations. There is nothing here to investigate.”
The only possible distinction between Cofnas’s previous public statements on race and his comments in the WSJ story is that in the latter he is more explicit in spelling out the implications of his “race realism.” But it is absurd to defend, as Pinker does, the right to pursue scientific inquiry wherever it leads, but then to condemn a scientist for pointing out where it might lead in practical terms, which seemingly is obvious. To be clear, I am not criticizing Pinker just for being inconsistent, but also for being wrong on an issue of critical importance to all lovers of liberty. Pinker is undoubtedly a brilliant man, and perhaps he will someday try to reconcile his statements on this critical policy issue, but for now he has lost my respect. For my own thoughts on freedom of speech, see here, here, and here.
