I definitely agree that the concept of race and modern biological science grew up hand in hand. The statement suggests that the advent of race and the attempt to create ‘innate inheritable differences’ to solidify the racist societal structures spurred research into physical evidence to prove this theory. It can be argued that science can be inherently political and objective, since each researcher is able to choose the parameters of success in their own experiment. Each bias can influence the way results are interpreted, as we learned this week with the case of both Samuel Morton and Stephen Jay Gould. In the case of Samuel Morton, his research efforts were to correlate brain size with intelligence. It can be argued that his racial biases guided him to set these parameters in order to prove a concept of race that made Caucasians superior in intelligence. Stephen Jay Gould argues the opposite point from Morton in his work, yet still allows the concept of race to influence his work. By choosing not to include the full collection of skulls in Morton’s collection, he allowed his political bias to shape his research to prove a point. Both of these examples show how the concept of race spurred scientific growth because of the political nature of science. Because one drove the other, and vice versa, modern biological science grew together with the concept of race.
The characteristics of racism further support my point. Racism is when one ethnic group or ‘race’ seeks to dominate, exclude, and/or eliminate another on the assumption that their differences are inherent and unalterable. The Yerkes IQ test is a wonderful example of this. Through the use of the test, Caucasians were able to dominate and exclude other ethnicities such as blacks and immigrants from the country, schools, and businesses. This test driven by the growth of the concept of inherent racial differences became the standard for intelligence, despite its origins.