1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!

If someone you know buys into claims about "genetic optimization" of embryos using polygenic scores of cognition, just send them our 2024 paper on Beethoven & musicality. We wrote it to help communicate limits of individual-level genetic predictions & complexity of links between DNA & behaviour. 🧪👇

I'm particularly proud of the section on psychological life-history research tradition, where we trace its history not to evolutionary biology and ecology and their decades of theory and modeling, but to the baseless abberation initiated by JP Rushton. This distinction is not widely known enough. 8/

Rutherford defended eugenics before. forbetterscience.com/2020/06/03/i...

It's interesting that as a philosopher of bioethics Singer is completely disinterested in the psychological effect of segregation & exclusion on trans women. It illustrates a problem that does exist in philosophy as in the rest of society - viewing us as an 'issue', not equal human beings.

7) We don't own the data we collect. Communities do. It is our responsibility to steward these in collaboration with communities.

The conflation of academic freedom with free speech has predictable consequences. A Cambridge academic who made scientifically indefensible claims has had complaints against him dismissed on the grounds that his claims were "lawful free speech". This doesn't end well for science.

The very racist man he's quoting - Emil Kirkegaard - also has some "liberal" friends: www.pinkerite.com/2025/06/emil...