Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emma A. Climie, Associate Professor in School & Applied Child Psychology, University of Calgary

When people think about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), they often picture a hyperactive young boy running around a classroom, not the quiet girl daydreaming in the corner, the chatty student who can’t finish her work or the mother who is chronically late and constantly searching for her keys.

Yet all of these individuals — boys and girls, men and women — may be showing signs of ADHD, a neurodevelopmental condition that can significantly affect daily functioning.

As psychologists and researchers who are focused on understanding ADHD in girls and women across the lifespan, we want to better understand the social, emotional, cognitive and hormonal factors that uniquely intersect with ADHD in girls and women. Our combined research examines the experiences of ADHD in girls in childhood and adolescence through adulthood and older adulthood, with a focus on understanding how girls and women can thrive.

Girls with ADHD

School-aged and adolescent girls with ADHD often slip through the cracks. They are frequently described as “spacey” or daydream-y and tend to display fewer overtly disruptive behaviours than boys. Instead, they may hold in their stress, which can lead to misdiagnoses of anxiety or depression, rather than accurate identification of ADHD.

There are, however, clear signs. Girls with ADHD are often emotionally sensitive, may experience social difficulties (such as interrupting conversations or struggling to read social cues) and tend to show more “internalized” hyperactivity, like hair-twirling, skin-picking or leg-bouncing.

As they enter puberty (often beginning between ages nine and 11), girls with ADHD face heightened risks of academic difficulties, earlier substance-related concerns and increased rates of mood disorders.

Hormonal changes during this period may also affect the effectiveness of ADHD medications, creating additional challenges at an already vulnerable developmental stage.

Women with ADHD

When we work with women with ADHD, we often hear comments like: “I was diagnosed because my child was diagnosed.” Many women were not identified in childhood, only later recognizing that the challenges their children face closely mirror their own experiences growing up.

Women who have been living with unrecognized ADHD symptoms for many years often develop strong coping strategies that allow them to function well, but major life transitions (such as becoming a parent or entering menopause) can disrupt these strategies. When that happens, approaches that once worked may become less effective, leading to more noticeable challenges. Currently, women in their 30s and 40s represent one of the fastest-growing groups receiving stimulant prescriptions for ADHD, suggesting a rise in diagnoses in this demographic.

So, what does ADHD look like in women?

Women with ADHD frequently describe a range of experiences that, while not explicitly listed in the diagnostic criteria, significantly affect their daily lives. For example, many report “masking” their behaviour or emotions, in an effort to not stand out. They may overcompensate to appear organized and competent, spending excessive time on tasks to avoid mistakes or criticism.

Over time, these patterns can contribute to chronic stress and exhaustion and often present as anxiety or depression, further delaying accurate identification and appropriate support. In addition, women with ADHD often experience difficulties with task initiation, procrastination and completing tasks on time. These challenges can affect both their personal and professional lives, contributing to chronic stress, self-doubt and burnout.

ADHD in later life

As women enter mid-life, many say they experience a significant worsening of their ADHD symptoms, likely resulting from both normal brain aging and menopausal changes. The frontal lobes of the brain usually begin to function less efficiently as people get older, and people aging with ADHD may be particularly impacted by these age-related changes because of pre-existing differences in the structure and functioning of their brain’s frontal lobes.

Women with ADHD may face even greater challenges than men as they age, in part because of declines in estrogen that occur during menopause. Estrogen works together with dopamine (an important brain chemical) to enhance mood and cognition; when estrogen levels decrease (for example, during peri-menopause), dopamine’s positive effects are less pronounced.

Many women with ADHD experience these hormone fluctuations as more extreme than other women, suggesting that perimenopause might be an especially challenging time for them.

What do I do if I think I have ADHD?

If you think you may have ADHD, an important step in diagnosis is determining that at least some symptoms have been present for a long time (rather than having started only recently), and ensuring those symptoms aren’t better accounted for by another medical or psychiatric condition.

A family doctor is often well positioned to make these determinations because they are familiar with your health history and usually have followed you over an extended period of your life. If you think you may have ADHD, speaking with your family doctor about your concerns is typically a good first step.

You can also connect with the Centre for ADHD Awareness, Canada to get more information about ADHD testing, diagnoses and supports.

Emma Climie receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Azrieli Foundation, and the Carlson Family Research Award in ADHD. She is a Member of the Board of Directors for CADDRA – Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance.

Brandy Callahan receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canada Research Chairs Program.

– ref. Not just boys: The overlooked story of ADHD in women and girls – https://theconversation.com/not-just-boys-the-overlooked-story-of-adhd-in-women-and-girls-275686

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Costanza Musu, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Since the start of the ongoing United States–Israeli military campaign against Iran, the human toll of the conflict has mounted relentlessly.

Civilian casualties have been reported across the country, and the bombing campaign has caused widespread destruction to infrastructure. Alongside military targets, thousands of civilian buildings have been damaged or destroyed in the first weeks of the war.

Amid this destruction, another dimension of the conflict is increasingly drawing international concern: the damage inflicted on Iran’s cultural heritage.

Several historically significant sites, including UNESCO landmarks, have been affected. Blasts in Tehran have damaged the Golestan Palace, while strikes in Isfahan hit structures around Naqsh-e Jahan Square, including Ali Qapu Palace, Chehel Sotoun and the Masjed-e Jameh.

The destruction of such sites highlights a frequently overlooked consequence of warfare: when the rules governing the conduct of war are stretched or ignored, cultural heritage, like civilian lives, becomes collateral damage.

Rules of engagement

Warfare is not meant to be unconstrained. It is governed by international humanitarian law, which sets limits on how military force can be used once hostilities begin. These rules are intended to reduce the human and material devastation of armed conflict by protecting civilians and civilian objects.

Read more:
Israeli strikes on Tehran oil depot highlight gaps in international law

States implement these legal obligations through rules of engagement, which guide how and when force may be used in compliance with international humanitarian law: what U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has dismissively called “stupid rules of engagement.”

International humanitarian law protects cultural heritage. After the widespread destruction of the Second World War, states adopted the 1954 Hague Convention, recognizing monuments, museums and archeological sites as specially protected cultural property, and requiring warring nations to refrain from attacking them except in cases of imperative military necessity.

Ignoring cultural property protections runs counter to a lesson many military forces, including the United States, have come to recognize: that safeguarding cultural heritage is not only a legal obligation, but also strategically smart.

Over the past two decades, this approach has increasingly been integrated into military doctrine. By protecting monuments and historic sites, military forces signal respect for a society’s identity, build trust with local populations and advance broader political objectives by fostering local civilian support.

Shifting public sentiment

In the current conflict, American officials have argued that the military campaign is aimed not at Iran’s people but at the regime that has ruled the country since the 1979 revolution.

Read more:
What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history

U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the future of Iran now lies in the hands of its citizens, implying that the weakening of the regime could allow Iranians to shape a different political future.

Initially, some voices in the Iranian diaspora and within Iran welcomed the strikes in the hope that they might open the door to political change.

Yet the scale of the destruction inflicted on cities, infrastructure and cultural landmarks appears to be shifting public sentiment, allowing the Iranian leadership to rally the population around a narrative of national unity against foreign aggression.

At the same time, the conflict is threatening cultural heritage beyond Iran. Iranian missiles have struck areas in and around Jerusalem, where its Old Town contains some of the most significant religious and historical sites in the world within barely one square kilometre. These sites are sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

If the stated objective of the military campaign is to weaken the Iranian government and open the possibility for political change, the destruction of cultural heritage will produce the opposite effect. Cultural monuments, historic cities and religious sites are not simply architectural artifacts; they are powerful symbols of collective identity and historical continuity.

When they’re damaged or destroyed by foreign military force, the attack is often perceived not only as a strike against a government but an assault on the nation itself.

Rallying citizens

History offers many examples of how damage to cultural heritage during wars can galvanize nationalist sentiment and strengthen the legitimacy of governments under pressure. Examples include the destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar during the Bosnian War, which became a powerful symbol of national loss and identity, to the levelling of Palmyra’s ancient temples by ISIS, which the Syrian government invoked to reinforce claims of cultural guardianship and political legitimacy.

Rather than weakening the Iranian leadership, widespread destruction, particularly when it affects cultural landmarks, may instead help it mobilize public anger and rally citizens around the defence of the country.

Both international law and historical experience point in the same direction: protecting cultural heritage is not only a humanitarian obligation, but a strategic consideration in conflicts with long-term outcomes that depend on the attitudes of the people affected.

Costanza Musu receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. War in Iran: Why destroying cultural heritage is such a foolish strategic move in any conflict – https://theconversation.com/war-in-iran-why-destroying-cultural-heritage-is-such-a-foolish-strategic-move-in-any-conflict-277922

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Samantha Lawler, Associate Professor, Astronomy, University of Regina

More than 10,000 Starlink satellites currently orbit the Earth. We see them crawling across dark skies, no matter how remote our location, and streaking through images from research telescopes.

SpaceX recently announced that it wants to launch one million more of these satellites as orbital data centres for AI computing power.

A few years ago, we wrote a paper predicting what the night sky would look like with 65,000 satellites from four planned megaconstellations: SpaceX’s Starlink, Amazon’s Kuiper (now Leo), the U.K.’s OneWeb and China’s Guowang. We calibrated our models to observations of real Starlink satellites and came up with a startling prediction: One in 15 visible points in the night sky would be a satellite, not a star.

A million satellites would be so much worse.

The human eye can see fewer than 4,500 stars in an unpolluted night sky. If we permit SpaceX to launch these satellites, we will see more satellites than stars — for large portions of the night and the year, throughout the world. This will severely damage the night sky for everyone on Earth.

SpaceX’s proposal also completely fails to account for atmospheric pollution, collision risk or how to develop the technology needed to disperse waste heat from orbital data centres.

Predicting the night sky

SpaceX has filed its million-satellite proposal to the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and has only provided bare-bones information about these new satellites so far.

We do know that the proposed constellation will have satellites in much higher orbits, making them visible for longer periods of the night.

We decided to build an updated simulation, using the website of astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell. This includes a set of orbits consistent with the limited information in SpaceX’s filing.

We used the observed brightness of Starlink satellites as a reference, scaling the brightness model by considering size jumps between Starlink V1, V2 and predictions for V3, and assuming even higher complexity and power requirements.

There are many factors we don’t know anything about, so there is some uncertainty in the brightness we predict.

In the figure above, each grey circle shows a simulation of the full night sky, as seen from latitude 50 degrees north at midnight on the summer solstice.

The left circle shows the night sky with SpaceX’s orbital data centres (SXODC), and the right shows the night sky with 42,000 Starlink satellites for comparison.

The coloured points show the positions and brightness of satellites in the sky, with blue the faintest and yellow the brightest. Below each all-sky simulation we list the number of sunlit satellites in the sky (Ntot) and the number of naked-eye visible satellites (Nvis), with tens of thousands predicted for SXODC.

Each of our simulations shows there will be more visible satellites than stars for large portions of the night and the year.

It is hard to overstate this: Should a million new satellites be launched, in the orbits and with the sizes proposed, the stars we are able to see at night would be completely overwhelmed by artificial satellites — throughout the world.

This does not even account for additional large satellite system proposals filed to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in recent years by numerous national governments.

A satellite crematorium

SpaceX’s proposal is that these new satellites will operate as orbital data centres.

Data centres on the ground are drawing increasing criticism for the huge amounts of water and electricity they use. In an impressive feat of greenwashing, SpaceX suggests that launching data centres into orbit is better for the environment. This is only true if you ignore all the consequences of satellite launch, orbital operations and re-entry.

We can already measure atmospheric pollution from “re-entries,” when satellites fall back to Earth. We know that multiple satellites are falling every day and that if they do not fully burn up on re-entry, debris falls on the ground with risk for injury and death.

Read more:
SpaceX space junk crashed onto Saskatchewan farmland, highlighting a potential impending disaster

Increasing densities of satellites also drive up collision risks in orbit. And using the atmosphere as a satellite crematorium is changing the atmosphere in ways we don’t yet understand.

Practically, it is not at all clear whether the proposed orbital data centres are feasible any time soon. To operate data centres in orbit, they would need to disperse huge amounts of waste heat. Despite the greenwashing, this is actually very hard to do in space as they would have to manage the intense radiation from the sun, while cooling the satellite by radiation.

SpaceX should know this well: one of the first brightness mitigations they tested for Starlink was “darksat,” a Starlink satellite they effectively just painted black. The satellite overheated and the electronics fried.

Read more:
A new space race could turn our atmosphere into a ‘crematorium for satellites’

A slap in the face for astronomers

SpaceX has done a lot of engineering work to make its Starlink satellites fainter. They are still too bright for research astronomy, but thanks to new coatings, their brightness has not increased dramatically even as SpaceX has launched larger and larger satellites.

SpaceX’s proposal for one million AI data centre satellites with enormous power requirements does not include any discussion of the co-ordination agreement for dark and quiet skies required by the FCC.

It feels like a slap in the face after many astronomers have spent years working with SpaceX on ways to mitigate their Starlink megaconstellation and save the night sky.

Orbital space is a finite resource

The SpaceX filing does not include exact orbits, the size or shape of satellites or the casualty risk from de-orbiting (other than a vague promise that it won’t exceed 0.01 per cent per satellite). It doesn’t even include any information on how the company plans to develop the technology that does not currently exist but is needed to make this plan work.

Despite how shockingly little information SpaceX provided, the FCC accepted SpaceX’s filing and opened the comment period within four days. Astronomers and dark sky advocates worldwide scrambled to write and submit comments in the short four weeks that the comment period was open.

The scientific process is slow and careful and it often takes months or years to publish a peer-reviewed result. Companies like SpaceX have stated repeatedly that their method is to “move fast and break things.” They are now close to breaking the atmosphere, the night sky and anything on the ground or in space that their satellites and rockets fall on or crash into.

Earth’s orbital space is a finite resource. There is an evolving set of international guidelines for operating in outer space, grounded in a set of high-level international rules. Yet, those rules and guidelines are inadequate.

One corporation based in one country should not be allowed to ruin orbit, the night sky, and the atmosphere for everyone else in the world.

Samantha Lawler receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. She is a fellow of the Outer Space Institute.

Aaron Boley receives funding from NSERC, the Canada Tri-agency, and the Department of National Defence. He co-directs the Outer Space Institute.

Hanno Rein receives funding from NSERC.

– ref. A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky — for everyone on Earth – https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-will-destroy-the-night-sky-for-everyone-on-earth-277938

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Larissa Speak, Assistant Professor, Lakehead University

In January, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) initiated an assessment of a proposed nuclear waste repository in northwestern Ontario. The repository is being advanced by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), which is charged with finding a long-term solution to Canada’s mounting nuclear fuel waste.

The NWMO has proposed building an underground repository at a site near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. The proposal has received support from the township and First Nation, but it remains deeply contentious with other First Nations.

The impact assessment process recently began with the NWMO filing an initial project description, followed by a public commenting period. Nearly 900 comments were received, including written submissions from 22 First Nations, five regional and treaty organizations, and the Assembly of First Nations.

Many of the responses from First Nations hinge on differing interpretations of free, prior and informed consent. The NWMO sought the consent of one First Nation near the proposed repository site. However, Indigenous submissions argue that NWMO should also seek consent from all First Nations whose rights, interests, territories and watersheds could be affected by a repository.

Our research includes a focus on the administrative, regulatory and legal processes being used to make decisions about nuclear waste disposal. We’re especially concerned that Indigenous consent is being framed in a way that excludes many First Nations whose members and territories could be affected by the proposed repository.

Read more:
Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions

Free, prior and informed consent

In 2005, the NWMO publicly committed to a consent-based siting process, including finding a “willing host” for its proposed waste repository. In 2018, it committed to seeking free, prior and informed consent from affected Indigenous Peoples.

The principle of seeking Indigenous consent is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It states that governments should seek input and consent from affected Indigenous communities for any developments that take place on their territories.

In particular, Article 29 of UNDRIP states that “no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”

The NWMO began its site selection process in 2010. In 2024, the municipality of Ignace signed a hosting agreement with the NWMO. Later that year, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation members voted in favour of “in-depth environmental and technical assessments” to determine a suitable site.

Shortly thereafter, the NWMO announced that it had selected a site in northwestern Ontario, with Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as host communities.

First Nations criticize the process

The site selection process was contentious, with several potentially affected municipalities, First Nations and regional/treaty organizations voicing opposition. Many First Nations were critical of the NWMO’s site selection process, particularly their approach to seeking Indigenous consent.

Eagle Lake First Nation is challenging the NWMO’s site selection decision in court, arguing that the repository site is on its traditional territory and that the project cannot proceed without its free, prior and informed consent.

The NWMO said the repository site was chosen “following extensive technical study and community engagement,” and that Eagle Lake is an “important community in the region” it wants to work with.

The NWMO’s initial project description made no mention of regional and Indigenous opposition to its proposed repository. Instead, it emphasizes the consent of adjacent communities and its engagement with Wabigoon First Nation’s laws and processes.

Nipissing First Nation expressed concern that “consent is treated as a local regime, while the risk is region-wide and intergenerational.” As a result, “one nation is positioned as a moral and political shield for a project that affects many others.”

Other First Nations raised concerns with the large monetary payments NWMO made to host communities. Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation noted:

“The magnitude of these expenditures far exceeds what is reasonably required to support neutral engagement or capacity building and appear to have been a decisive factor in securing local acquiescence.”

Eagle Lake First Nation and Ojibway Nation of Saugeen — both First Nations with territorial claims to the repository site — emphasized that their nations have not consented to the NWMO’s proposal.

NWMO recently released a response to various comments from project stakeholders. However, the response does not acknowledge these criticisms from First Nations.

Consent for widespread risk

First Nations called on the NWMO to seek the free, prior and informed consent of all affected First Nations, including those with overlapping territorial claims to the repository site, those whose territories encompass other essential project activities like nuclear waste transportation and repackaging and those situated downstream of project activities.

Considering the scale and scope of project activities and the potential for widespread harm should something go wrong, the Indigenous understanding of consent offers a standard that recognizes interconnectedness, interdependence and ecological reality.

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation called on the IAAC to require NWMO to develop a strategy “that addresses all potentially impacted First Nations, including those impacted by used nuclear fuel repackaging at existing storage sites and along transportation corridors.”

Kebaowek First Nation also called for the recognition of FPIC rights of “all First Nations whose lands, territories and/or other resources may be affected.”

Several Indigenous communities argued that the NWMO must engage with the laws, processes and protocols of affected First Nations. Grand Council Treaty #3’s submission asserted that the impact assessment process should be put on hold until it is harmonized with the grand council’s laws and protocols.

Eagle Lake First Nation and Ojibway Nation of Saugeen also called for the impact assessment process to be put on hold until territorial disputes to the repository site are resolved and the NWMO obtains their consent.

NWMO’s recent response to comments on the initial project description did not directly address whether additional First Nations and Treaty organizations also have a right to provide or withhold consent to the proposed repository.

Given the positions of many First Nations, NWMO must seek input from all First Nations affected by the repository project before it goes any further. And the IAAC should carefully examine the impact assessment process to ensure engagement with First Nations and treaty organizations focuses on obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.

Larissa Speak has received research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. She is affiliated with Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki, an Indigenous-led group concerned with the disposal of nuclear waste on Anishinaabe territory. She is a member of Animikii-wajiw or Fort William First Nation.

John Sinclair receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. He is a long time member of the Canadian Environment Network’s Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus.

Warren Bernauer receives funding from the Canada Research Chair program. He is affiliated with Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki, an Indigenous-led group concerned with the disposal of nuclear waste on Anishinaabe territory.

– ref. Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository must obtain consent from all affected First Nations – https://theconversation.com/ontarios-proposed-nuclear-waste-repository-must-obtain-consent-from-all-affected-first-nations-277735

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Robert Chernomas, Professor Of Economics, University of Manitoba

Political leaders like United States President Donald Trump and business oligarchs like Elon Musk have increasingly suggested that human behaviour and social outcomes are rooted in genetics.

Trump has repeatedly suggested that problematic behaviours are genetic and inherent, while Musk has advocated for “intelligent” people to have children. His Grokipedia even frames racist concepts like racial nationalism positively while drawing on eugenic ideas, claiming that preserving distinct racial genetic profiles “maximizes individuals’ inclusive fitness.”

These arguments are taking us back to one of the darkest periods in human intellectual history: when eugenics was alive and well. Eugenics is the mistaken belief that a society’s genetic pool can be “improved” by limiting the reproduction of those deemed inferior and encouraging the breeding of those deemed superior.

Eugenics is now regarded as “the most egregious example of the destructive misuse of science in all human history,” as evolutionary biologist Richard Prum put it.

Yet this pseudoscientific way of thinking has not disappeared. It has re-emerged in new forms, primarily among tech capitalists and conservative politicians advocating for policies like forced migration, fertility assistance and genetic engineering to create a “fitter” nation.

Read more:
Racism never went away – it simply changed shape

In our recent book, The American Gene: Unnatural Selection Along Class, Race, and Gender Lines, we show that differences in complex behavioural traits among groups are not the natural outcome of inborn human biology, but the product of systemic economic inequality.

We can illustrate this by focusing on two of the most popularly discussed in the nature-versus-nurture debate: health and intelligence.

The limits of the human genome

The US$3 billion Human Genome Project set out to identify “the key genes underlying the great medical scourges of humankind.” Bill Clinton called it “the most important, most wondrous map ever produced” when he was U.S. president.

Yet except for rare diseases caused by one or a few genes, genomic data has had limited success in predicting complex diseases like heart disease, cancer, mental health disorders or addiction.

Scientists have found dozens of genetic variations associated with complex diseases, but the combined effects of these genes have explained very little about heritable risk. Even with the complete human genome sequenced, predicting health outcomes from genetics has proven challenging.

In fact, in 2013, the Food and Drug Administration ordered 23andMe to stop marketing certain genetic disease risk information to consumers until they received regulatory clearance.

Environment shapes health more than genes

Some scientists, including molecular biologist James Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project and a disgraced Nobel laureate, have argued that genetics largely determine health hierarchies.

He once suggested that New Jersey’s high cancer rates were mostly due to residents’ “genetic constitution” rather than environmental factors.

This logic is flawed. It would suggest that the people of New Jersey had uniquely cancer-prone DNA compared to the rest of the population, which seems unlikely. Further undermining Watson’s theory is the fact that cancer rates followed the changing location of the chemical industry, which fled New Jersey’s increasingly costly environmental regulations for Louisiana.

“Cancer Alley” in Baton Rouge, Louisiana — an 85-mile stretch of the Mississippi River lined with some 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical production plants — became home to the nation’s highest cancer rates, affecting the region’s disproportionate Black and Brown population.

In the words of bio-statistician Melanie Goodman: “ZIP Code is a better predictor of health than genetic code.”

Further evidence against genetic determinism comes from migrant studies. Research has found ethnic groups with low breast cancer rates in their home countries, such as China, Japan and the Philippines, often experience higher disease rates after migration.

Similar patterns appear in studies of coronary heart disease among people of Japanese ancestry who lived in Japan, Hawaii and California. Those who adopted more westernized lifestyles had higher rates of disease.

Intelligence is a product of opportunity

Researchers like Richard Hernstein, Charles Murray, David Reich and Nicholas Wade have insisted on a link between genetics, race or ethnicity, and what they describe as a hierarchy of intelligence.

In these arguments, Ashkenazi Jews are often placed at the top of the hierarchy, while people of African descent are placed lower. Although the discussion always revolves around genetic inheritance, they have yet to identify the specific genes that would justify this hierarchy.

Where proponents attempted to provide empirical support, the argument often rested on a residual claim: even after accounting for all the social variables that might influence intelligence, an unexplained component remained and was therefore presumed to be genetic.

On the other side of the debate are researchers like James Flynn, who argued intelligence is determined more by environment than genetics.

Flynn documented a steady rise in intelligence test scores across the 20th century in a pattern now known as the “Flynn Effect.” He found that between 1933 and 1983, American IQs increased by around three points per decade. He argued people’s minds were sharpened by better education and more intellectually demanding jobs and hobbies.

Flynn also found larger impacts in lower-income nations. Kenya and several Caribbean nations, for example, had much larger increases in IQ scores than Scandinavian countries because, he argued, the conditions for learning had improved more in the former nations than the latter.

Lived experience influences our genes

Advances in the revolutionary field of epigenetics have shifted the nature-versus-nurture debate by identifying a pathway through which lived experience can impact what were previously thought to be fixed processes.

Epigenetics refers to mechanisms that affect gene expression — how much a gene is used or not — without changing the DNA sequence itself. These mechanisms function somewhat like a dimmer switch, turning genes on and off, or adjusting the intensity of their effects.

Growing evidence suggests that epigenetic mechanisms are impacted by the conditions in which people live, which in turn influence human traits and outcomes. Some of these epigenetic changes may even be transmitted across generations.

In other words, nurture has a direct influence on nature.

Claims about the supposed genetic superiority of some human beings over others rarely account for the complexity of these additional types of inheritance.

Opportunity matters more than genetics

A growing body of research suggests that social and economic opportunity plays a far greater role in shaping human outcomes than genetic inheritance.

As biologist Siddhartha Mukherjee pointed out, “it is impossible to ascertain any human, genetic potential without first equalizing environments.”

Decades earlier, Henry Wallace, who served as vice-president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, similarly suggested that if children from rich and poor families were given the same food clothing, education, care and protection, class lines would likely disappear.

Historical evidence supports this view. Our research shows that when structural barriers are reduced and marginalized groups have the same opportunities as more privileged groups, inequalities shrink dramatically.

By way of example, the economic and social changes following U.S. civil rights legislation led to major improvements in the health, education and income of Black Americans — despite no change in their genetic makeup — highlighting the role of structural racism and social policy.

People should be significantly more concerned with the effects of the policies imposed by the Trumps and Musks of the world than the DNA passed on by their parents.

Ian Hudson receives funding from SSHRC. Ian Hudson is a Research Associate for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Robert Chernomas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Claims about genetic superiority ignore the real drivers of human inequality – https://theconversation.com/claims-about-genetic-superiority-ignore-the-real-drivers-of-human-inequality-275393