应用严格的标准不是禁止或审查：回复León（2025）和Connor and Fuerst（2025）。

IF 12.3 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

American Psychologist Pub Date : 2025-07-24 DOI:10.1037/amp0001528

Kevin A. Bird, John P. Jackson, Andrew S. Winston

{"title":"应用严格的标准不是禁止或审查：回复León（2025）和Connor and Fuerst（2025）。","authors":"Kevin A. Bird, John P. Jackson, Andrew S. Winston","doi":"10.1037/amp0001528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their commentaries on Bird et al. (2024), León (2025) and Connor and Fuerst (2025) misrepresent our position as supporting censorship or bans on racial hereditarian research. We explicitly rejected censorship and bans, and we warned against labeling researchers as \"racists.\" Instead, we argued for the application of stringent scientific standards from relevant disciplines. Connor and Fuerst's argument for using admixture regression to find a genetic basis for racial differences in test scores is rejected. Their focus on this specific method fails to address the scientific and ethical issues of racial hereditarian research that we raised in Bird et al. (2024). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"20 1","pages":"842-843"},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying rigorous standards is not a ban or censorship: A reply to León (2025) and Connor and Fuerst (2025).\",\"authors\":\"Kevin A. Bird, John P. Jackson, Andrew S. Winston\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their commentaries on Bird et al. (2024), León (2025) and Connor and Fuerst (2025) misrepresent our position as supporting censorship or bans on racial hereditarian research. We explicitly rejected censorship and bans, and we warned against labeling researchers as \\\"racists.\\\" Instead, we argued for the application of stringent scientific standards from relevant disciplines. Connor and Fuerst's argument for using admixture regression to find a genetic basis for racial differences in test scores is rejected. Their focus on this specific method fails to address the scientific and ethical issues of racial hereditarian research that we raised in Bird et al. (2024). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"842-843\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001528\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001528","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在他们对Bird et al. (2024), León（2025）和Connor and Fuerst（2025）的评论中，歪曲了我们支持审查或禁止种族遗传研究的立场。我们明确反对审查和禁令，并警告不要给研究人员贴上“种族主义者”的标签。相反，我们主张应用相关学科的严格科学标准。康纳和富尔斯特使用混合回归来寻找考试成绩中种族差异的遗传基础的论点被拒绝了。他们对这种具体方法的关注未能解决我们在Bird等人（2024）中提出的种族遗传研究的科学和伦理问题。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Applying rigorous standards is not a ban or censorship: A reply to León (2025) and Connor and Fuerst (2025).

In their commentaries on Bird et al. (2024), León (2025) and Connor and Fuerst (2025) misrepresent our position as supporting censorship or bans on racial hereditarian research. We explicitly rejected censorship and bans, and we warned against labeling researchers as "racists." Instead, we argued for the application of stringent scientific standards from relevant disciplines. Connor and Fuerst's argument for using admixture regression to find a genetic basis for racial differences in test scores is rejected. Their focus on this specific method fails to address the scientific and ethical issues of racial hereditarian research that we raised in Bird et al. (2024). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

American Psychologist PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

18.50

自引率

1.20%

发文量

145

期刊介绍： Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.