There's been some comment recently about pundit John Derbyshire's belief that Obama will try to shut down biology because it has validated racism. Needless to say, Derbyshire is full of it, and he has a poor grasp of what recent genetics has actually demonstrated regarding nature, nurture, and race. This deserves a much longer discussion, which, fortuitously, is on its way, since I've been meaning to discuss a recent talk on genetics and race at our department given by geneticist Lynn Jorde. The short version is this: Derbyshire claims that we can

"Name any universal characteristic of human nature, including cognitive and personality characteristics. Of all the observed variation in that characteristic, about half is caused by genetic differences. You may say that is only a half victory; but it is a complete shattering of the nurturist absolutism that ruled in the human sciences 40 years ago..."

What Derbyshire misses is that those genetic differences generally do not fall along racial or population lines. There is no current evidence to support the notion that genetic differences responsible for variation in complex traits like personality or intelligence are linked to race. This deserves more discussion, but here is what the American Society of Human Genetics said about James Watson's comments on race and intelligence:

On October 14, 2007, The Sunday Times (London) quoted speculation by geneticist James Watson regarding alleged intellectual inferiority among Africans. ASHG find the comments to be tragically misguided and without scientific foundation. Watson later apologized "unreservedly" for his comments, stating that there is no scientific basis for such beliefs.

Derbyshire would have you think this is simply politics, but it's not - the science is clear. (Hat tip to PZ Myers and Irradiatus; Irradiatus links to the original Derbyshire piece, if you're interested in reading it.)