Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

grettable because it implies that, because I convened a symposium1 for the Pontifical Academy of Science, I am suffering from a religious bias in my scientific considerations. I would like to point out that extrascientific considerations occur in all worthwhile scientific contributions, which of course have as a basis a philosophy of science. Zangwill must surely realize that I am of course governed in my scientific theorizing by extrascientific considerations, as also is he. If you are a materialist philosopher, you still have a materialist philosophy at the basis of your scientific discussions. Zangwill must have been embarrassed by the unfortunate sequel of this extrascientific implication against me. In a review in Lancet on December 7, 1974, a reviewer cloaked in anonymity used his criticism to mount a most unethical personal attack on me. It is regrettable that Lancet saw fit to publish such scurrility. I am grateful to Zangwill for drawing my attention to what he calls von Hartmann's principle, namely, that anatomical continuity within the nervous system is a necessary condition for the unity of consciousness. However, this principle has to be interpreted in the light of the communication system in the cerebral cortex, for example. If anatomical continuity in von Hartmann's sense is established by axonal communications from one part of the cerebral cortex to another, then his principle has merit. It would be less ambiguous if it were changed from anatomical continuity to functional association. Mere juxtaposition of one cortical area to another has, I think, no meaning unless there is a channel of communication between them. A final paper that I will refer to is that by Dr. Gazzaniga in which he is particularly concerned in a new field of investigation, namely, to try to train global aphasias by the techniques developed by Premack for training of a chimpanzee in language. There is also an interesting section on the possible developmental dynamics involved in the establishment of cerebral dominance. From this extraordinary collection of papers on the human brain I have selected those contributions that particularly appealed to me. There are many others in rather more specialized fields. In conclusion, I want to give the reader an impression that this is a valuable book, bringing together for the first time the most admirable investigations now being undertaken on the human brain. John C. Eccles CH 6611 Contra (Ticino) Switzerland 'Among the 20 participants there were Adrian, Bremer, Penfield, Jasper, Mountcastle, Teuber, Sperry, Granit, Moruzzi, Hinshelwood, Phillips, and Creutzfeldt. Race Differences in Intelligence. By John C. Lochlin, Gardner Lindzey, and J.N. Spuhler. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1975. Pp. 70+258. $12.00 (cloth); $5.95 (paper). The authors state: "The goal of this book is to provide a sober, balanced, and scholarly examination of the evidence that bears upon the role of genetic and environmental factors in the determination of group differences in ability in the Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1976 | 293 United States." They succeed in this objective. Past studies of this subject have put on display almost every error in the design of research on human differences as well as fallacies in the_ analysis and interpretation of data. The authors carefully examine many relevant studies. Although they do not identify all forms of error, they list more of those unknown to me than I could add to their list. The best research in this field has gained in sophistication, and the authors propose some research designs which could reduce uncertainty. At present there is no concatenation of evidence which proves that there is a genetic basis for average racial differences in intelligence. The authors give the following tentative conclusion from their review of empirical findings and theoretical arguments. "Observed average differences in the scores of members of different U.S. racial-ethnic groups on intellectual-ability tests probably reflect in part inadequacies and biases in the tests themselves, in part differences in environmental conditions among the groups, and in part genetic differences among the groups." Although the book is lucid, the quality of writing does not match the quality of the authors' treatment of their subject. They do not restrict themselves to second-hand ideas. The central question...