Who’s to blame for the pathetic state of African science?

Posted by Gorboduc on July 01, 2010, 04:47 PM | #

A few years ago there were news reports from Africa about people being swung from palm-trees in oildrums, to prepare them for weightless conditions: I can’t pinpoint one, but I came up with this.

http://www.ngex.com/personalities/babawilly/apollo419.htm

And I suppose this has something to do with the science of medicine in SA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4879822.stm

Posted by Dasein on July 01, 2010, 04:50 PM | #

To accuse foreigners of ruining communities through their high crime levels is bigotry.  To accuse foreigners of “killing African science”  through their generosity is not.

Posted by Dasein on July 01, 2010, 05:13 PM | #

If the Canadian government hadn’t been so intent on showering taxpayer money on Dr. Egwang, in a desperate attempt to ‘kill his science’ (all done in order to maintain Canada’s slim scientific edge over Uganda), perhaps he would not have spent his doctoral years recovering nematode eggs from cow feces, and could instead have devoted his tremendous intellect to true African science.

Posted by herbert on July 02, 2010, 02:55 AM | #

Some people and of course many journalists are often writing like Africa would be a little black country which can not resist to the many big and more powerful white countries. Furthermore that is exactly the reason why they only write about cities if it come to crime numbers.
But only on look (and think) on the world map would maybe change some minds: If they look at a map and see Africa is a continent and there are many countries and NONE of them is actually rich or wealthy compared to white countries would change something. And if then people furthermore look at the other black countries and areas outside USA, like Haiti Detroit and New Orleans, they would maybe see some parallels.

Posted by Al Ross on July 02, 2010, 08:29 AM | #

Nitwits like Gorboduc might imagine, while contemplating old Jesus’ multi- culti, stratospheric gated community, that Niggers can become Christianised. This dubious proposition may have been plausible in Empire’s time (except, of course, among rational Aryans) when Her Majesty’s mandatory gunboat anchored offshore Gold Coast and Britain’s men - at -arms accompanied some starry -eyed Christian mental defectives to the unfortunate Africans’ first encounter with the old Jew - God.

Inevitably, instead of natural justice taking its course with the Empire’s Christian weasels being happily speared to death, the poor Niggers. force majeure, ended up having to pretend to believe the same garbage that Gorboduc attempts to pass off as “Chestertonian” to MR’s unfortunate supporters.

Posted by Michael Meadon on July 06, 2010, 03:12 AM | #

This post, and especially the comments, is one of the most ludicrously ignorant, biased and downright bigoted things it has been my misfortune to encounter in a long time. Pointing to individual instances of ignorance - Zuma, say - and claim it is representative of “African science” is preposterously intellectually dishonest. I might as well dismiss all American scientists because Bush was a creationist, or say Prince Charles’ views are representative of British scientists.

Nor do I see how the Nature piece blames foreigners for Africa’s science problems. It’s a straightforward analysis of the problems - and a good one at that. You may, of course, disagree with the analysis, but I can see no charitable reading of the piece consistent with your claims.

And… “dismal intellectual record of black Africans”? Really now? Do you really need basic lessons in biology and genetics? (Not to mention history).

Posted by Michael Meadon on July 06, 2010, 03:15 AM | #

Sorry, that should be “and claiming they are representative”.

Posted by Dasein on July 06, 2010, 04:58 AM | #

Nor do I see how the Nature piece blames foreigners for Africa’s science problems.

No, Nature just allows the interview subjects to do so unchallenged.  For example:

The improved conditions carry a cost: continued dependence on foreigners, who foot most of the bills. “If you look at any of the researchers who carry out any significant research in Africa, 99.9% of their funding comes from outside,” says Tom Egwang, a Ugandan immunologist and founding director of Uganda’s Med Biotech Laboratories, headquartered in Kampala. “I really think that all these programmes are killing African science.”

Any mention by Nature of the average IQ of black Africans?

You’re upset because your religious beliefs have been mocked.

And… “dismal intellectual record of black Africans”? Really now? Do you really need basic lessons in biology and genetics? (Not to mention history).

Please enlighten us.  Out-of-Africa?  Egg beaters?  Philip Emeagwali?

Posted by John Doe on July 08, 2010, 07:42 PM | #

Mr. Meadan, no thanks. I won’t take lessons in biology from a ‘cognitive scientist’ (giggles).

Now I’d like to say that a (real) Black scientist would be a man such as Sylvester James Gates from the US.

Not only is African science equivalent to Dutch science (giggles), but it’s also mostly focused on medical research and as the article suggests, heavily subsidized by Western countries. What’s left of African science besides the local medical research funded by Western organizations?

Also, what about mathematics? Mathematical research doesn’t require lots of money, just a pen & a paper.

Many world-class mathematicians actually don’t even need a pen & a paper.

Cheers.

Posted by Michael Meadon on July 09, 2010, 09:24 AM | #

@Dasein: Tom Egwang’s concern is institutional, that foreigners displace Africa’s own investment in science. He wants self-reliance instead of dependence. I see why you interpreted the quote as you did, but I think in context my reading is the correct one. (Note the next paragraph).

@Mr. Doe. “What’s left of African science besides the local medical research funded by Western organizations?” The ignorance of this statement is staggering. The majority of South Africa’s science spending, for example, is locally sourced and is diverse in scope. Moreover, the Dutch comparison is highly misleading. Sure, the Dutch publish a lot - but then they’re uniquely well educated (one of the highest proportions of degrees per capita) and they’re wealthy. For largely historical reasons (see e.g. Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”), Africa as a whole is neither rich nor well educated; both prerequisites for scientific accomplishment.

One basic lesson in biology: Africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on earth (see, e.g.: http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/04/massive_study_of_african_genet.php). Now how, exactly, does this fact square with essentialist views of “black Africans” racists like yourselves are fond of?

Posted by Dasein on July 09, 2010, 10:55 AM | #

No, Egwang’s concern is looking for excuses.  It doesn’t matter where the money’s coming from or how much is being spent; the mainstream press (even Nature!), black Africans, jews, and white morons will refuse to admit that the problem lies predominantly in the innate mental abilities of black Africans.  If Westerners weren’t sending them the money, they would claim that African science is being killed by its international isolation.

One basic lesson in biology: Africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on earth

So what?  Are there black African populations with high average IQs?  I could just as well say that there’s more diversity in the products of low-end car brands than of Porsche.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 09, 2010, 11:15 AM | #

Jared Diamond the white-hater?  Oh dear.

Well, his thesis is that “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.”

The problem is that Homo sapiens had at least fifty, perhaps one hundred thousand years to adapt biologically to “differences among environments” before we reach the “history” (emergence of agriculture 13,000 years ago according to Diamond, only five thousand years or so after modern Africans appeared).

One of those adaptions, by the way, was a striving to understand and exploit the environment, which was the progenerator of Western science.  Modern Africans are simply not in the park, and that’s the problem, Mr Mead.  Calling us racists doesn’t change that.  Nothing will.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 09, 2010, 12:39 PM | #

“Africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on earth [...].  Now how, exactly, does this fact square with essentialist views of ‘black Africans’ racists like yourselves are fond of?”  (—Michael Meadon)

By “essentialist views” you mean acknowledgement of their lower intelligence, greater violent crime, lower formation of intact two-parent families, greater sprinting ability for West Africans and marathon ability for East Africans, and so forth?  When you ask how their greater genetic diversity “squares with” those characteristics you seem to mean it doesn’t, in other words is inconsistent with it.  How so?  If Negroes have lots of genes that make them violently attack people in the street and whites have fewer such genes, if Negroes have lots of genes that make them do poorly in school and whites have fewer such genes, if Negroes have lots of genes that make them not fulfill their social role of father and whites have fewer such genes, Negroes have greater genetic diversity than whites. 

And?  Your point was?

Posted by Gudmund on July 09, 2010, 01:56 PM | #

The majority of South Africa’s science spending, for example, is locally sourced and is diverse in scope. Moreover, the Dutch comparison is highly misleading. Sure, the Dutch publish a lot - but then they’re uniquely well educated (one of the highest proportions of degrees per capita) and they’re wealthy. For largely historical reasons (see e.g. Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”), Africa as a whole is neither rich nor well educated; both prerequisites for scientific accomplishment.
>Troll

This entire paragraph is evidence of your mental retardation.  From whence springs the “wealth and education”?  From civilization, Mr. Moron, something negroes are not capable of achieving and never will be.  And civilization springs from having some degree of intelligence and organizational ability, another area in which they are quite deficient.  They never advanced beyond their tribal, primitive ways because it is not in them.  Kindly don’t insult our intelligence.

As an aside, Jared Diamond is just another in a long line of Jewish humanists whose express goal as early as Franz Boas was to subvert anthropology (something which S.J. Gould was brazen enough to admit openly).  His books are pop history storytelling, full of tendentious assumptions and historical errors, and lacking even a veneer of academic rigour.

Africans are the most genetically diverse group of people on earth

Africans are hybrids of several different primitive groups, so this is not surprising.  In any case it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which concerns why Africans are virtually unrepresented in hard science.  You are obfuscating.

Posted by Michael Meadon on July 10, 2010, 02:32 AM | #

I’ll try to address some of your points when I’m more awake… In the meantime…

“Most materials within this site are presented in the format of a blog and the general public is allowed to comment on blog entries.  We welcome opposing viewpoints, but in order to have a scholarly discussion, we request commentators to avoid the use of profanity and ad hominem attacks.”

I see you are big on upholding your own rules and principles.

Posted by Dasein on July 10, 2010, 11:19 AM | #

If my memory is accurate, it looks like Gudmund’s original comment was edited.  Perhaps someone thought his more colourful synonyms for ‘negro’ were inappropriate.  Just for the record, in case anyone thinks, as the author of this entry, that I did the editing: I did not.  I personally have no objection to the use of these terms (within reason).

Posted by Tom Egwang on December 16, 2010, 09:24 AM | #

I have just seen this exchange. My point was and remains the following. When donors pour aid money into Africa, African leaders become complacent and do not make national investments into research and development, food security, environment, etc. Thats what I meant by these donors killing science in Africa; by providing funds ad infinitum they are discouraging local investment in science.

If only the donors could serve notice; NO AID FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS. May be African leaders might perk up and for once invest in their own destiny with their own resources.

Tom Egwang