tlie taboos it lias sliattered, not from itsnintrinsic merits. The authors’ curiousnunwillingness to go beyond what theirnnumber-crunching substantiates onnsome subjects, coupled with their speculativenleaps about the future shape ofnAmerican society, their compulsion tonqualify every generalization, their equivocationsnabout race, their timidity at thenprospect of being accused of any sort ofnantiliberalism, and their persistent allegiancento essentially egalitarian valuesnand the political structures based onnthem, makes their long-awaited worknmore of a disappointment than it needednto be.nThe same cannot be said of ProfessornRushton’s Race, Evolution, ‘and Behavior.nA well-respected psychologist atnthe University of VVestern Ontario, Rushtonnhas been vilified repeatedly in thenCanadian press, hounded by left-wingnmobs, denounced by government ministers,nand threatened with the loss of hisnjob and even with prosecution undernCanada’s notorious Race Relations law,nall because he has publicly discussed thenexistence of racial differences. Civen thatnbackground, one might approach hisnnew book with a susjjicion that it is anninflammatory political tract, but suchnis not the case. Instead, it is a far morensober and serious work of scholarshipnthan that of Herrnstein and Murray,nthough in some parts more technical innexposition.nRushton is less concerned to prove thenexistence of genetic differentiationsnamong the human races than he is to explainnin evolutionary terms why the differencesnexist at all. Hence, he beginsnwith an exhaustive account of those differencesnas well as of the genetic bases ofna number of different kinds of humannbehavior. Drawing on his own researchnas well as on the pioneering study of separatelynraised identical twins conductednby Thomas Bouchard of the Universitynof Minnesota, he documents significantnhereditary correlations for such behavioralntraits as altruism and aggression,nactivity level, criminality, dominance,nemotionality, sexuality, psychopathology,nand even attitudes (including politicalnand religious beliefs), as well asnintelligence. These correlations are independentnof racial identity. He also surveysnracial differences, physical as well asnmental and behavioral, including brainnand cranial sizes, testosterone levels, andngenital forms. The evidence for mentaln3O/CHRON:CLESndifferences between the races is nonlonger merely psychological but now includesnArthur Jensen’s studies of reactionntimes, whiclT imply a neurological basisnfor intelligence, and of magnetic resonancenimaging of the brain, which givesna far more accurate estimate of brain sizenthan the older external measurements ofnthe skull. Rushton, following the researchnof other scientists, finds a consistentnpattern of racial differentiation, withnwhites ranking intermediate to Orientalsnand blacks on such traits as “industriousness,nactivity, sociability, rule following,nstrength of the sex drive, genital size, intelligence,nand brain size.” He also citesnevidence, less conclusive but “surely worthynof study,” of racial differentiation innrhythm, body odor, depth of voice, bonendensity, and muscular and biochemicalnphysiology that may help account fornblack athletic superiority in certain sportsninvolving running and jumping.nIn his evolutionary explanation ofnthese differences, Rushton relies on EdwardnO. Wilson’s sociobiological work,nadapting Wilson’s distinction betweenn”K-selection” species, the genetic traitsnof which are selected for survival in stablenenvironments in which heavy competitionncan be expected, and “r-selection”nspecies, the traits of which are selectednfor unstable.environments in whichncompetition is not heavy. The behavioralndifferences between K-selectionnand r-selection species are mainly thatnthe former, at least among mammals,ntend to have larger brains, longer lives,nand fewer offspring, for which they carenintensively, while r-selected species tendnto have smaller brains, shorter lives, highernfecundity, and to care less for theirnyoung. Although Wilson developed thenconcepts of K-selection and r-selectionnwith regard to different species, Rushtonnargues that they may also apply tonsubspecies and that Orientals tend to benthe most K-selecting of the humannsubspecies, whites to be intermediatenK-selectors, and blacks to be the least Kselective.nThe physical, mental, andnbehavioral attributes of the three races asnRushton and others have described themnwould seem to fit this arrangement ofntheir tendencies toward or away fromnK-selection.nUnlike Herrnstein and Murray, Rushtonnis not in the least equivocal aboutnthe reality of race. “The view that race isnonly a social construct is contradicted bynbiological evidence. Along with bloodnprotein and DNA data . . . forensic scien­nnntists are able to classify skulls by race,”nand in this he follows the common sensenof scientific biology. “Race” is merely anterm applied to human subspecies, andnthe concept of subspecies in biology andntaxonomy is no more controversial thannamong laymen who readily distinguishnbetween collies and German shepherds,nSiamese and Persians. Dog and catnraces, of course, are artificially created bynbreeders, but races/subspecies exist innnature as well. J.R. Baker in his classicnstudy Race (Oxford, 1974) discussed fornseveral jjages the “racial differences” thatnall biologists acknowledge to exist amongnthe different subspecies of the Europeanncrested newt (Triturus cristatus). Onlynwhen such distinctions are applied to humannpopulations do biologists buckle;nand, as became obvious in the receptionngiven to Herrnstein, Murray, and Rushton,ntheir buckling is driven mainly by anself-serving ideology of egalitarianismnand environmentalism, not by science.nRushton follows the theory put forwardnby Richard Lynn and others thatnracial differences between human subspeciesnevolved during the Ice Ages,nwhen the ancestors of the white race innprehistoric Europe found themselvesnconfronted with a hostile environmentnthat never existed in sub-Saharan Africa.n”Thus, the cognitive demands of manufacturingnsophisticated tools and makingnfires, clothing, and shelters (as well asnregulating the storage of food …) wouldnhave selected for higher average intelligencenlevels than in the less cognitivelyndemanding environment in sub-SaharannAfrica. Those individuals who could notnsolve these problems of survival wouldnhave died out, leaving those with allelesnfor higher intelligence as the survivors.”nOrientals faced somewhat different survivalnproblems in northern Asia, wherenextreme cold favored selection for thenAsian superiority to whites in visuospatialnskills but not for verbal skills, fornwhich Asians test somewhat lower thannwhites. Already in prehistoric times, an”cognitive elite” had developed withinnthe human species.nUnlike Herrnstein and Murray, Rushtonnhas no political agenda, but he doesnconclude his book with a critique of egalitarianismnthat the vilification specialistsnwho denounce him would be well advisednto consider. Their universal refrainnis that any attention to racial realities andndifferentiations will lead ineluctably tongas chambers and genocide. Rushtonnputs the shoe on the other foot. “Scien-n