Steven Pinker is right in this regard and so was Plato: … The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons … they are stories not to be repeated in our State …

I had always thought Plato's argument was a reductio ad absurdum.

Looking at it now, it seems he WAS actually arguing FOR censoring stories of the bad behavior of the gods AND FOR censoring Homer's Odyssey.

Sigh.

He was, because those stories and ideas, if widely known, would threaten the state built on the narrative of virtuous gods and deviations from that narrative would lead to worse outcomes for everyone.

Our state is built on the narratives of democracy and equality thus while those factors have ability to undermine the narrative (as we've seen in not so distant history) we have to censor them and do the research behind closed doors, otherwise we risk more damage than any possible benefit.

That's a hell of a minefield, but I'll bite: might a few more generations in our increasingly globalized world (airplane travel, etc.) cause a "melting pot" where pedigree devolves into a homogenous blend that puts everyone on the same playing field? Hard to predict, and it's kind of scary (enjoying the cuisines and other cultural differences is quite special) but the equity would be fascinating.

It's going to take a lot of generations interracial couples are not particularly common.

It will happen eventually though, because you can't unmix races. Which is why the Nazis, the KKK etc were/are so worked up about miscegenation, "the annihilation of the white race", etc.

It's a question of rates, and culture. Not all countries and groups will be affected the same way.

Pretty verboten topic though and kind of unpalatable to think about, even if you don't particularly care about these sorts of demographic shifts.

Personally I like that the whole idea of "race" might become increasingly indeterminate and vague in liberal societies.

The phenomenon is real but for fully understandable reasons not much is published about it.

Isn't merely laying out the reasons why these parameters should never be studied/published fuel for racists?

There's no such thing as a parameter that's "wholly outside of human control" when you account for technological change. If there's an easy way of providing a free +1 INT, +1 WIS boost to a non-trivial chunk of the population via, let's say, tailored mRNA vaccine injections, I'd sure want to know about it!

Research is not even close to being restricted by those moral matters. There isn't an easy way today, not even close. If there was, it would also be a way to rid us of ugly debuffs ranging from genetic disorders through allergies to cancer.

mRNA can change gene expression locally for limited time, enough to train your immune sysem but not for permanent changes. CRISPR can make permanent changes but but for now only to few cells in vitro, not to whole organism. Even the Chineese CRISPR modified twins are mosaics of modified and unmodofied.