The fact that intelligence is heritable says nothing about social-economic policy for changing the environment. It is as absurd as saying that because "height is genetic" there is no reason to worry about malnutrition.
Changing it wouldn't make a difference, everyone using that logic isn't basing their end goal on it, simply using it to justify their feelings.
Hell it took a while for me to understand the benefit of such improvements, and it had nothing to do with genetics. My problem was few people talk about the socio-economic impacts on capabilities, and the fact that counteracting programs can theoretically stop the death spiral in those groups.
However there are a lot of people who can't get over "not like me" and think the whole thing is a waste because it takes away from "hard working young men".
"Socially inconvenient" doesn't even come into it, because twin studies don't tell us anything about differences between two ethnicities. For that matter, genetic diversity within populations might have a larger effect...
The "intelligence is genetic" "fact" is often used to justify refusal to tackle socio-economic problems (like "under-achievement" in blacks or hispanics in the US, or the turkish minority in my home country) with socio-economic solutions. Because hey, it's all genetics, so we can't change it. Even if measures for improvement have been proven...