> What made it even worse was that Epstein was a latter-day eugenicist whose interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with his own D

> What made it even worse was that Epstein was a latter-day eugenicist whose interests were tied to a delusional notion of seeding the human race with his own DNA. Given this stance, it is particularly disturbing that he focused his largesse on research on the genetic basis of human behavior. Human genetics is an ethically sensitive and intellectually contested domain where it behooves us to ensure that the highest standards of scientific rigor are in place and that nongenetic explanations for behavior are given a fair chance to compete. This is a thinly veiled attack on evolutionary biology, which keeps coming up with plausible explanations that are nevertheless utterly disturbing to the self-image of a moral human being and must therefore be suppressed from its consciousness. This is an undue conflation of science (is) and morals (ought). Morals are an artifact of human experience with nature, nature itself is amoral. For instance, let's ask: Why does rape exist? Sociologist: writes twenty paragraphs on patriarchy and rape culture while ignoring the rest of the animal kingdom Evolutionary Biologist: It's a successful strategy for reproduction, the selfish gene promotes its continued existence If the sociologist is right, then rape should disappear in an enlightened culture that has abolished all male dominance (utopianism). If the biologist is right, then rape will not disappear without identifying and muting all gene sequences that might lead an individual to be a rapist (eugenics). In reality, neither are practical solutions, both explanations are bound to be contributing factors, but with one disregarding the other, we lose the ability to draw rational conclusions and devise functioning systems.