Your imaginary deeply pessimistic scenario only highlights the issue: if you have an adversial relationship with science because you don't like the outcomes, th

Your imaginary deeply pessimistic scenario only highlights the issue: if you have an adversial relationship with science because you don't like the outcomes, then we're stuck on major issues in our society. Climate science is widely rejected not for its science, rather for its outcomes. Nobody rejects science that improves quality of life though. You seek truth or you do not. You can't cherry pick the truth or make it go away. So let's say your scenario plays out. Researchers objectively established that "my people" are cognitively underdeveloped compared to another group. Well, so what, if that's the truth? If it really is the truth, I'd likely already know that, as I would have experienced it myself. If I were to be a woman (I'm not) I would have experienced that I'm physically weaker than the typical male. The truth is not degrading, just the way you packaged it. Differences in capabilities are plain to see at every single level. It shouldn't be this controversial. The only controversial part is what you do with it, but if you constantly overcorrect into the utmost cynical scenario, you're blocking all potential progress. Further, it only invites speculation, conspiracy theories and misinformation. Insights in genetics could drive better health outcomes, investment in education, socio-economic investments, the like.