Morton, Gould, and Bias: A Comment on “The Mismeasure of Science”

A closer look at Stephen Jay Gould’s criticisms of Samuel Morton vindicates Gould’s accusations of racial bias in Morton’s cranial measurements.

more dramatic change in the African mean was unconscious manipulation on Morton's part in 1839, when technique made that manipulation possible.
Why, then, do Lewis et al. think Morton has been vindicated? Their 2011 paper reports on the remeasurement of about half the skulls in Morton's original set. They found that Morton's shot measurements were mostly accurate, and that such errors as existed did not support a charge of bias. They also considered Gould's other criticism of Morton's methods and analysis, which they also judged to be mostly without merit (we are here only concerned with the measurement issue; for detailed discussions of all the claims in dispute, see [4,5]). They concluded that "Morton did not manipulate data to support his preconceptions, contra Gould" [3].
We take no issue with Lewis et al.'s remeasurements, but argue that these measurements are not and cannot be evidence for their conclusion. Although Lewis et al. found Morton's shotbased measurements to be accurate, Gould already accepted this. Indeed, Gould had to assume that Morton's shot measurements were accurate, as he relied on them in his own analysis. Gould never made, nor did he ever claim to make, nor did he have any reason to make any measurements himself. Gould's argument depends on the difference between the two sets of measurements. Thus, as a matter of logic, there is no way that the results of Lewis et al.'s remeasurement program could be used to adjudicate the issue of who was biased. The many commentators who cite as a major failing of Gould's that he "never bothered to measure the skulls himself" [6] have also, though perhaps more understandably, missed the point.
It is perfectly reasonable for a reader to have further questions about Morton's measurements and samples before drawing a final verdict. Perhaps there are other explanations for the anomalously small African mean cranial capacity reported in Crania Americana. However, Lewis et al.'s remeasurements shed no light on this anomaly and only serve to highlight it further by demonstrating that Morton's measurements with shot were indeed accurate. Gould's claim that this is prima facia evidence of unconscious bias in Crania Americana remains intact.
Lewis et al. also allege that, according to Gould, studies of human variation are inevitably biased. Or, as is their view, "are objective accounts attainable, as Morton attempted?" But here, too, the critique misses its mark.
Gould argued that unconscious bias is ubiquitous in science. He actually praised Morton for the "rare and precious gift" of having published all his primary data, thus enabling others to check his work. Gould did not believe that biased results are inevitable. In his view, the tendency to fudge could and should be countered by "vigilance and scrutiny;" that is, by greater self-reflection and by cultivating, "as Morton did, the habit of presenting all our information and procedures, so that others can assess what we, in our blindness, cannot" [1]. In his view, only if we "understand and acknowledge inevitable preferences" can we countermand their influence [2]. Lewis et al. conclude that, contra Gould, "biased scientists are inevitable, biased results are not." But this was precisely Gould's own view! Lewis et al. have charged that Gould's "own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of bias influencing results" [3]. We maintain that this accusation, which continues to reverberate, is undeserved, and we hope that this Comment will prompt at least some readers to reevaluate the evidence and arguments.

Author Contributions
Analyzed the data: MW. Wrote the paper: MW DBP.