Books et al.Science and the Law

The realities of race

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  01 Dec 2017:
Vol. 358, Issue 6367, pp. 1137-1138
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0602

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Race on the Brain

    I write to respond to Jerry Kang’s review of my book, Race on the Brain: What Implicit Bias Gets Wrong About the Struggle for Racial Justice. I normally do not respond to reviews of my work. I have received critical reviews of previous work that I disagreed with but accepted to be good faith critiques. This situation is different for two reasons. First, my concern about a potential conflict of interest in the review. Second, I believe this conflict has actually tainted the review, which I find to consistently mischaracterize my work in fundamental ways.

    First, as to the conflict of interest: in the initial version of the published review, neither Science nor Professor Kang disclosed that he is not a disinterested reviewer but rather a preeminent exponent of using the science of implicit bias to guide law and policy.

    After an inquiry from my publisher, Science offered a note at the bottom stating that “The author acknowledges that his own work is referenced extensively throughout the book. He has nonetheless strived to provide a fair and balanced review.” While I appreciate the effort at correction, the book does far more than merely reference Kang’s work, it takes it as one of its primary objects of critique. I believe appropriate scholarly practice demands a clear and forthright acknowledgement of this relationship to the material under review.

    It is more than a little ironic, that a scholar whose work is grounded in exploring how strongly...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.