race and racism that it implies for scientific practitioners. First, any serious science practitioners engaged in research about human biological variation should know many of the facts about human variation, scientific racism, and the partiality of science that Marks discusses (even if they have to research this themselves). Second, even if science practitioners were provided with all the knowledge on race and racism, it is questionable that this would ameliorate racism in science. That science is racist in the way that Marks put it here cannot be the full story. The two issues I have just mentioned are a symptom of my last concern with the book— namely that Marks could have spent more time directly answering (especially the ‘why?’ part of) the question, Is Science Racist?. As I have indicated, one way in which he tried to answer the question was by focusing on the nature of race. He quickly dismissed attempts at biologically defining race through genetic clusters when he could have given a stronger argument. More importantly, the answer he gave to the central question could have been more expansive, had he widened his definition of racism in science—by more deeply considering issues of power and control, for example.

中文翻译：

---

波函数的含义：寻找量子力学的本体论

这对科学从业者意味着种族和种族主义。首先，从事人类生物变异研究的任何认真的科学从业人员都应该了解许多有关人类变异，科学种族主义以及马克斯讨论的科学偏见的事实（即使他们必须自己进行研究）。第二，即使向科学从业人员提供了有关种族和种族主义的所有知识，但能否改善科学中的种族主义是令人怀疑的。马克斯所说的科学是种族主义的，这不可能是完整的故事。我刚才提到的两个问题是我对这本书的最后关注的一个征兆-即马克斯本可以花更多的时间直接回答（特别是“为什么？”部分）“科学种族主义”这个问题。正如我所指出的，他试图回答这个问题的一种方式是关注种族的本质。当他本可以提出更强有力的论据时，他迅速放弃了试图通过基因簇从生物学上定义种族的尝试。更重要的是，如果他扩大了对科学中种族主义的定义，例如通过更深入地考虑权力和控制问题，他对核心问题的回答可能会更加广阔。