In his response to comments by me, Jon Marks and Jennifer Raff, Wade does not take on any substantive aspect of the debate; rather, he misrepresents the science again and takes a shot at our credentials as scholars. Here is a very quick response to his comments, in hopes of correcting the record and getting this debate back to the science.
Wade can't justify his first and primary point: his claim that the human racial groups we recognize today culturally are scientifically meaningful, discrete biological divisions of humans. This claim provides a direct basis for the whole second half of the book, in which he makes speculative arguments about national character.
This is an unexpected claim, because the study itself shows that the genetic test did not predict alcoholism at all; the researchers demonstrated that the predictive ability of their test was not better than tossing a coin. This incorrect interpretation of genetic prediction studies is common, unfortunately.
Wade's approach to race is particularly dangerous because his argument is that he is just a defender of scientific truth and that a cabal of left-leaning academics is obfuscating reality with oppressive, even fascistic, denials of the truth about race. Unfortunately, he is either ignorant of the actual data and diversity of research or he is willfully avoiding them.