Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
That depends on whether or not you consider psychology a "science." Many physical scientists wouldn't, especially if you're talking about psychology in the 1950s when the DSM was created.
Are we talking about objecting to pseudoscientific conjecture, or objecting to theories based on well-established empirical data? I'm not really familiar with them, but I doubt very seriously that the racial superiority theories that you're talking about were backed up with anything resembling actual scientific data.
To some degree of course you are right. But you are also wrong. Some of these guys spent a lot of time measuring craniums and giving out intelligence tests - with zero sociological or anthrolopological knowhow, but that really is beside the point. Some of today's theories may turn out to have been stretched to far, based on false interpretations, considered fundamental but were actually surface, etc. Some theories now accepted as THE TRUTH May turn out to fit perfectly with other ways of looking at humans or the universe. The objections may turn out to be right on.
Tacit current scientific theory seems to be that gene modification risks can be kept to a minimum. Some people whose gut feeling goes against this tacit theory are seen to be irrational.
We'll see.