Twitter Facebook RSS Feed
No Sacred Cows  
Toby Young
Friday 12th January 2018

Once more unto the breach

I naively thought that if I resigned from the Office for Students, stepped down from the Fulbright Commission and apologised for the offensive things I’d said on Twitter the witch-hunt would end. In fact, it has reached a new, frenzied pitch. The mob’s blood lust is up and it won’t rest until it has completely destroyed me.

Things took an ugly turn yesterday when Private Eye published a story saying I had attended ‘a secretive conference’ at University College London last year organised by Dr James Thompson, an Honorary Lecturer in Psychology at UCL. This is an annual affair known as the London Conference on Intelligence. It then went on to summarise some of the more outlandish papers presented at this event in previous years – not in the year I attended, mind ¬– such as a paper arguing that racial differences in penis length predict different levels of parental care. It pointed out that in 2015 and 2016 this conference had been attended by someone described by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a ‘white nationalist and extremist’. It even dug up a blog post by one of the attendees in which he tried to justify child rape. It described all these people as my ‘friends’.

Needless to say, this article has led to a deluge of grotesque smears, on everything from the Canary to Russia Today. (The Russia Today article is headlined: ‘Shamed Toby Young ‘attended secret eugenics conference with neo-Nazis and paedophiles’.) More alarmingly, seemingly respectable, mainstream newspapers have followed up these stories – slightly toned down, of course, but with the same implication: that I am a neo-Nazi, an apologist for paedophilia and God knows what else.

So here are the facts. Yes, I went to the 2017 London Conference on Intelligence – I popped in for a few hours on a Saturday and sat at the back. I did not present a paper or give a lecture or appear on a platform or anything remotely like that. I had not met any of the other people in the lecture room before, save for Dr Thompson, and was unfamiliar with their work. I was completely ignorant of what had been discussed at the same event in previous years. All I knew was that some of them occupied the weird and whacky outer fringe of the world of genetics.

My reason for attending was because I had been asked – as a journalist – to give a lecture by the International Society of Intelligence Researchers at the University of Montreal later in the year and I was planning to talk about the history of controversies provoked by intelligence researchers. I thought the UCL conference would provide me with some anecdotal material for the lecture – and it did. To repeat, I was there as a journalist researching a talk I had to give a few months later and which was subsequently published.

Yes, I heard some people express some pretty odd views. But I don’t accept that listening to someone putting forward an idea constitutes tacit acceptance or approval of that idea, however unpalatable. That’s the kind of reasoning that leads to people being no-platformed on university campuses.

In an article for the Guardian, the University of Montreal conference, where I did actually speak, is described as ‘similar’ to the UCL conference. Complete nonsense. It was a super-respectable, three-day affair held at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Numerous world-renowned academics spoke at it, including Steven Pinker, the famous Harvard professor, and James Flynn, the political scientist who has given his name to the ‘Flynn effect’. In 2015, the same lecture I gave – the Constance Holden Memorial Address — was given by Dr Alice Dreger, a well-regarded author and academic.

You can see the website for the Montreal conference, and the roster of speakers, here. Virtually every one is a tenured professor. To reiterate, that’s the conference I spoke at, not the one in London.

Polly Toynbee joined the lynch mob earlier today – or, rather, re-appeared in the lynch mob – in a column headlined: ‘With his views on eugenics, why does Toby Young still have a job in education?’ In the column, she repeats the smear in the headline, calling me a ‘eugenicist’ – again, the implication being that I’m some kind of neo-Nazi. In case you miss the point, she says I’m on the ‘far right’ and I think ‘the poor are inferior’. (Bit rich, considering Polly sent her children to expensive private schools and mine are all at state schools, but still.)

Polly’s ‘eugenicist’ slur – which has been thrown at me by virtually the entire Parliamentary Labour Party – is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of an article I wrote for an Australian periodical in 2015 called Quadrant and is then ‘backed up’ by Polly by selectively quoting from it. She also throws in the fact that I attended a ‘secretive eugenics conference’, etc., etc.

In that article for Quadrant – which you can read here – I discuss an idea first presented by Julian Savulescu, a professor of philosophy at Oxford, which he summarises as follows:

Imagine you are having in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and you produce four embryos. One is to be implanted. You are told that there is a genetic test for predisposition to scoring well on IQ tests (let’s call this intelligence). If an embryo has gene subtypes (alleles) A, B there is a greater than 50% chance it will score more than 140 if given an ordinary education and upbringing. If it has subtypes C, D there is a much lower chance it will score over 140. Would you test the four embryos for these gene subtypes and use this information in selecting which embryo to implant?

Now, we haven’t yet developed the ‘genetic test’ referred to by Savulescu, and it’s possible that we may never do so because: (a) intelligence may not be genetically-based; and (b) even if it is, we may never discover all the subs-sets and combinations of genes associated with it. But what if it is and we do? Science fiction today becomes science fact tomorrow. In my Quadrant article, I discuss an obvious risk associated with the technology described by Savulescu, namely, that if it is ever invented, the first people to take advantage of it will be the rich so they can give their children an even greater advantage than they currently enjoy. In short, it will make inequality even worse.

My solution to this problem, set out in the article, is that this technology, if it comes on stream, should be banned for everyone except the very poor. I wasn’t proposing sterilisation of the poor or some fiendish form of genetic engineering so they could have babies with ‘high IQ genes’ or anything like that. Just a form of IVF that would be available on the National Health to the least well off, should they wish to take advantage of it. Not mandatory, just an option, a way of giving their children a head start. I was thinking about how to reduce the risk that this new technology will exacerbate existing levels of inequality – how to use it to reduce inequality. I described my proposal as ‘a form of egalitarianism’.

It is for this that Polly Toynbee – who obviously hasn’t read the article – has labelled me a ‘eugenicist’.

You think I’m mischaracterising my article? Dressing it up to make it sound less like an extract from Mein Kampf? Don’t take my word for it. Read this summary of my argument by Iain Brassington, who writes a bio-ethics blog for the Journal of Medical Ethics. After marvelling at all the people who’ve called me a ‘eugenicist’ (including Vince Cable, no less), he points out that what I’m suggesting ‘is in many ways, fairly unremarkable’.

What’s notable from a bio-ethicist’s perspective is just how familiar the arguments being presented here are. It’s hard to read Young’s article without thinking of a good chunk of the work on genetic screening, and on enhancement, that’s been done over the past few years... it’s pretty standard stuff in seminar discussions about screening; and nor is there anything that is obviously morally beyond the pale.

Hear that Polly? Nothing that is obviously morally beyond the pale. He thinks I’m wrong about lots of stuff, by the way – just not a Nazi. Read his piece. It’s very good.

So that’s the long and the short of it. Because, as a journalist, I went and had a look at a strange conference being held at UCL – and because I discussed a familiar bio-ethics problem in an obscure Australian periodical – I’m some kind of ‘far right’ nut job who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near kids, let alone schools.

It has been suggested – in the Guardian and elsewhere – that the reason I stepped down from the Office for Students is because I knew the Private Eye article was coming out and my number was up. That’s balls. I said some stupid, puerile things on Twitter late at night of which I’m thoroughly ashamed and for which I’ve unreservedly apologised. It became clear that having said those things, I couldn’t serve on the Office for Students without causing an almighty stink that would render it unable to do its job. But I’m not remotely ashamed of having attended the London Conference on Intelligence.

I believe in free speech. That includes defending the right of researchers and academics, however beyond the pale, to present their findings to other researchers in their field at academic conferences so they can be scrutinised and debated. If you believe someone is putting forward a theory that is wrong, unsupported by the evidence, you should want their theories to be exposed to scrutiny, not swept under the carpet. No-platforming people whose ideas you disapprove of is self-defeating.

That’s been my lifelong credo – and I had hoped to bring it to bear in the Office for Students, which has been tasked with protecting academic freedom. That is not to be and I have accepted that. But enough already. Just because I sat at the back in a lecture room at UCL one afternoon, scribbling away in my reporter’s notepad, while some right-wing fruitcakes held forth about ‘dysgenics’ does not make me a Nazi. If it did, then the fact that Jeremy Corbyn regularly attended a conference run by Holocaust-denier Paul Eisen would make him an anti-Semite.

None of the views expressed in this article necessarily reflect the views of the organisations Toby is linked with – except the Spectator

COMMENT | COMMENTS SO FAR: 10 [ FIXED LINK ] Bookmark and Share

Comments page 1 of 1 - 10 post(s)

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Concerned Ulsterman on 13-01-2018 12:16:

Your Quadrant article says :

"In due course, why not conduct a trial in a city like Detroit and see if it works? "

I understand that Detroit's is 83% black. Given the tarnished history of the eugenics movement, and the horrific experiments inflicted on Afro-Americans, Afro-Germans and Jews to further this quack science, I can be forgiven for drawing an inference from this.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Si Pugh on 13-01-2018 16:01:

@Concerned Ulsterman. You quote the Quadrant article, but did you actually read it? It would seem not. Detroit may be 85% black, but it is also a community that has failed utterly. Would you rather conduct the trial in Montpelier, Vermont?

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Concerned Ulsterman on 13-01-2018 18:43:

Why defend the man? If I had not have read the article I would not have commented. Grimsby in England isn't exactly thriving. Why doesn't Young, an Englishman, recommend that his own demographic try out this (quack)nonsense first? Smacks of the dodgy Tuskegee syphilis experiment to me. Of course, being a moral kind of human, fully aware that eugenics reached its apogee with the Nazi death camps, I'd rather this so-called science be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Si Pugh on 13-01-2018 20:49:

@Concerned Ulsterman. Your cliched twaddle is beyond contempt.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Concerned Ulsterman on 14-01-2018 05:37:

Not twaddle at all, I have evidenced my argument, pointing out an obviously troubling quote from the man himself.You offer nothing. It's a reasonable question to ask. If an Englishman thinks that manipulating the gene pool is a great idea, why doesn't he advocate trying it on his own demographic first? It's simple enough question.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Si Pugh on 14-01-2018 06:49:

@Concerned Ulsterman. He does not suggest manipulating the gene pool. Read the article. He is suggesting screening embryos for intelligence just as people screen against Huntington's disease. The whole point of the article is to illustrate a method of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, which he believes is down to intelligence, a hereditary characteristic. By narrowing the intelligence gap you narrow the wealth gap. If the technology were made available to all, then the wealthy and therefore the intelligent, would ensure that they got first rights to it and the gap would increase rather than narrow.

Let me reemphasise, there is no gene manipulation involved. The embryos would be created by both parents, in vitro, with the best embryos being selected. Read note 28 appended to the article.

As for asking why I defend him, it is because I believe he is a decent, sensible and intelligent man with a sense of humour. Having said that, while I think the jokes he made were perfectly harmless, except to those determined to be offended by everything, he was silly to have done so on Twitter, which I consider to be a mug's game. But I am disappointed that he apologised. He definitely went down in my estimation for having done so as it was a reaction to pressure from ill-intended people.

Incidentally, the Kleenex joke was made years before by Harry Enfield in respect of the film Schindler's List.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Concerned Ulsterman. on 14-01-2018 08:44:

Anything that involves interfering with the natural mating and birth process and indeed the natural selection process that follows, is manipulating the gene pool. We have done it with dogs, cattle, sheep etc, milennia ago. I don't see humans as animals.It doesn't matter if the embryos are not interfered with directly. The fact remains that perfectly viable embryos are discarded and that undoubtedly affects the diversity of the gene pool, the reason why we have sexual reproduction in the first place. One can argue about the ethics of screening for seriuos hereditary diseases, which have real markers and a demonstrable benefit to both parent and society. That is different to insisting that people undergo invasive, costly, and unecessary treatment for no obvious advantage, because they happen to be poor (or live in Detroit). The argument suggested is claptrap in any event. If,in Young's daft dystopian world, this fairytale traceable intelligence gene actually exists and the poor will accept the imposition of IVF willingly , and it works, what would happen? The (white) lower middle classes , the just about managing who, unlike the rich can't afford genetic manipulation and aren't going to receive it from the state, they would be the new underclass. Imagine the political consequences of that. As far as I'm concerned, the state should stay well clear of the contents of my bollocks.

Wealth is more often or not inherited. Is that down to genes or a large sum of money and assets passed on from the deceased? We know the common sense answer to that one. This quack science should have died after World War 2 quite frankly.

Still have not answered the question as to why, if this joke science is so good, Mr Young doesn't argue for its use for his own demographic.

I don't see his blokeish behaviour as necessarily relevant as to whether he is fit for office.Frankie Boyle is also an acquired taste, but he's not in a public-serving job. The question is whether the people using the OFS would have any confidence in the body that employs people with views which are seencontrary to Civil Service values.Young has answered that question himself, by resigning. Putting aside Twitter, his association with the LCI provides sufficient grounds for concern.

Quack science?
Posted by Sunspot on 18-01-2018 19:37:

Let's see, is this replicated finding "quack science"?

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Concerned Ulsterman. on 19-01-2018 06:07:

Bah, is it peer reviewed? Can you tell from that googled extract? I demand better.From the limited amount of info, it looks like your typical hyperbole from some twin studies crap. This kind of stuff has been around since the 1870's when Galton was playing around with eugenics. There is no single gene for intelligence. Not relevant either. How do genes affect wealth, after all an experienced plumber with no formal qualifications will outperform a graduate civil servant when it comes to pay etc every time. What matters is opportunity and skills, not antiquated quackery which ultimately led to the extermination of millions of Europeans for no reason. Give a poor man a trade and a little capital and they will go far. Give rich fools your money (Carillion or Enron) and you will lose it.As I demonstrated earlier,Mr Youngs idea of genetically manipulating the poor, not that they would accept it willingly, is only going to make the middle class the new underclass.What's ther point of that.

Re: Once more unto the breach
Posted by Luke Miller on 29-03-2018 12:49:

Don't know, It's true or not. Let's play

Your name:




Twitter @JohnCassidy Hey John. Follow me so I can slide into your DMs.  (10 hours ago)


The shocking truth about Jordan Peterson by Wesley Yang -
The intellectual dark web by Bari Weiss -
How identity politics is harming the sciences by Heather Mac Donald -
The fall of the German Empire by Ross Douthat -
How Tom Wolfe became Tom Wolfe by Michael Lewis - Vanity Fair
The neuro-diversity case for free speech by Geoffrey Miller -
The Age of Outrage by Jonathan Haidt -
The Warlock Hunt by Claire Berlinski -
Is classical liberalism conservative? by Yarom Hazony -
The Implosion of Western Liberalism by Patrick Lee Miller -
The Eton of the East End - Daily Mail
The reactionary temptation by Andrew Sullivan -
The book that scandalised New York intellectuals by Louis Menand -
To understand Britain today, look to the 17th Century by Adrian Wooldridge -
The crisis in France by Christopher Caldwell -
A Visit to Michaela School by Patrick Alexander -
Why parenting may not matter by Brian Boutwell -
Trump Establishment's Cultural Significance Explained by Michael Wolff -
Branching histories of the 2016 referendum by Dominic Cummings -
Putin's Real Long Game by Molly K McKew -
The Flight 93 Election by Publius Decius Mus -
How the education gap is tearing politics apart by David Runciman -
What's wrong with identity politics by Graeme Archer -
Grammars and the grain of truth by Jonathan Porter
Anti-Brexit: Britain's new class war by John O'Sullivan -
The English Revolt by Robert Tombs -
Democracies end when they are too democratic by Andrew Sullivan -
Human beings really are making progress by Steven Pinker -
What ISIS really wants by Graeme Wood -
A society ripe for Submission by Douglas Murray -
Why I'm a Conservative Teacher by Jonathan Porter -
Corbyn's Inconvenient Truth – He wanted the IRA to win -
Why I've become Tory scum by Tony Parsons -
Inside Westminster's free school -
Robert Conquest obit -
Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite – it's so much worse than that -


Andrew Lilico
Andrew Sullivan
Arts and Letters Daily
Bagehot's Notebook
BBC News
BBC Sport
Benedict Brogan
Brendan O'Neill
Bruce Anderson
Coffee House
Conservative Home
Damian McBride
Damian Thompson
Dan Hodges
Daniel Hannon
Ed West
Frank Furedi
Guido Fawkes
Harry Phibbs
Iain Dale
Iain Martin
James Delingpole
James Wolcott
Joe Murphy
John Rentoul
Labour List
Mark Steyn
Matt Drudge
Mehdi Hasan
Melanie Phillips
Michael Wolff
Nick Cohen
Nick Robinson
Nikki Finke
Paul Waugh
Peter Hitchens
Political Betting
Right Minds
Rob Long
Rod Liddle
Sophy Ridge
Stephen Pollard
The Arts Desk
The Corner
The Daily Beast
The First Post
The Omnivore
The Onion
Tim Shipman
Tim Stanley
Tom Shone


AA Gill
Aidan Hartley
Allison Pearson
Allister Heath
AO Scott
Boris Johnson
Charles Moore
Cosmo Landesman
Daniel Finkelstein
David Brooks
Fraser Nelson
George Monbiot
Giles Coren
Henry Winter
James Delingpole
Jan Moir
Janan Ganesh
Jeremy Clarkson
Jeremy Warner
Jim White
Jonathan Freedland
Lloyd Evans
Manohla Dargis
Martin Samuel
Mary Ann Sieghart
Matthew d'Ancona
Matthew Norman
Maureen Dowd
Michiko Kakutani
Owen Jones
Patrick O'Flynn
Paul Krugman
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Oborne
Philip Collins
Polly Toynbee
Quentin Letts
Rachel Johnson
Rod Liddle
Roy Greenslade
Tim Montgomerie
Trevor Kavanagh
UK Book Cover

  • Buy the book on

  • Buy the book on

  • UK Book Cover

  • Buy the book on

  • Buy the book on

  • Audio Book Cover

  • Buy the audio book from
    Whole Story Audio
  • DVD Cover

  • Buy the DVD from

  • Buy the DVD from

  • IMdb Page on the film