My comment will not be as "enlightened" as the others because I cut out early for health reasons, so I hope at least someone mentioned the Putnam article.

While not entirely germane to the topic of diversity, I must admit I was a little let down by Putnam. Not that he found this effect, but that he waited so long and did so much more research to find another cause simply because the results flew in the face of his morals. Had he found that diversity increased social capital, would he have sought another cause for this effect or would he have stopped in smug satisfaction without investigating so thoroughly other potential causes for this particular effect.

I had always thought of science as a “just the facts, ma’am” field which lay beyond reproach or at the very least beyond the scope of politics and subjective morals. But stories such as these make me wonder if other scientists are sitting on presumably “un-PC” data for fear of promoting viewpoints they don’t necessarily agree with. What does such a practice do to the objectivity of science? How can on ethically use results to drive policy decisions, such as how to integrate individuals of diverse backgrounds, with such a subjective and context-specific skew to the data?

I actually discussed this in my own personal blog a few months ago, and I invite others to read it and the comments which follow.

http://juxtacidic.livejournal.com/44320.html