Grab -

Although the particular drug cited in the original link, and reviewed in other articles I've seen recently, happened to have potential only for those who were - by whatever definition was used in the studies - "black," it may be assumed that similar limits and potentialities for the usefulness of other medications may need to be based on their use within specific target populations and on their not being used in other populations. The determination of "who's in which" is still an area of very real uncertainty for those in medicine.

Unfortunately, political correctnes, politics, and prejudices do intrude on making "clinically appropriate" decisions; but fortunately there does appear to be some recognition that there is a problem. Thus far, the defining of what the specifics of the problem may be is still in contention, so it's very difficult to evaluate any proposed "solutions."

There is the difficulty of deciding whether one should trust those who are most likely to come up with "solutions," especially if they do so before we know what the question(s) really is/are.

With respect to the nonsense (IMO) about genetic (racial) bases for intelligence - no one has demonstrated that it's a survival trait for any large group. Intelligence above the norm may have value to individuals, but with only a bit of t.i.c. its easy to observe that those who's intelligence is absent (or concealed) do seem to be more prolific (and successful?) as members of the herd. It's quite possible that a successful "culture" (Darwinian sense) depends on having most of its members not-too-bright.

John