Richard Lynn | |
|---|---|
 Lynn in 2008 | |
| Born | (1930-02-20)20 February 1930 Hampstead, England |
| Died | July 2023(2023-07-00) (aged 93) |
| Alma mater | King's College, Cambridge (BA,PhD) |
| Known for | Research concerningrace and intelligence |
| Spouses | |
| Children | 3 |
| Father | Sydney Harland |
| Scientific career | |
| Fields | Psychology |
| Institutions | |
Richard Lynn (20 February 1930 – July 2023) was a controversial English psychologist and self-described "scientific racist"[1] who advocated for a genetic relationship betweenrace and intelligence. He was the editor-in-chief ofMankind Quarterly, awhite supremacist journal.[a] He was lecturer in psychology at theUniversity of Exeter and professor of psychology at theEconomic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at theUniversity of Ulster at Coleraine. Lynn was a professoremeritus of psychology atUlster University, but had the title withdrawn by the university in 2018.[7]
Many scientists criticised Lynn's work for lacking scientific rigour, misrepresenting data, and for promoting a racialist political agenda.[b] Lynn was associated with a network of academics and organisations that promote scientific racism.[c] He had also advocated fringe positions regardingsexual differences in intelligence.[24] In two books co-written withTatu Vanhanen, Lynn and Vanhanen argued that differences in developmental indexes among various nations are partially caused by the averageIQ of their citizens.Earl Hunt and Werner Wittmann (2008) questioned the validity of their research methods and the highly inconsistent quality of the available data points that Lynn and Vanhanen used in their analysis.[8] Lynn also argued that a high fertility rate among individuals of low IQ constitutes a major threat to Western civilisation, as he believed people with low IQ scores will eventually outnumber high-IQ individuals. He argued in favour ofanti-immigration andeugenics policies, provoking heavy criticism internationally.[9][25][10] Lynn's work was among the main sources cited in the bookThe Bell Curve, and he was one of 52 scientists who signed an opinion piece in theWall Street Journal entitled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence",[26] which endorsed a number of the views presented in the book.
He was also on the board of thePioneer Fund, which fundsMankind Quarterly and has also been described asracist.[27][6] He was on the editorial board of the journalPersonality and Individual Differences until 2019.[citation needed]
Richard Lynn's father wasSydney Cross HarlandFRS (1891–1982), an agricultural botanist and geneticist, who had lived and worked inTrinidad and laterPeru extensively, establishing himself as an expert in cotton genetics. Lynn's mother Ann Freeman (1905–1964) was originally brought up in Trinidad and then educated atBournemouth Girls' High School andHarrogate Ladies' College, and had moved back to theCaribbean to act as housekeeper for Harland. Harland was a close colleague of Ann Freeman's father — the director of agriculture in theWest Indies — but was still married to his first wife Emily. After a liaison inNew York City between Harland and Freeman in 1929,[28] his mother crossed the Atlantic to resettle near to her parents inHampstead, where Lynn was born on 20 February 1930.[29][30] InLondon and thenBristol, his mother raised him as asingle parent during his childhood and adolescence. In 1949, after his father returned to Britain as professor of genetics at theUniversity of Manchester, he met up with him roughly every year; Harland's younger brother Bernard became a companion of Lynn's mother, living together until their deaths in 1964.[31][32][33][34][30][35]
Lynn was educated atBristol Grammar School andKing's College, Cambridge, where he received a Ph.D. in 1956.[36][37]
Lynn worked[when?] as lecturer in psychology at theUniversity of Exeter and as professor of psychology at theEconomic and Social Research Institute,Dublin, and atUlster University.[31][32]
In 1974, Lynn published a positive review ofRaymond Cattell'sA New Morality from Science: Beyondism, in which he expressed the opinion that "incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall" and that "the foreign aid which we give to the under-developed world is a mistake, akin to keeping going incompetent species like the dinosaurs which are not fit for the competitive struggle for existence".[38] In a 2011 interview, Lynn cited the work of Cattell,Francis Galton,Hans Eysenck andCyril Burt as important influences.[39]
In 1982, Richard Lynn published a paper about the generational increase in performance on IQ tests, now known as theFlynn effect slightly beforeJames Flynn's publications documenting the same phenomenon.[40][41][42] A few researchers have called the phenomenon the "Lynn–Flynn effect" as a way of recognizing both their contributions.[40][41][43] In a 2013 paper, James Flynn offered his comments on this aspect of the effect's naming:
Calling massive IQ gains over time the "Flynn Effect" was an accident of history, a label Charles Murray coined inThe Bell Curve in 1994. It is not a verdict a court would have been likely to hand down if it had an eye for the historical record. [...] Therefore, I give my thanks to Charles Murray and my apologies to Richard Lynn.[44]
InDysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (1996), Lynn reviewed the history of eugenics anddysgenics, from the early writings ofBénédict Morel and Francis Galton through the rise of eugenics in the early 20th century and its subsequent collapse. As a eugenicist himself, Lynn lists three concerns: deterioration in health, intelligence and conscientiousness. Lynn claims that, unlike modern societies, natural selection in pre-industrial societies favoured traits such as intelligence and "character".[45]
According to Lynn, those with greater educational achievement have fewer children, while children with lower IQs come from larger families.[46] Lynn claimed thattwin studies provide evidence of a genetic basis for these differences. Lynn proposes thatconscientiousness is heritable, and that criminals tend to have more offspring. Lynn agreed withLewis Terman's comment in 1922 that "children of successful and cultivated parents test higher than children from wretched and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better".[47]
A review ofDysgenics by evolutionary biologistW. D. Hamilton, published posthumously in 2000 in theAnnals of Human Genetics, praised the book and its endorsement of eugenics, saying "discussing the large bank of evidence that still accumulates on heritability of aptitudes and differentials of fertility, shows in this book that almost all of the worries of the early eugenicists were well-founded, in spite of the relative paucity of their evidence at the time".[48]
PsychologistNicholas Mackintosh, reviewing the book for theJournal of Biosocial Science in 2002, wrote that Lynn "argues that the ideas of the eugenicists were correct and that we ignore them at our peril". Mackintosh criticised Lynn for "not fully acknowledg[ing] the negative relationship between social class and education on the one hand, and infant mortality and life expectancy on the other". He questioned Lynn's interpretation of data, and pointed out that according to Lynn's reading of the theory of natural selection, "if it is true that those with lower IQ and less education are producing more offspring, then they are fitter than those of higher IQ and more education". According to Mackintosh, eugenicist arguments such as Lynn's are not based on a "biological imperative, but rather on a particular set of value judgements".[49]
InEugenics: A Reassessment (2001), Lynn claimed that embryo selection as a form of standard reproductive therapy would raise the average intelligence of the population by 15 IQ points in a single generation (p. 300). If couples produce a hundred embryos, he argues, the range in potential IQ would be around 15 points above and below the parents' IQ. Lynn argues that this gain could be repeated each generation, eventually stabilising the population's IQ at a theoretical maximum of around 200 after six or seven generations.[50]
In the late 1970s, Lynn wrote that he found the average IQ of the Japanese to be 106.6, and that ofChinese people living in Singapore to be 110.[51] Lynn's psychometric studies were cited in the 1994 bookThe Bell Curve and were criticised as part of the controversy surrounding that book.[52] In his 2002 article, "Skin color and intelligence in African Americans", published in 2002 inPopulation and Environment, Lynn concluded that lightness of skin color in African Americans is positively correlated with IQ, which he claims derives from the higher proportion of Caucasian admixture.[53][54] However, Lynn failed to control for childhood environmental factors that are related to intelligence, and his research was criticised by a subsequent article published in the journal by Mark E. Hill. The article concluded that "...[Lynn's] bivariate association disappears once childhood environmental factors are considered".[55] In his response to Hill, Lynn wrote that "The conclusion that there is a true association between skin color and IQ is consistent with the hypothesis that genetic factors are partly responsible for the black–white difference in intelligence... the evidence that a statistically significant correlation is present confirms the genetic hypothesis".[56] This statement was described byMarcus Feldman as "nonsensical".[57]
In 2010Earl B. Hunt summarized Lynn's research in this area along with that ofTatu Vanhanen, that he is "highly critical of their empirical work, and even more so of their interpretations", but that they "do deserve credit for raising important questions in a way that has resulted in interesting and important findings".[58]
Lynn proposed the "cold winters theory" of the evolution of human intelligence, which postulates that intelligence evolved to greater degrees as an evolutionary adaptation to colder environments.[59] According to this theory, cold environments produce a selective pressure for higher intelligence because they present cognitive demands not found in warmer environments, such as the need to find ways of keeping warm, and the stockpiling of food for winter.[60]James Flynn has criticized this theory as being inconsistent with the global distribution of IQ scores. If the theory were correct, the people ofSingapore, who originated primarily from China's southern Guangdong province, would possess a lower average IQ than the people of mainland China, when in fact the reverse is true.[61] In 2012 Scott A. McGreal, writing forPsychology Today, described it as ajust-so story, saying the theory fails to account for challenges specific to warmer environments, and also does not explain why hominids who evolved for millions of years in colder environments (such asNeanderthals andHomo erectus) did not also evolve similar intelligence.[62]
InIQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), Lynn and Vanhanen argued that differences in nations' per capitagross domestic product (GDP) are partially caused by IQ differences, meaning that certain nations are wealthier in part,because their citizens are more intelligent.[63][64] K. Richardson wrote in the journalHeredity that "an association between IQ and national wealth is hardly surprising, though its causal direction is the opposite of that assumed by L&V. But I would not take the 'evidence' presented in this book to serve arguments either way."[64] Other economists who reviewed the book also pointed to numerous flaws throughout the study, from unreliable IQ statistics for 81 of the 185 countries used in the analysis,[65] to insecure estimates of the national IQ in the remaining 101 countries in the sample that did not have published IQ data.[66] This was in addition to the highly unreliable GDP estimates for present-day developing countries[64] and the even more unreliable historical data estimating GDP and national IQ dating back to the early 19th century, well before either concept even existed.[64][66] Even the data on the 81 countries where direct evidence of IQ scores were actually available were highly problematic. For example, the data sets containingSurinamese,Ethiopian, andMexican IQ scores were based on unrepresentative samples of children who had emigrated from their nation of birth to theNetherlands,Israel, andArgentina, respectively.[8] In a book review for theJournal of Economic Literature, economist Thomas Nechyba wrote: "Such sweeping conclusions based on relatively weak statistical evidence and dubious presumptions seem misguided at best and quite dangerous if taken seriously. It is therefore difficult to find much to recommend in this book."[63]
Lynn's 2006Race Differences in Intelligence[67] organises data on intelligence into ten population groups and (in the 2015 edition) covers over 500 published articles..[68]
Lynn's meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores ofEast Asians (105),Europeans (99), theInuit (91),Southeast Asians andindigenous peoples of the Americas each (87),Pacific Islanders (85),Middle Easterners,South Asians andNorth Africans each (84), East and West Africans (67),Australian Aborigines (62) andBushmen andPygmies (54).[69][70][71][better source needed]
Lynn has previously argued that nutrition is the best-supported environmental explanation for variation in the lower range,[72] and a number of other environmental explanations have been advanced. In his 2011 bookThe Chosen People, Lynn offers largely genetic explanations for Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (generally estimated at 107–115 IQ).[73]
Observing a correlation between brain size and measured IQ, Lynn postulated that men and women may have brains that are different in size in proportion with differences in body size.[31] In 1994, Lynn formulated adevelopmental theory of sex differences in intelligence, postulating that girls would have a developmental advantage over boys at the ages of 9 to 14, but that boys would continue to develop and increase in mean IQ relative to girls from the age of 15 onwards.[74][75] In 2004, Lynn and Irwing conducted a meta-analysis of 57 studies from 14 countries, reporting a male advantage in IQ (measured viaRaven's Progressive Matrices) that begins to appear at the age of 15, eventually reaching an average of 5 IQ points at the ages of 20-29 and onwards.[76]
In a 2006 study ofNaglieri Nonverbal Ability Test results in 5-17 year olds, Johannes Rojahn andJack Naglieri reported findings that demonstrate a female advantage in the 10-13 age group and a male advantage in 15- and 16-year-olds. However, the authors conclude that the disparities were smaller than predicted by Lynn and too small to be of practical importance.[77]
In 2008, Lynn and Irwing proposed that sinceworking memory ability correlates highest withg factor, researchers would have no choice but to accept greater male intelligence if differences on working memory tasks are found. As a result, aneuroimaging study published by Schmidt et al. (2009) conducted an investigation into this proposal by measuring sex differences on ann-back working memory task. The results found no sex difference in working memory capacity, thus contradicting the position put forward by Lynn and Irwing (2008).[78][79] Roberto Colom andPaul M. Thompson, writing inThe Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences, conclude based on the findings of Schmidt et al. and others that "there is no sex difference in working memory capacity".[78]
In a 2005 article, Lynn reported thatMexicans of European descent had an IQ of 98,Mestizos in Mexico had an IQ of 94, andindigenous peoples of Mexico had an IQ of 83, explaining the lower-than-expected IQ of Indians on their poor nutrition and other social factors.[80][non-primary source needed]
In a 2010 article about IQ in Italy,[81] Lynn contended that IQs are highest in the north (103 inFriuli-Venezia Giulia) and lowest in the south (89 inSicily) and are correlated with average incomes, stature, infant mortality, literacy and education. The lack of any actual IQ test data (as Lynn used PISA score data) among other methodological issues and Lynn's consequent conclusions were criticised.[82][83]Other large surveys in Italy have found much smaller differences in educational achievement.[84][85] Several subsequent studies based on the direct assessment of IQs failed to report significant differences among Italian regions. On the contrary, the results from the Southern half of the country (103) are sometimes higher than those from the North Central regions (100–101).[86][87]
In 2012 Lynn similarly claimed that southern Spaniards have lower IQs than northern Spaniards do and believes that this is because of Middle Eastern and North African genes in the South.[88]
In a 2015 article published inIntelligence about the regional IQ differences inTurkey, Lynn, Sakar and Cheng analysed the PISA scores ofNUTS-1 regions of the country and calculated the average IQ scores of said provinces, claiming there being a high correlation (r= .91) between the two metrics. The team took the average PISA score of UK as baseline to represent an IQ of 100. The paper concluded that the NUTS regions with the highest IQ average wereWest Marmara (97.7),East Marmara (97.4) andCentral Anatolia (97.3), meanwhile the regions with the lowest scores were made up byCentral East Anatolia (87.3) andSoutheast Anatolia (86.3), respectively. The article suggested multiple theories to explain regional IQ disparity, such as historical migration to wealthier Western coastal areas having a eugenic effect on intelligence, or economic growth being inhibited by the mountainous terrain in the East, causing a negative effect on IQ. The paper compared the results of the study to those of Italy and US, citing a gross regional variation.[89]
The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ and Inequality Worldwide is a book by Lynn, originally publishedWashington Summit Publishers in 2008. The book's stated purpose is to determine whether the racial and socioeconomic differences in the United States in average IQ, as originally claimed by the 1994 bookThe Bell Curve, also exist in other countries. Lynn's book claims that such differences exist in other countries, in addition to in the United States. It was reviewed favorably by researchersJ. Philippe Rushton,[90]Donald Templer in white nationalist publicationThe Occidental Quarterly,[91] andGerhard Meisenberg.[92][unreliable source?]
A less favorable review of the book was written byWendy Johnson of theUniversity of Edinburgh, who wrote inIntelligence, which had Lynn on its editorial board,[93] that "... despite many possible statistical and psychometric quibbles, the data Lynn presents in this book are essentially correct. At the same time, despite Lynn's protestations to the contrary, these data do little or nothing to address the questions of why this is the case or whether the situation is inevitable or permanent. Like the other theorists he criticizes, Lynn confuses correlation with causation."[94]
Lynn[when?] served on the board of directors of the Pioneer Fund and was also on the editorial board of the Pioneer-supported journalMankind Quarterly, both of which have been the subject of controversy for their dealing withrace and intelligence andeugenics and have been accused of racism, e.g., byAvner Falk and William Tucker.[6][95][96] Lynn'sUlster Institute for Social Research received $609,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996.[97]
Lynn's 2001 bookThe Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund[98] is a history and defence of the fund, in which he argues that, for the last 60 years, it has been "nearly the only non-profit foundation making grants for study and research into individual and group differences and the hereditary basis of human nature ... Over those 60 years, the research funded by Pioneer has helped change the face of social science."
Lynn's review work on global racial differences in cognitive ability has been cited for misrepresenting the research of other scientists and has been criticised for unsystematic methodology and distortion.
In 1994,Charles Lane criticised Lynn's methodology in his article inThe New York Review of Books, "The Tainted Sources ofThe Bell Curve" (1994).[99] Pioneer Fund presidentHarry Weyher, Jr. published a response accusing the reviewer of errors and misrepresentation; Lane also replied to this with a rebuttal.[100]
In 1995 psychologistLeon Kamin faulted Lynn in a critical review ofThe Bell Curve, for "disregarding scientific objectivity", "misrepresenting data", and for "racism".[101] Kamin argues that the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited byRichard Herrnstein andCharles Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also reproached Lynn for concocting IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.[102] Kamin also noted that Lynn excluded a study that found no difference in white and black performance, and ignored the results of a study which showed black scores were higher than white scores.[103]
In 2002, David King, the coordinator of theconsumer watchdog groupHuman Genetics Alert, said: "we find Richard Lynn's claims that some human beings are inherently superior to others repugnant".[104] In 2003, Gavin Evans wrote inThe Guardian that Lynn was one of a number of "flat-earthers" who have claimed that "Africans, or black Americans, or poor people" are less intelligent than Westerners. He further wrote, with regard to Lynn's claims that Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, "What is remarkable in all this is not so much that there are people who believe him – after all, there are still those who insist the Earth is flat – but rather that any creditable institution should take it seriously."[105]
The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate,Equatorial Guinea, was taken from a group of children in a home for developmentally disabled children in Spain.[106] Corrections were applied to adjust for differences in IQ cohorts (the "Flynn" effect) on the assumption that the same correction could be applied internationally, without regard to the cultural or economic development level of the country involved. While there appears to be rather little evidence on cohort effect upon IQ across the developing countries, one study inKenya (Daley, Whaley, Sigman, Espinosa, & Neumann, 2003) shows a substantially larger cohort effect than is reported for developed countries.[8]
In 2002 an academic dispute arose after Lynn claimed that some races are inherently morepsychopathic than others, and other psychologists criticised his data and interpretations.[107] Kamin said that "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with the scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity".[24]
In 2006, John P. Jackson Jr., of theUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, disputed Lynn's claim inThe Science of Human Diversity that the Pioneer Fund was dedicated to funding objective scientific research. Jackson wrote that "... although the Pioneer Fund may not have endorsed any policy proposal officially, it has funded a group that is remarkably uniform in its opposition to school integration, immigration, and affirmative action".[108]In 2010, on his 80th birthday, Lynn was celebrated with a special issue ofPersonality and Individual Differences dedicated to his work that was edited by Danish psychologistHelmuth Nyborg with contributions by Nyborg, J. Philippe Rushton,Satoshi Kanazawa and several others.[109]
In February 2018, the Ulster University students' union issued a motion calling for the university to revoke Lynn's title as emeritus professor. The motion argued that Lynn's title should be revoked because he has made statements that are "racist and sexist in nature".[110] The university agreed to this request in April 2018.[111]
Lynn is listed by theSouthern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in their extremist files as awhite nationalist.[24] The SPLC has kept a record of Lynn's controversial statements: for example, in a 2011 interview with then far-right artistAlex Kurtagić, Lynn stated: "I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries."[24] In 1995, Lynn was quoted by themedia watchdog groupFairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) saying: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples ... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."[112]
FAIR also quoted Lynn as having stated in an interview with the right-wing British political magazineRight NOW!:
I think the only solution lies in the breakup of the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are concentrated in the Southwest, the Southeast and the East, but the Northwest and the far Northeast, Maine, Vermont and upstate New York have a large predominance of whites. I believe these predominantly white states should declare independence and secede from the Union. They would then enforce strict border controls and provide minimum welfare, which would be limited to citizens. If this were done, white civilisation would survive within this handful of states.[24]
The SPLC stated that "for 50 years, Richard Lynn has been at the forefront of scientific racism",[24] that "he argues that the nations with the highest IQs must subjugate or eliminate the lower-IQ groups within their borders in order to preserve their dominance".[24] The centre has also stated that "Lynn uses his authority as professor (emeritus) of psychology at the University of Ulster to argue for the genetic inferiority of non-white people."[24]
Lynn was a frequent speaker at conferences hosted by thewhite-nationalist publicationAmerican Renaissance.[113][23]
On 23 July 2023, it was announced that Lynn had died. He was 93.[37][114]
Lynn is a self-described 'scientific racist'...
Richard Lynn, for example, a self-described 'scientific racist,' ...
...Richard Lynn, who has described himself as a 'scientific racist'.
Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with the scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity
At best Lynn's approach is racial propaganda or biased research driven by a strong prejudice against blacks and a strong need to believe in their genetic inferiority. At worst, Lynn's research arises out of a malicious and dishonest effort to demonstrate the genetic inferiority of blacks
Among this book's strengths are that it argues for a point of view unpopular within the scientific community, it relies on hard data to make its points, its organisation and clarity. Also, the book is expansive in its thinking and argumentation. All of these strengths considered, however, we believe that the arguments advanced in the book are flawed by an omnipresent logical fallacy and confusion of correlation with causation that undermines the foundation of the book.
In conclusion, there is no sex difference in working memory capacity, and males and females use the same brain design for coping with this paradigmatic experimental task.
Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund.
In 1992 Owen reported on a sample of coloured students that had been added to the groups he had tested earlier. The footnote in "The Bell Curve" seems to credit this report as proving that South African colored students have an IQ "similar to that of American blacks", that is, about 85 (the actual reference does not appear in the book's bibliography). That statement does not correctly characterize Owen's work. The test used by Owen in 1992 was the "nonverbal"Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is thought to be less culturally biased than other IQ tests. He was able to compare the performance of colored students with that of the whites, blacks and Indians in his 1989 study because the earlier set of pupils had taken the Progressive Matrices in addition to the Junior Aptitude Tests. The black pupils, recall, had poor knowledge of English, but Owen felt that the instructions for the Matrices "are so easy that they can be explained with gestures". Owen's 1992 paper again does not assign IQs to the pupils. Rather he gives the mean number of correct responses on the Progressive Matrices (out of a possible 60) for each group: 45 for whites, 42 for Indians, 37 for coloreds and 28 for blacks. The test's developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs. Matrices scores, unlike IQs, are not symmetrical around their mean (no "bell curve" here). There is thus no meaningful way to convert an average of raw Matrices scores into an IQ, and no comparison with American black IQs is possible.
Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices—HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils.
One of the most prominent psychologists of race and intelligence, Richard Lynn, who died in July, was unwelcome in his own profession but had collaborated with the free-market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs since the 1960s.
Bibliography
Media related toRichard Lynn at Wikimedia Commons| People |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Departments and centres | ||
| Campus | ||
| Student life | ||
| Affiliates | ||
| Other | ||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| People | |
| Other | |
