It is really an interesting article, but the possibility that Morton could had simply discarded a subset of samples that did not match his pre-conceptions is barely discussed. Could this be addressed by only measuring a sub-sample of the original?
Anyway, having your analytical technique not shown any bias, why should we go any deeper into his data? We assume, having no evidence otherwise, for every other paper that we read, that the original data had been handled without bias; so why to be specially skeptical with Morton's work?
I think that is undisputed that there bias in science, but a lot of biases have been revealed and addressed, even decades after, as this article do. Science is not always straightforward, but often a tortuous path.
