user3553: A recent question caught my attention relating to genetic IQ. At first glance its a reasonable question. It attracted 3 upvotes so far, more than many exceptional questions on this site. Disturbingly the paper that the question cites so enthusiastically has been widely discredited by the scientific community. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution, IQ, and scientific philosophy but was ultimately condemned for plagersim. The author, Helmuth Nyborg, was convicted of scientific misconduct during that paper and has a history of controversial pseudoscientific research relating to gender and racial differences as well as being affiliated with neo nazis and holocaust deniers.
This sort of question is rare, but is far more dangerous than a basic lack of understanding like this question. 
The IQ question is well formatted and gives the impression that this is legitimate biological science. Its not. I've voted to close, but should I also construct an answer that explains why its a load of tosh? I want to avoid giving any legitimacy to the topic.
Has this type of pseudoscientific question come up before and if so how was it dealt with?

EDIT 1 The question has now been closed. Adding an answer is not an option.

EDIT 2 The question has now been deleted. Problem solved?

user115: I don't really see a problem with those questions and I actually would not be afraid of seeing more like them.
We shouldn't expect everyone to be well versed in biology, otherwise they would not need to ask questions here.
I am actually quite surprised that the question about rotting eggs had 3 downvotes. Clearly the OP does not know about spontaneous generation etc. but 1) that is a very good occasion to teach them about it and 2) a very good answer can be given (and the one which was given is quite good).
This type of question should really be used as an opportunity to teach about how the scientific method works, or how to evaluate if a paper is good or not etc. etc.

3553: <p>A recent question caught my attention relating to <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/11398/what-is-the-genetic-iq">genetic IQ</a>. At first glance its a reasonable question. It attracted 3 upvotes so far, more than many exceptional questions on this site. Disturbingly the paper that the question cites so enthusiastically has been widely discredited by the scientific community. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution, IQ, and scientific philosophy but was ultimately condemned for plagersim. The author, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg#2011_controversy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Helmuth Nyborg</a>, was <strong>convicted of scientific misconduct</strong> during that paper and has a history of controversial pseudoscientific research <strong>relating to gender and racial differences</strong> as well as being <strong>affiliated with neo nazis and holocaust deniers</strong>.</p>

<p>This sort of question is rare, but is far more dangerous than a basic lack of understanding like <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/24633/can-a-rotten-egg-actually-hatches-to-a-real-life">this question</a>. </p>

<p>The IQ question is well formatted and gives the impression that this is legitimate biological science. Its not. I've voted to close, but should I also construct an answer that explains why its a load of tosh? I want to avoid giving any legitimacy to the topic.</p>

<p>Has this type of pseudoscientific question come up before and if so how was it dealt with?</p>

<hr>

<p>EDIT 1 The question has now been closed. Adding an answer is not an option.</p>

<hr>

<p>EDIT 2 The question has now been deleted. Problem solved?</p>
 115: <p>I don't really see a problem with those questions and I actually would not be afraid of seeing more like them.</p>

<p>We shouldn't expect everyone to be well versed in biology, otherwise they would not need to ask questions here.</p>

<p>I am actually quite surprised that the question about rotting eggs had 3 downvotes. Clearly the OP does not know about spontaneous generation etc. but 1) that is a very good occasion to teach them about it and 2) a very good answer can be given (and the one which was given is quite good).</p>

<p>This type of question should really be used as an opportunity to teach about how the scientific method works, or how to evaluate if a paper is good or not etc. etc.</p>
