Just a note to say that I am aware of the recent PLoS article "The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias." by Lewis, DeGusta, et al. concerning Gould's analysis of Morton's work. I'll post a review of the article in the next couple of days as I am just reading it and rereading some of the related citations.
I'll go out on a limb, though, and say that the New York Times article was typical of the sensationalist items that the Science Times often prints. Nor is it really correct to lump Gould into those who do "social studies of science" as they seem to be as much the target of this as Gould. Strangely, the article seems to do exactly the opposite of what it claims... instead of showing that scientific methodology can shield knowledge from bias, it actually shows that both the work of both Morton and Gould could be influenced by their "unscientific" concerns, which Gould would have no doubt agreed with.
[Updated September 28, 2019]
