Most scientist that preach this are covert now a days or they will be labeled as racist.

Modern usage
The labeling of a work today as being "scientific racism" is generally meant to imply that the research has been politically motivated and is attempting to justify racist ideology through the use of a veneer of science. This labeling is challenged by those who have conducted said research, who claim that their work was indeed objective and that the attempts to decry it are acts of political correctness or censorship. Some have compared the attacks on their work as akin to Lysenkoism.

Among those most prominently attacked as scientific racists in the late 20th century have been Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton (Race, Evolution, and Behavior), Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations), and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others. Many critics of these authors, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, claimed that their refusal to renounce their work in the face of what they have claimed as later evidence against it indicates racist motivations. In turn, Gould has been accused by a number of scientists of misrepresenting their work and of being motivated in these attacks by his political views. Both Gould and Lewontin have given a course titled Biology as a Social Weapon, which, Gould explained, was intended to foster "a powerful political and moral vision of how science, properly interpreted and used to empower all the people, might truly help us to be free."

In 1996, Edinburgh University psychologist Chris Brand broke with convention by accepting that he was a 'race realist' or what the left routinely called a scientific racist — he was fired after a sixteen-month battle with his university (though later compensated financially for 'unfair dismissal' by a University not willing to argue its case in the public courts)

Most are discredited by the mainstream

And then you have the other side:
African American Racism in the Academic Community