I've addressed this in several comments elsewhere. But briefly: if research is conducted with an overt agenda and with predetermined conclusions, then its validity is called strongly into question. At the very least, those reading the research should be exceptionally skeptical.
As a specific example concerning Richard Lynn, his division of "three major racial groups" (see the SPLC article linked elsewhere here) falls flat in the face of numerous fallacies, among them that "negroid" isn't a single racial category (whatever that means), but as a collective of all indigenous populations of Africa is generally held to represent greater diversity than all other human populations combined.
It's just bad science.
If the assumption is that humans are destined to ever greater intelligence -- well, that may well not be true either. Evolution is not teleological, it is not goal-oriented. It is variation subject to selection.
I do think that the question of what selective pressures are being exerted on human populations presently is an open question. That genetic drift and the cost and complexity of sustaining our complicated brains is an interesting area for research. It's exceptionally fraught though. And the affiliations of the researcher and institutions in question, as well as my source on this, lead me to question its value strongly.
