Having listened to this podcast, I didn't get that from the conversation.
He expresses empathy for Charles Murray's position from a purely scientific stance (I.E. whether or not his research was done in a scientific way) but also questions why he would focus so much of his time on the exact topic and keep stirring up things. I left the conversation wondering the same thing Sam Harris did, if Charles research found a slight difference in the IQ's of different populations of people that was to the level that you wouldn't want to change how that group was viewed, why keep pressing on that topic. Charles seemed to take a purely scientific answer but he was hiding his deeply conservative stance from the interview mostly.
I guess I empathized with his position in that if I was a scientist and I found some sort of controversial claim that wouldn't be that impactiful to any sort of overall advancement but would cause some damage on a societal level would I still want to produce those findings? Guess it depends on my thoughts of how much information needs to be out there.
Charles clearly thinks it's worth fighting for, but I didn't take from the conversation that Sam Harris does. In Fact in other conversations he specifically says this topic is one that should probably not be pursued for moral and societal reasons