How Not to End a Career: The Racism of James D. Watson

We have enough problems in this country without Nobel Laureate American scientists pontificating in error about fields of science outside their own expertise -- especially when the issues are vital to public policy and when what they say rips the American social fabric into pieces.

James D. Watson, of DNA and Double Helix fame, now 79 years old, was scheduled to give a talk on October 18th at the prestigious British Science Museum. But in an interview with The Sunday Times, Dr. Watson has effectively shot himself in the foot and maybe blown his leg off with some inflammatory comments apparently based on only minimal knowledge of the science involved.

According to BBC News, in the interview with The Sunday Times, Watson said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really." He went on to say he hoped everyone was equal but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

The British Science Museum immediately cancelled his planned talk, saying, "We feel Dr. Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate."

Yes, indeed. And what "clarification" will come to us tomorrow? Will he say he's sorry if he offended anyone? Will he say his words were taken out of context? What the hell can he say to rectify this ridiculous exposure of an expert who steps outside his field to talk about another field (to the UK Sunday Times, no less) without bothering to do his homework before shooting his mouth off?

It's difficult to imagine that in all his years in science this is the first time James D. Watson has considered the question of group differences in so-called "intelligence". So any explanation that this was a "spur of the moment thought" is unacceptable. Maybe he'll have an opportunity to "clarify" his remarks in some debate in Harvard Yard. Maybe. How he tries to wriggle out of this (if it happens) will be an interesting media show.

Meanwhile, here are some facts:

1) No one has a firm handle on "group" differences in "intelligence", and the evidence is that variation within any group is much greater than variation between groups (for example, see Lewontin et al, Not in Out Genes).

2) No one has a firm idea on what "intelligence" is other than it's what IQ tests measure. Change the structure and content of the IQ test and you change the score. Both structure and content are culture-dependent. "Intelligence" is not a unitary performance, and the neurological significance of its "measurement" is more mythology than hard science.

3) No one has proof that the genetic contribution to cognitive performance is more important than the contribution of a combination of fetal and postnatal environments. Maybe Watson will tell us he did not mean genes, he meant environmental damage. We'll see, but I don't think that's what he meant.

4) As for "race", it's a sticky muck that has sucked up more than one famous scientist -- including Nobel Laureate physicist William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor who wanted to sterilize American blacks to prevent corruption of the American "gene pool". The term "race" generally refers to a human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. But which physical characteristics? And if the question which physical characteristics is a reasonable question, what is the implication for any attempt to relate a specific set of physical characteristics to behavior -- in particular, to something as nebulous as "intelligence"? In Nazi Germany in the 1930s, a group of prominent anthropologists devoted their professional careers to investigating the correlations between what they considered to be the physical characteristics of the Jewish "race" and what they considered to be the "inferior" traits of Jews. The Nazis were out of power only a few decades, when in America a group of prominent psychologists led by A.R. Jensen began investigating the correlations between "race" and "general intelligence" in American subpopulations. Through the remainder of the 20th century, these psychologists fed the American public the idea that Asians and Jews are more "intelligent" than non-Jewish whites, who in turn are more "intelligent" than blacks, and the idea that these differences are inherited and unchangeable. Is Jensenism the origin of Watson's ideas about race and intelligence?

5) Like "intelligence", the term "race" is ill-defined in science. The extent to which racial classifications of humans reflect any underlying biological reality is highly controversial among anthropologists and biologists, and proponents of racial classification schemes have been unable to agree on the number of races (proposals range from 3 to more than 100), let alone how specific populations should be classified.

For more of my views on this, see the chapter on race and IQ in my book Junk Science. Also, read my Huffington Post piece entitled, "Genes and IQ" posted on October 9, 2007.

It's an awful problem that James D. Watson, who still holds several positions that make or influence American science policy, apparently thinks Africans and African-Americans are less "intelligent" than whites because of their "race". It's also an embarrassment.

Maybe Dr. Watson has attended too many back-slapping Harvard dinner parties with people who have steered him wrong. I cannot imagine that he's reached his views by a thorough reading of the scientific literature.

Comments

[FaceReality2]

"No one has a firm idea on what 'intelligence' is other than it's what IQ tests measure."

Does that mean IQ is a totally useless predictor of behavior? Consider the following:

"Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang . . . make a strong case for the argument that IQ is a better predictor of criminality than social class; e.g. there's at least an 8-point difference in IQ even when controlling for social factors.

"The generally accepted wisdom, according to a number of fairly well-done studies, is that the average (nonincarcerated) criminal IQ is 90 (92 or 93, depending upon who's study you use), but conventional wisdom holds that there is usually a ten point gap (90 v. 100) between criminals and the average for the rest of the population. The incarcerated criminals who have gotten caught tend to have much lower IQs, often around 85 or so, which triggers status as a mentally "disabled" inmate or one with a "learning disability." Some psychopaths and those with certain mental conditions (like paranoia) have high IQ, but these cases are rare. Be advised that even though a seven (7), eight (8), or ten (10) point difference in IQ may not look like much, and indeed, many researchers will dismiss such differences as being within the "normal" range of variation, more detailed research (Goodman 1995) will almost always find a few points matter, and even differences of six (6) points will be associated with more lying, cheating, stealing, and conduct disorders."

The implication: if everyone with an IQ of less than 100 suddenly disappeared, American prisons would be virtually empty, and the crimes of rape, robbery and stranger murder would probably be extremely rare.

[swkidder]

Why are you surprised ... this is a man who began his career by reading the lab notes of another scientist and going on to publish her results and theories on the double helix structure of DNA as his own ...

[GenericBlogger]

Exactly and it's time the Nobel Committee corrected their decision and grants the prize posthumously to Rosalind Franklin.

This is a sad chapter to one of science's most significant discoveries.

[ncgaijin]

To those Watson apologists who think that winning a Nobel Prize gives him the right to pontificate on subjects well outside his expertise and have others listen and give credulity to his statements:

"They are completely inconsistent with the body of research literature in this area,” Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health in the US, said in a statement.

“Scientific prestige is never a substitute for knowledge. As scientists, we are outraged and saddened when science is used to perpetuate prejudice.”

And this ain't the first time that this buffoon has uttered sexist, racist, homophobic hogwash. As a scientist, I find his statements ludicrious and deserving of derision; as a human being, they are offensive and saddening.

[nihilon x]

It is good to see so many people taking such a bold stance against racism. Not only half a century ago, Watson's comments not only would have been acceptable, they would have been highly praised by many.

As a young black male who has always tested remarkably higher than my classmates in school (I was chosen to be skipped up three grades in elementary, but my mother wouldn't allow it) I have always had to contend with the myth that somehow because I was born with black skin, I would not do as well as my white -- and asian -- peers in my studies.

I was amazed one day when in my advanced mathematics class in junior high school -- which so difficult that it consisted of only three students -- one of my teachers told me that I was probably the "smartest student he had ever taught". No doubt I wouldn't have found this so hard to believe at the time if I were white or asian -- even I bought into the myth that somehow blacks were not as inherently intelligent as other races. To this very day I am not sure if he was being sincere or if he was just trying to encourage me because I was "black" -- and I honestly think that its a shame that I even have to indulge such a consideration.

[nihilon x]

Moreover, I think that its very important that we understand the general relativity of "intelligence" as well -- some have creative intelligence, some have analytical intelligence, and, in my own theoretical opinion, some have "physical" intelligence (i.e. the ability to make rapid decisions with regards to physical challenges and then to react accordingly). I think that there are likewise many other types of "intelligence" that might be classified, in the same way that certain individuals with autism excel in some analytical behaviors while grossly underperforming in others -- I can't think of any way to accurately judge the intelligence of anyone when intelligence can often be such a generalized concept with no definitive parameters.

Not all will agree with my assessment that there are different types of "intelligence" but I stand by my conviction that intelligence is a lot more diverse than many believe it to be.

I think at the very least that we should rethink how we analyze the human brain, because oftimes intelligence is likewise in the eye of the beholder.

[deleweye]

Most people define intelligence as someone who agrees with them.

Other than that, your conclusions make sense and agree with my own, so obviously I applaud your insight.

After reading what you've said about yourself down below & on the Hutchinson thread, you might want to get in touch with this fellow: http://www.cliftontaulbert.com/ He's a good friend from college whose experiences and ambitions are similar enough to your own that you might find him interesting as well as a possible networking resource - tho you might have to show him a buck in it for him to get his attention (which you can tell him I said if you talk.)

[CintiBlue]

This is a very interesting post. It does make sense that there would be different "types" of intelligence, but in the push to categorize us with tests and percentile groupings that wonderful variety would just get in the way of labelling us. Thanks.

[yoyo]

Professor Watson is a man of his generation,and believes what his generation believed about racial differences.
It goes to show that cultural groupthink trumps intelligence and education.
It was the generation that came of age in the sixties and seventies that finally fought against the stupidity of racist thinking.
It is surprising that Dr Watson didn't move with the times,bearing in mind his immense contribution to science,and our understanding of the structure of DNA.

[FogBelter]

Mr. Agin, Professor Watson is the perfect example of an individual who can be a talent or a genius in one aspect of his life and a complete wanting moron in another.

This is the same thing we see over and over again when we are shocked to find Sports Stars are criminals, Priests are pedophiles, CEOs are whoremongers, Actors are Drug Addicts, etc.

Human Beings are Multi-Faceted Enigmas ... one can be shocked by the Professor's statements, but it is silly to be surprised.

[AJT]

Stop this nonsense..­.individua­ls should be allowed and encouraged to reach their full potential, period. Whether one person is smarter than another is not important, I am white and I am no Stephen Hawking, who cares. I can only be the best person I can be. If you look at the IQ test results of southern whites I would guess you would find them to be lower than northeastern whites, so what. Here is a snip-it from an article in Time magazine:

'The results of World War I alpha intelligence tests have frequently been cited as evidence of the Negro's mental inferiority, since the Negro soldier invariably ranked below the white soldier on a state-by-state basis. But the same test results can be used in another way to demonstrate that Negroes are smarter than whites. On the alpha tests, for instance, Negro soldiers from the Northern state of Ohio outscored whites from eleven Southern states. Beyond this, it could be inferred from the tests that Northern whites are superior to Southern whites, because they almost always did better.'
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899846-2,00.html

You people need to get off of the race issue and on to the issue of education.

[1will]

I don't believe in Watson's comments about race and intelligence. I think intelligence is more a result of enviroment then genetics but good genes probaly help a bit. If I had to guess I would give enviroment 80% of the credit. I'm not a researcher so that's just my opinion.
My question to all of you is if sexual orientation is supposedly genetic why isn't intelligence? Every column dealing with homosexuals has commentors going on and on and on about how it's all genetic and they have no choice in the matter. If genes can determine your sexual orientation then why not your intelligence as Watson says?
I'm just stiring the pot but it's an interesting question (at least for me) for debate.

[NewtonSylmar]

It is an interesting question, but unlike intelligence, I don't believe that one can become "more gay" or "more straight" over time. Studies have proven than activities such as reading and computational problem solving stimulate brain activity, which has the potential to increase intelligence over time. Sexual preference can reorient itself, but it can't be quantified like intelligence.
Now, as far as Watson's comments go, if the environment doesn't provide sufficient stimulus and activity to foster intellectual development, then the potential for lower intelligence exists. However, if you take an individual from a stimulus-free environment and place them in a stimulus-rich environment, I do believe that their level of intelligence will increase. His race-based argument is clearly a reflection of his environment and only reinforces his lack of exposure to the real world.

[1will]

Damn good post. I liked the argument about becoming more intelligent over time. I was just playing around and trying to stir the pot a bit but your post gave me something to think about.

[yoyo]

Nobody is saying that intelligence is not genetic.
Of course it is.And of course there will be some who are more intelligent than others.And yes,of course the environment is vital to how that intelligence develops.
The problem is that Dr Watson believes that one race is more intelligent than another;which does not seem to be supported by any facts;just superficial observations.

[LongTom]

What's interesting is that Watson himself is noted for having a relatively low IQ, either 109 or 120 as I recall, an anecdote buttressing more substantial evidence that it's difficult to say what the IQ test actually measures, and that the test itself really is no predictor of achievement.

It's true that Watson has a great knack for personal promotion and chicanery in science. Aside from the unsung contributions of Rosalind Franklin, Watson himself tells the story of how he conned Linus Pauling's son (who worked in their lab) into telling him and Crick what avenues Pauling was pursuing in pursuit of the DNA structure, and how this information helped guide their research. Had his son not had such a big yap, it's likely Pauling would have had a third Nobel to add to his earlier prizes for Peace and Chemistry.

[Horst]

Watson's comments are stupid. But then he has no monopoly on misunderstanding race. What Dan Agin doesn't tell you is that peer-reviewed medical journals are full of studies such as the treatment and incidence of diseases like hypertension, stroke, glaucoma among blacks. No one has a heart when someone says hypertension is more common among blacks...of course the science behind these studies is just as bad as Watson's comments.

[darker]

Academics like J. Watson don't live in THE REAL WORLD. They seriously think they're such "geniuses" they're entitled to make pronoucements, however STUPID THEY MAY BE!

American academic scientists suck the teat of USTaxpayer dollars. They get yearly multi-million dollar grants at our expense. Universities and labs expect this.

99% of the time, we're just paying FOR CRAP that passes for "science".

For all their crowing,
where are thesescientists' cures for cancer?
cure for diabetes?
cure for Lou Gherig's disease ALS?
WHERE ARE THEY?

Those idiots CAN'T CURE THE COMMON COLD!!!
Never mind cancer.
forgeddaboudit.

Scientists are on a USTaxpayer GRAVY TRAIN.
we don't ever question what they actually contribute. What a scandal.

[ladyfractal]

>>>For all their crowing,
where are thesescientists' cures for cancer?
Those idiots CAN'T CURE THE COMMON COLD!!!>we don't ever question what they actually contribute.

[realitytrumpsbull]

You'll never know what you're REALLY able to do until you put your mind, body, and spirit into the task 100%. There's idiot millionaires and brilliant failures, so don't go thinking that the stuff between your ears wholly determines your fate, either. If you are gifted,in some way, get off your duff and do something
with your life, maybe teach other people, maybe be the next Marie Curie, the next Alexander Graham Bell, the next George Washington Carver, but DO something.
A smart person that doesn't eat
well or exercise or is stressed will make
mistakes and fail to perform, conversely, a person that maybe has a lower IQ but does a lot of other things right in life will be consistent and successful in their own right.

Also, there's tradeoffs. Stephen Hawking will be stuck in that chair for the rest of his life,
but he can think circles around other people.
There's painters that are considered geniuses, but cannot spell. Some really smart people also go batshit insane, they have more persuasive demons than the rest of us, sometimes. So, high IQ, or low IQ, if you view your brain like an engine, for it to work, you have to feed it the right stuff,
like good diet, some kind of education, and
harness it to something, like your hands maybe,
for it to really mean anything at all. Edison
failed a lot of times before that light bulb...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edbiohm.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1903/marie-curie-bio.html
http://www.igeek.com/articles/Thought/GeniusisInsanity.txt
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=Normal
http://www.culture.pl/en/culture/artykuly/dz_moj_nikifor_krauze

[radlib1]

Dr. Watson, because of his advancing years and past accomplishments, deserves, not a pass for his misinformation, but at least a sympathethic reading. He appears to have been extremely ill-informed, but I hope that he is not so intrangident in his beliefs. Even the most brilliant of men are subject to predjudice, as Dr. Watson seems to have been. However, he is also a man of honor and admits his mistakes. I say, forgive his prejudices and praise his major scientific insights. He is one of the most important thinkers of our times. That doesn't make him perfect (as none of us are), but the greater good that he has done for the world outweighs any misconceived social remarks. In short, whatever his faults, Dr. Watson is a true hero in science and in humanity.

[lagasgi]

I had some thoughts on Dr. Watson and North American racism. I'm Halfie on Wordpress.

[Superfelo]

Dr. Watson, we shall be kinder to you than you deserve. Especially as you have said:

“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said"
Dr. Watson, I forgive you, because I know it was not your genes that led you to say what you don’t understand as to how you could have said it.
It was your upbringing. It was what you heard since you were a child growing up in a culture that denigrated people of color and other races. You were just mouthing, like a little ape, the things you heard, as a child, what all the adults around you always said, behind closed door.
And you know what? It shows that being a genius on DNA does not make you an expert on others; or that being a movie star, or hitting a baseball, your opinion should count for anything unless you have studied thoroughly what you are talking about.
We understand Dr. Watson, it was not your genes.....it was your upbringing.
Whoopee-de­e-damn-doo­!