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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Never in the history of modern science has one man (Watson) made so much of a career out of one research finding over 50 years ago.
And this particular finding was one that he (and at some level he has admitted this) for which the data needed to confirm it was stolen. The woman smart enough to generate the data, but not given any real credit for it, died a few years later from cancer likely caused by radioactivity exposure while generating that data. Watson has denegrated her for years. The only reason she wasn't given the Nobel prize as well was that niggling factor of already being dead.
While I was working on my Graduate degree at Purdue University, Watson was invited in for a Univiersity President's lecture. I missed the lecture, but attended one earlier that same day given to Undergraduate biology students instead.
He was flippant, completely useless, and didn't say anything too useful over the 45-minute talk. I don't want to know how many times the man said "I don't really want to talk about that now - It would just be repetative with what I am going to say tonight."
Made me ashamed to admit I am a scientist. Apparently he hasn't improved with age.
....perhap
Never said that he wasn't 'lucid',..
It is hard to be a good human being when you are too full of yourself. Watson is ego personified.
The flip side of Professor Watson's comments is the subtle racism of diminished expectations which caharacterizes "race relations" here in the US. You only have to look at the idiocy of American census forms to see that race is a completely misunderstood concept in this country.
James D. Watson really made a fool of himself.
Unfortunately, his words carry weight among laymen because of his scientific credentials.
Racists will take his words and run with them.
Even if he apologizes, racists will still be referring to his words far into the future.
Oh well. The ignorant people will be the last to understand the new emergent order.
You're right...th
Let the racists run with this and here's why:
""all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours..."
That statement in and of itself is priceless and totally inaccurate. All of Europe and white Western social policies have been based on one thing and one thing only:
GREED! GREED! GREED!
They are only interested in the continent to the degree that they can exploit what's left of its natural resources. The minute everything is gone, they will cut and run, offering any old flimsy excuse for doing so.
Racists are such a drag. Tired, senile old racists need to be put into nursing homes and medicated.
Why not the RACE-baiters as well? How is it that the leading Hispanic advocacy organization can get away with calling itself La Raza ("the race") without comment by the POLITICALL
To quote the great Rush Limbaugh, all white people in the US need to get tomorrow and die. This way the blacks can turn this cess pool into a shinning city on the hill.
In response to fact 5: "The extent to which racial classifications of humans reflect any underlying biological reality is highly controversial among anthropologists and biologists
This statement is summarily false!! Amongst respected anthropologists and biologists who publish their research in peer reviewed scientific journals, the consensus is that there is absolutely NO biological basis for race. Suggesting that there is some uncertainty in this area, while probably an unintentional blunder by the author, is misleading at best and, at worst, aids the racist agendas of "Junk Scientists" who perpetuate their ignorant theories formed from their flawed data.
Race does exist. But it is a product of our society, not our genes.
Race , as a product of society has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. How in The world can you justify such a bizarre comment?
By repetition--like many of the Bush ilk--Activator believes he can 'metamophosize' his BELIEF to the level of an apocryphal 'fact.'
In case I didn't explain enough, Dr. Watson's employer is Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Their largest source of revenue is the Federal Government
I think it's a good idea to defend our funding and ask for the removal of Dr. Watson from the staff of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Following WWII--as many know--former Nazis, e.g., Werner von Braun were secretted away to the U.S. and hired as the core of the U.S. rocket dev. program. Should he be tried 'ex post facto'?
Ideological 'purity' is a dangerous course.... As the old A-S sage related: "Sometimes it takes a swine to show you where the truffles are..."!
I suggest sending an email to his employer asking that he be removed from their staff.
http://www
I am offended to pay him a single dime from my hard earned money. Send him to the cave he lived since he published a real work in any peer reviewed journals.
Advancing age often diminishes one's reason, better judgement and restraint. I could site numerous examples - but I won't - of intelligent, highly educated and talented people who in their later years advanced the most reposterous ideas imaginable. I can but attribute this to deteriorating brain function, coupled perhaps with unknown physical or mental problems. Recalling this lets me turn from their sad babblings while leaving intact my appreciation for the contribution to society they made in healthier periods of their lives. Dr. James Watson was a great man. That is how I choose to remember him.
James Watson as a great man? Talk about revisionist history! Watson was, is, and always will be a monumental ass. If he hadn't ridden on the coattails of Crick, he would never have amounted to anything, and his scientific mediocrity after about 1955, coupled with his profound sexism, egotism, homophobic comments, and rank racism (even in his younger years) make him the LAST scientist to waste an ounce of praise on.
Make that argument to the Nobel Prize Committee after the passage of fifty years of vetting. Fortunately, that committee doesn't have to suffer the intimidation of La Raza ("the race") and the other, various, race-baiting thugs who haunt these pages.....
I don't think we can pardon him because he is probably senile and lack of inhibition, eventhough this is the most likely explanation for his outburst. He should back up his accusation with scientific proof and not just because he is a Nobel Laureat. His example of working with a black subordinate is just ridiculous and absurd ! To me, he sounds more like a racist than a scientist.
Not the sorta subject you want to riff on.
Who knows maybe Watson and ole Dick Nixon were pals! Talk about a racially sensitive guy, Tricky Dick had it going on!
At 79, Watson clearly hasn't kept up with the field he helped to create.
The Human Genome Project has determined that two humans, apparently of completely different race, are more closely related genetically than any two chimps from Africa -- even when the chimps are relatives!
The difference between you and anyone else on the planet, in genes, is literally a drop in the bucket.
http://www
The statistical cohorts under consideration do not include non-hominid samples...
"statistical cohorts"?
Methinks your knowledge of science is confounded by your facility with linguistics.
After the exodus out of Africa several sub-groups of humans, living for thousands of generations apart from each other, have indeed developed certain physical characteristics. Whether variations in brain development remained the same over thousands of years in all sub-groups reminds me of the creationist's view, whereas there is no evolution. On the other hand, a poster above mentioned above that variations in sub-groups is larger than between groups. Also, environmental and cultural influences appear to have a very large influence on individual development.
Still, I wonder how is it that the European sub-group came to dominate the Americas, Africa and parts of Asia? Why hadn't the Africans (after the establishment of the sub-groups), for example, panned out over the globe? Between the lines I read Europeans: aggressive and bad, Africans: peaceful and good. If that is a fact and culturally determined, then where did that come from?
I think you would find Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" extremely interesting. The entire book addresses your second paragraph.
His primary thesis is that geography is responsible: Climate; available crops and animals suitable for domestication; and the east-west orientation of Eurasia, which made dissemination of ideas more practicable.
Read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". It isn't a perfect discussion of why some of these 'racial' (better termed geographical / biogeographical) groups advanced in technology more than others.
Not so much 'Europeans aggressive and bad' as 'Europeans had better technology earlier and developed more aggressive diseases that other regions didn't develop'.
Those with the 'best toys' won.
I think it's reasonable that natural selection acting upon various populations of homo sapiens would select for different behavioral characteristics, similar to one breed of dog being more inclined to herd and another to hunt.
However, there are two factors that would mitigate, if not eliminate, any chance that the genes for increased melanin production (i.e., "black" skin) would be linked to whatever genetic component there is to intelligence - however defined:
First, given the overwhelming genetic similarity among the species homo sapiens, any observable differences in behavior are vastly more likely to be cultural and habitual rather than genetic.
Second, given the constant interbreeding among groups of humans, particularly in the last few hundred years, the chances of identifying any "pure" strain of any segment of the human race is slim at best.
As far as the European sub-group coming to dominate so much of the rest of the world, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that most of us were highly motivated to get the hell out of the miserable weather.
Another pseudo-intellectual attempt to mush-mouth around what you'd really like to say.
"Another pseudo-intellectual attempt to mush-mouth
Reading the responses to my statements and questions, the Jared Diamond book seems to be an intelligent response. (I would read the book and make my own decision.) As with the "dog" comparison, I'd rather have a St. Bernard than a poodle come save me in miserable weather. My non-scientific observation is that the variations among humans are minuscule as compared to dogs.
As with the European sub-group running away from bad weather, I'm not so sure. Otherwise, there would not have been a high population density in Europe over so many centuries. A large segment of Europeans went to cold North America.
Objectivity in science goes wrong when ideologies and censorship intervene: this is evident with Watson's comments from personal experience and name-calling ("pseudo-i
2007: the myth of the Grand Old Man is exploded by Dr Watson, part of the team credited with discovering the structure of DNA, speaking on race like a Garrulous Old Goat. It isn't elementary, Dr Watson. One wonders how the creature from Africa and somehow wandered into Europe became white and the so called master race which is touted as being more intelligent than black Africans by Dr W and others. Oh, that's a myth too-like the myth of the Grand Old Man. Loss of one's voice as one ages might not be so bad after all.
GEEZ! All this vulture behavior over the man before he's even a corpse. If we disposed of every individual who has made significant contributions to human knowledge, based on their charm quotient, we'd be living in the Dark Ages. I'd trade one scientist like Watson (warts and all) for a million jibbering and self-righteous idiots.
I think Mr Watson has stuck a pin in the belly of the political correctness balloon. Of course he is not the first to thusly interpret the overwhelming, unvarying evidence that this disparity exists no matter how you try to fudge the figures or explain them away. it is not a nice conclusion to reach, and I would certainly hate to try & defend the conclusion to any of my black friends in a discussion, but the facts are there, the objective evidence that we theretofore relied upon as a legitimate measure with all accepted ramifications therefrom. The mother who brags her kid has an IQ of 130, the person who receives disability payments mainly because of a measured low IQ, these are all accepted outcomes of IQ testing. Our society has in the last 30 years or so conveniently brushed away the black-white IQ discrepancy as a "doesn't exist" in the interest of furthering civil rights and doing away with discrimination, avoiding conflict between the races. This is a small price to pay for the better race relations we have enjoyed with the PC revolution, but it is a fact of life that won't go away until someone comes up with a legitimate alternative to IQ testing that serves the same purposes.
"overwhelming, unvarying evidence..
What overwhelming evidence? What facts? What objective evidence? Who are your black friends?
Thank you for the only sentient 'comment' offered. As your statement implies, the 'political
Really though,... Watson had one, and only one, significant research finding in that long career. And he stole the data needed to make that one reasearch finding.
Crick, on the other hand, has had a much more productive career, has done better science throughout it, and still seems to be a decent human being.
Watson is just a lucky asshole that was in the right place at the right time. His only 'skill' was and remains shameless self-promotion.
Without Crick, and without the expert crystalography of Rosylin Franklin - he would have been a footnote on history.
....more PBS apocrypha! Apparently, Watson was clever enough to deceive the Nobel Prize Committee.
"Nobel Laureate physicist William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor who wanted to sterilize American blacks to prevent corruption of the American "gene pool"."
Do you have a reference for this? I believe he suggested sterilizing all people with an IQ below 100, regardless of race. He did say that since "unskilled" blacks had a higher birth rate than "unskilled" whites, that they would "dilute" the gene pool faster, but I don't believe he ever said "all blacks should be sterilized" - just all people, regardless of race, with an IQ below 100.
THe older I get and the more I see Shockey is right.
The older you get the more brain cells you lose.
Interesting post. I've had "Junk Science" on my Amazon wish list for a while; I just added it to my cart.
This post just sparked memories of a couple things I"ve read over the last few years; specifically Richard Rhodes" "The Making of the Atomic Bomb": In a chapter titled "Men From Mars" Rhodes discusses the Ashkenazi Jews in late 19th Century Europe producing such a mind boggling collection of geniuses; and Nicholas Wade"s, "Before the Dawn" if I remember correctly (maybe not) discussed theories of evolution selecting for high intelligence in genetically isolated groups of people -i.e. the Ashkenazim.
I understand that these theories are controversial at best, but they are widely disseminated, as my two examples demonstrate. Rhodes" book won a Pulitzer, and Wades was on some best-seller lists for a time.
Is it even possible to study this stuff objectively without shooting your foot off?
Ummm, a connection between genetics and IQ being a "sensitive" issue...ha
I have also read, in the case of Einstein, there are identifiable differences in his brain. It appears he had far more of a type of cell (not the neurons themselves) than usually found in the human brain. Also, one of the structures in his brain was larger than usual. I certainly hope enough of his DNA can be recovered to look for genetic origins of any such differences.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
