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

[FrankenPC]

As a previous poster commented, the Dr. is probably suffering from some form of dementia. We really should just let him retire in peace.

In regards to "intelligence" (whatever that exactly is) being genetic and being capable of being analyzed racially, there is no technology to date and no vehicle with which to execute that technology on a scale vast enough to make any blanket theories.

Additionally, our society demands we blind ourselves to such racial thinking. Our social glue would fall apart if racially driven qualitative science were to take a foothold.

Besides, evolution evens all things out. If any given genome is inferior for whatever reason, that genome will eventually become homogeneous with the rest of the population. It's inevitable (I sound like Mr. Smith.)

[shawshank]

Delusional. Some people owe their self esteem to the belief that they are superior to other races or gender. They then lash out when reality crashes their walls of ignorance.

[CaptainObvious]

Living in the "melting pot", I think even the most racist of us would agree there is no such thing as an "American Race".

So perhaps the doctor could explain why Americans are so stupid compared to other "cultural groups".

I'm guessing it has mostly to do with education.

[redfish62]

He's only saying what most white people believe to be true. Most people believe they know what intelligence is/is not, and believe they know who is/is not intelligent.

For example, speaking conventional, intelligible English is a sign of intelligence for a person whose family has resided in the U.S. for several generations.

[jvarga]

Out of curiosity, who are you to speak for most white people? If I said "most black people think being a thug is the highest accomplishment possible" I'd be given all sorts of negative labels.

I don't feel that way, but it seemed to be a good comparison.

[Norge]

Racism permiates all societies and cultures in all countries on earth and has from the times the human swung to the ground from the trees and I suspect will be a part of the human specie until they are buried under the last snow flake.

How many times per day do we hear repeated continously, "The best, the finest, the fitest, the fastest, the brightest, the sharpest, the wisest, the -----------------------------.

From the first class in school the children are started on the race for the next 12 years.

Why?`

Because the Idiot Economic Machine needs to be feed bodies to keep it functioning.
Though the child does not figure that out and is not told so by adults for then the child would know just how low the adults intelligence really is.

Yet the tree climbers actually consider themselves competent to judge what intelligence really is.

And this planet of geniuses have been so brilliant they have actually figured out how to exterminate all life on earth within 24 hours and have been so productive and creative they have actually produced the material to do it.

Which group did most of those so called brilliant boys and girls come from who were not even intelligent enough to know consequences of human behavior.?

I suspect it was our clever genetics man's group.

I myself am terribly racist towards what I know to be appalling ignorance. My very survival is threatened by their ignorance.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

That self-appointment presupposed that you are omniscient. Who vetted you?

[Norge]

Be carefull advocate, you have had a good day.
You reached level #3

[TheIndependenceParty]

Dr. Watson, arguably an "intelligent man", demonstrates that intelligence is not wisdom. Nowhere does he mention the lasting effects of the Slave trade, Colonialism, Apartheid or Europe's and America's rape of natural resources from the African continent. Wise men would hve realized that a people deserve education, freedom, trade, and a financial stake in their own destiny. Certainly such an "intelligent" scientist would not look upon the result, ... disease, malnutrition and deprivation, and lack of individual opportunity, ... and blame that effect upon its victims.

As a scientist myself, I am dismayed that such a reknowned professional would say something so unfounded, as though it were fact.

[jvarga]

This is not the first, nor the most crazy of Dr. Watson's ramblings. I don't know why all of a sudden its a big deal, he's been a crazy old guy for a while now.

[LIR]

Why he ever got the Nobel, I haven't a clue...

[Shizzlewhizzle]

Just when did we rape and rob Africa of all its resources? Im not aware of any colonies we have or had there. Its Darwinism, not anything else amd the need is how to live with all the unwanted, uneeded people that dolts create.

[cktirumalai]

James Watson was still in his twenties when he and Francis Crick deciphered the Double Helix of DNA, doing so at about the time Everest was conquered and the four-minute cap on the mile broken.
Some have regarded differences between groups (races, if you will) as fixed and unbridgeable. But as the above achievements show, barriers do not exist for ever, not in the long perspective of time, even though some will argue that all three were due to "European" men.

[indc]

Watson and Crick would not have succeeded without the x-ray crystallography photos of Rosalyn Franklin, which they viewed without her knowledge I believe, and for which they gave scant credit. By Watson’s own account, Linus Pauli was hot on their heels and would have discovered the double helix shortly.

As far as the 4 min mile goes, Bannister is the first person to have been timed to do this… were races at this time opened to other “races”?

I think the thing that is common here, not to take away any of the achievements but to put them in a wider, fairer perspective, is that these gentlemen were privileged and had the resources to pursue these achievements. If one is not allowed on the same field the competition is not fair even if the achievement is significant. Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, etc… and besides people of color, women as a class were also reduced to non-competitive roles.

For all we know, the 4 min miles was broken long before Bannister, Everest was climbed before Hillary, and if women and minorities were given the same opportunities the DNA code may have been broken before Watson and Crick. History sometimes just records dates without contextual truth.

[cmryle]

It's worse than that. Not only did Watson appropriate the work of Rosalyn Franklin without giving her credit for it. His book, The Double Helix, which tells the story of the discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule, is chock full of misogynistic pronouncements against her. It is a tale of naked ambition unmitigated by any shred of decency and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in knowing what this man is really like.

[Dalicious]

From what I read, Watson was not talking about race-based intelligence in general, but specifically about black people. He is speaking from personal experience, not science. We know two things about making generalizations from personal experience: 1) because they are personally experienced, we know the facts exist, and 2) we cannot generalize such experiences to a global level. So Watkins may well have had some basis for his comments, but he should have kept them to himself.

But I disagree with your very liberal generalizations about our ability to measure intelligence. It is predictive of real-world results, which is as real and correct as you can hope for. Just because you progressives feel fuzzy-headed on this subject does not mean the rest of us do.

[PickleBarrel]

I agree with you one hundred percent! Reality and facts do have a known liberal bias. I guess that's why the conservatives are starting to live in that non-fact based universe I keep hearing about.

[SevereTireDamage]

"It is predictive of real-world results, which is as real and correct as you can hope for."

I'm not willing to accept that as fact. There are two issues that I can see:

One, I don't think the correlation between IQ test scores and "real-world" success is all that strong (for example, the typical income of a Mensa member is no greater than average).

Two, IQ measures a very limited and narrow type of "intelligence" (a term not well defined, btw), namely cognitive, linguistic ability, and evidence of its inheritability is weak.

It's probably true that higher cognitive, linguistic ability contributes to greater success in a competitive, capitalist, pre-post-industrial economy, but that the system rewards a particular type of ability doesn't negate the other, less-well-monetized value of other kinds of intelligence (e.g., artistic ability).

IQ tests measure one's ability to take IQ tests. Not much more.

In addition, and this is the part that Watson should be aware of, the concept of "race", i.e., subspecies of homo sapiens, has no genetic validity. The amount of genetic variation within a particular human gene pool is typically greater than among different gene pools; and indeed, the geographical region whose inhabitants show the *greatest* genetic variation is -- wait fot it -- Africa

[joekonn]

Nicely put Mr Agin, Watson has apparently spent far too much time in the Ivory tower. The narrowness of focus necessary for some scientific work is no advantage in looking at the whole. It has been said many times, a great scientist (artist, athlete, statesman, etc) outside of his field is as stupid as the next guy. Watson has certainly established that fact once more.
As someone who administered thousands of IQ and similar tests, who worked in multiracial environments, I can say Watson's opinion does not fit my observation of the facts. His interpretation of statistical data without hands on experience is naive, and, given his 'bully pulpit', irresponsible.
Considering some of the facts around his helix work, perhaps he has just been copying his neighbor's work all along. This time he sat next to the wrong neighbor.

[WorldGriot]

Dear Sorenmeetsdylan:
Words can do permanent damage to a person, a community, a society and a nation. A responsible person who has used the publics money to research and study the genetic influence on human behavior has to be more careful with unguided opinions. misguided opinions have been the undoing of many a public person because societies know the delicate and tender balance of the social order. if you had struggled for centuries being on the receiving end of all kinds of deliberate and destructive Eugenics, you too would suggest greater care with such language. Intelligence as measured by IQ and as assumed by skin color is the merit badge for access to the halls of power. Notwithstanding the centuries long battering of African people around the globe with an ultra-sense of inferiority, we continue to make such vulgar statements as DR. Watson's and, because he is in a position of ultra-authority (having been the co-discoverer of the DNA Double Helix and it's significance) it has the impact of a major megaton bomb. To walk a mile in the shoes of those who are victimized by such a profane statement, can lead inexorably to suicide. I am disappointed in Dr. Watson. I was in undergrad psychology in the 1960's when I first learned about he and Crick. I was impressed and inspired. But this statement is, as Dan Agin intimated, is at best irresponsibility and (in my words only) WRONG! I use the term wrong, not in a scientific sense, for as Dan said, there is too much we just don't know. WE do not know where either race or intelligence begin and end. Is Barack Obama in the white, intelligent group or the African low intel group? What about Maria Carey or Halle Berry? Then what about those many "whites" who have African in their blood but will not reveal it? How sad for Dr. Watson. How utterly sad for you.

[HBeachbum]

If Dr. Watson is correct, what then?

[deleweye]

A foundation of the scientific method is that you don't announce conclusions without replicable empirical evidence.

If "race" is genetically-based, then any "racial" differences in intelligence would have to be detectable and verifiable based on genetic evidence. To my knowledge, no such evidence exists.

Dr. Watson has therefore forgotten the core tenet of his profession. The most plausible hypothesis is that he suffers from age-related dementia or Alzheimer's.

[BMSstudy]

The 'most plausible hypothesis'; based upon what? It seems like many people make statements without data to back them up.

It is my personal opinion that the most likely scenario is Watson has some level of racist attitudes.

[VSamuels]

The point that Dan is making is that he is not correct based on today's research. It would seem that your inability to comprehend (a measurable subset of guaging one's intelligence) would in and of itself, prove the man's sheer incompetence.

Unless, of course you have some independent data to share which would prove Dr. Watson correct, it would seem that those of your leanings have been subjected to cultural indocrination borne of a history of America's racial history.

[yowza1]

I would say Mr VSamuels that if there were credible data to indicate that the races have equal measured IQs there would be headlines from here until the sunset about that. Thus far I have not seen them.

[ladyfractal]

If he's correct it really changes nothing. Let's say that as a statistical average blacks really do perform less well on IQ tests than whites. It *should* change nothing legally for two reasons, one involving the nature of statistics and one involving the nature of our laws when they function at their best.

The one involving statistics is going to seem straight-forward when I present it to you and I'll do so in a way that's easy to grasp. Both of the following statements can be true: Men are, on average, taller than women. Sue, a woman, is taller than Ben, a man. How can this be? Simple; the fact that the average man is going to be taller than the average woman, does not preclude a tall woman being taller than the average man. (If an average man is 5'10" and the upper end of observed height for women is, say, 6'5" you see how this functions.) So even *IF* the average white person tests better than the average black person, that still does not preclude that the smartest blacks will be *far* smarter than the average whites.

As far as how our laws should work, in the West we have--more or less--agreed that people should *not* be judged by the average (perceived) characteristics of some group or another. Meaning that even *if* the perception is that blacks are less educated or intelligent than whites, it should not preclude me--as a black woman--being given an equal shot at graduate school, post-doctoral fellowships, etc. *provided* that my work is at par or better with my cohort.

As Steven Pinker pointed out in "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" it is a mistake to hinge all our civil rights hopes and aspirations on the idea that these are only sensible and justifiable if there are no differences between groups.

Cheers
Aj
(Ps. if any of you might actually *believe* what Watson has said, I am a black woman. Just so you know.)

[HighPlainsAg]

Correct about what? He holds the religious view that there is a genetic trait that has a negative effect on intelligence and it only appears in black people? Meaning that it is a piece of DNA traceable to a black ancestor? Would that be the "black ancestor" that the Genome Project has inferred as "The Mother of Us All"? If so, there's a bit of a problem with Watson's logic....

[Chipley]

If he's correct, then...nothing. The whole exercise seems to be nothing more than another opportunity for people to take sides. Big deal. Right now, a bunch of people who want Watson to be correct are wallowing in his statement...gleeful. And those who don't want him to be correct (or are busy establishing their bias-neutral creds) are wallowing in the rebuttal.

What if you're smarter than me (even if we agree on a suitable measure)? Does that change anything about how the law should treat the two of us? Well?

Even if Watson were correct...can you imagine an instance where the subsequent evidence would be acceptable? I can't...but maybe I lack imagination.

[Damu]

Dear Dan,
Thank you so much for this posting and bringing into the light of day for me the existence of Dr. Watson. I interviewed Dr. Shockley many years ago and was somewhat stunned when I happened to run into him at the Bohemian Grove that even his camp mates tended to shun him; possibly because even they were embarassed by his publicized opinions.

[StephenSmoliar]

For what it is worth, Silicon Valley historians have built up an image of Shockley as extremely neurotic, if not borderline psychotic. For example he used to make all employees take a weekly lie detector test, because he was worried about them taking equipment to their homes. I am actually surprised that he was even allowed in at Bohemian Grove, but some of the other campers there could also be called borderline psychotic (not to name any names)!

[sorenmeetsdylan]

Oh my God, a man offers an opinion based on observations he has made -- rightly or wrongly -- and the kneejerk response is to label the man a racist.

[gbarton]

If it quacks like a racist...

[AceInTheHole]

"and the kneejerk response is to label the man a racist"

Well, if it looks like a duck and quaks like a duck, and we know the rest of the story.

Bottom line is that the world is full of racist. And to hell with them all!

[ProgressivePartisan]

Copy that, Ace!

[VSamuels]

Yet another apologist who missed the point: the man is making comments which do not have a basis in fact, thus it would seem if he is using something other than scientific findings to draw his conclusions, than calling him a racist would be among his least worries.

Now, of course if one were speaking about Rush, Sean, Ann or Imus, or Bernard McQuirk, one could expect these non-scholarshiped folks to pander to the myths rooted in 'white superiority' and forged in political, social and economic segregation. But, a person who wishes to be judged as a competent social scientist must guard against using his 'guts' to project his personal biases.

While one's gut feel can led to research, it must still be 'tested' and should it be found not to be valid, it must be rejected as inconsistent with the facts. For some, they ignore a history of an America which forbid education and learning, even brutally discliplining their slaves who risked learning to read. If one heard, a more balanced acknowledgement of not only the past, but the present environment of educational disparies existing around this nation's schools, one might believe that those who defend such crap are rational brokers of the truth, instead of obnoxious ignorants who choose to memorize their own separate set of facts to suit their cultural liking.

[uheardme]

This sounds like 19th century goobledy-gook. Modern-day Nazi kookery.

[TMAN]

I hope I can respond in a way that is not politically incorrect or offensive.
By this time he(Watson) has issued an apology, though for the life of me I can't understand why. Simple truth he never said or even implied what the ravenous media reported.
Re-read the quote attributed to him, specifically the sentence at the root of the mis-construed headline.
" 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 said, (in this post modern, deconstrutionist culture) that this group of people relate to their paradigm in point of fact their world view in an entirely different mode from the western paradigm. Not that they were inferior.
Same-different, not better-worse, thats western, rational, either-or interpretation. It stems (the mis construed ideation of his initial statement) if I might suggest, from a point of view, no a world view, that has at it's core "self" distinctly seperate from "other" that says you can reduce all things to a cold hard rational fact, devoid of any further understanding or interrelationship to the universe and it's contents. Just look at any of todays headlines, on most any incident and see the dysfunctionality rampant in our responses. And the deep trouble we are in because we refuse to analytically critique our own process of thought.

There seems to be two distinctly different threads of thought in todays global culture and they are increasingly producing destructive results as they collide. One has man, disconnected and un-related and alone at the center of the world view, the other has man connected and interrelated to and with all things. One process will survive the other will not. There is a gathering will to overhaul and re-invent the "intent" of Western thought, and sooner rather than later.
I certainly apologize for the length of this response, trying to articulate my thoughts..

[nihilon x]

His own comments labeled him as a racist.