Nazi's and the Nobel
 

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"

By Cahal Milmo

Published: 17 October 2007



One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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 said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

And what about the other races around?

I thought it was hilarious when Charles Murray was doing the talk show circuit to sell his book, "The Bell Curve". He just got hammered on every show. He acted like he didn't understand all the fuss. He'd say things like, "I don't know why people think I'm racist, all I'm saying is that white people are superior to black people. There's nothing racist about that, is there?"

That guy was a real putz. I don't know anything about this Watson fellow. My guess is that we will all be better off once we have forgotten about him.

It is interesting how even "science" must bow down to the god of Political Correctness.

Gee, I wonder if PC ever influences "science" in other ways?

Just what I was thinking. I'll stay out of this debate its to hot.

What does that mean? Are you saying that Dr. Watson's comments are scientific? If so, what's your basis for saying so? Professor Rose doesn't seem to think much of Dr. Watson's scientific analysis. He said, "If [Dr. Watson] knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically"

He's a Nobel Prize winner how could he be wrong?

Ha!

Yep, he can't be possibly wrong and neither can David Dukes, both are correct. Also there should be free for all in the scientific community, this would do Dr. Mengle and his associates proud, I am sure all of them have a wry smile now in their graves, after all they were on the right track and the Nobel prize to Watson vindicates them fully.

With very good reason, almost nobody will say aloud what Watson has said.

First, it isn't proven. From what I have read (not much) Watson's observation sounds like he believes it is a certainty.

Second, the tests that I believe he alludes to are those that assume all things being equal for which the test cannot control. Factors like diet, social influences, education, etc. It hardly takes a Nobel Laureate to realize that when comparing Africans with Europeans, all things are NOT equal. The single greatest inflence (IMO) is poor diet, especially vitamins and protein deficiencies in utero and early childhood have a huge influence on brain development. Then let's load-up the various parasites and diseases to which Africans are exposed, and Europeans are not and I have a sneaky suspicion that the differences will largely disappear.

Concerning the "Bell Curve" thing, the gentleman was right in that the means of IQ's are different between races. However, there are two huge problems with that. First, the differences in means and variances between races are not statistically significant when controlled for the above-mentioned factors. Second, the very concept of "race" in humans is not statistically valid. In other words, the variances within a given race are equal to the variances between races. The bell curves overlap such that there is no statistical difference.

Having said all of that, I think the pronouncements about racial differences, especially considering the extraordinary interbreeding that's been going on for the past 3 centuries, that the presumed differences will be increasingly an anachronism of race consciousness that itself will disappear in a few more generations.

Finally, it is damned impolite. WTF would anybody think it's a good idea to stir that particular pot. Haven't we enough problems in society already?

B

We might conclude that brilliant scientists lack social intelligence.

I wouldn't give a damn what people thought if I were his age and in his position. Doesn't affect him.

You know what bugs me about this (as a scientist)? That it makes eugenics impossible to talk about without the racism charge coming-up. It is just so easy to say the wrong thing and set people off with the whole Nazi thing.

To me, failure to look at eugenics is blinding humanity to the science and technology that are here NOW--- tools with which we can manipulate the genes of a gamete or zygote. Want to solve worldwide hunger? Splice the genes into the nucleus that are necessary to allow chloroplasts to survive in human cells. The downside is we'd be kind of green. Or how about developing gills? Wouldn't you love to swim deep and long without scuba gear? I would.

I think that we will see the ability for those conjectures and God knows what else, in society's hands within 20 years. Unless we can talk about eugenics, we'll be flying intentionally blind.

B

Well said.

Tom W

Or be literaly hung like a horse?:D:D:D