Nobel Winner's Comments about Blacks

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Oct 19, 2007.

How do you feel about Watson's remarks?

  1. Watson is dead-on accurate. Blacks are not as intelligent as whites.

    30 vote(s)
  2. Watson is a racist. Intelligence is not based on race.

    20 vote(s)
  3. Watson is somewhat correct. Most blacks are not as intelligent as whites.

    27 vote(s)
  4. Watson is dead wrong. Blacks aren't only as smart as whites, they're smarter.

    7 vote(s)
  1. Nobel Winner Sorry for Race Remarks


    LONDON (Oct. 18) -- James Watson, the 79-year-old scientific icon made famous by his work in DNA, has set off an international furor with comments to a London newspaper about intelligence levels among blacks.

    Watson, who's chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, has a history of provocative statements about social implications of science. But several friends said Thursday he's no racist.

    And Watson, who won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for co-discovering the structure of DNA, apologized and says he's "mortified."

    A profile of Watson in the Sunday Times Magazine of London quoted him as saying that he's "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."

    While he hopes everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true," Watson is quoted as saying. He also said people should not be discriminated against on the basis of color, because "there are many people of color who are very talented."

    The comments, reprinted Wednesday in a front-page article in another British newspaper, The Independent, provoked a sharp reaction.

    London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture he was to give there Friday. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said his comments "represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.... That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succor to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought."

    In the United States, the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."

    And Watson's employer said he wasn't speaking for the Cold Spring Harbor research facility, where the board and administration "vehemently disagree with these statements and are bewildered and saddened if he indeed made such comments."

    Watson is in Britain to promote his new book, "Avoid Boring People," and a publicist for his British publisher provided this statement Thursday to The Associated Press:

    "I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.

    "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

    Watson's publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not address whether Watson was suggesting he was misquoted. "You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid," she said.

    A spokesman for The Sunday Times said that the interview with Watson was recorded and that the newspaper stood by the story.

    Watson's new book also touches on possible racial differences in IQ, though it doesn't go as far as the newspaper interview.

    In the book, Watson raises the prospect of discovering genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence.

    "...There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," Watson wrote. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

    Watson is no stranger to making waves with his scientific views. In 2000, in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, he suggested that sex drive is related to skin color. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."

    Some years earlier he was quoted in a newspaper as saying, "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."

    "Jim has a penchant for making outrageous comments that are basically poking society in the eye," Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said Thursday.

    Collins, who has known Watson for a long time, said his latest comments "really ... carried it this time to a much more hurtful level."

    In a brief telephone interview, Collins told The AP that Watson's statements are "the wildest form of speculation in a field where such speculation ought not to be engaged in." Genetic factors for intelligence show no difference from one part of the world to another, he said.

    Several longtime friends of Watson insisted he's not a racist.

    "It's hard for me to buy the label `racist' for him," said Victor McElheny, the author of a 2003 biography of Watson, whom he's known for 45 years. "This is someone who has encouraged so many people from so many backgrounds."

    So why does he say things that can sound racist? "I really don't know the answer to that," McElheny said.

    Biologist and Nobel laureate Phil Sharp at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who's known Watson since 1971, said, "I've never considered Jim a racist. However, Jim likes to use statistics and observations to provoke people, and it is possible that he is provoking people by these comments."

    Calling Watson "one of the great historical scientific figures of our time," Sharp said, "I don't understand why he takes it upon himself to make these statements."

    Mike Botchan, co-chair of the molecular and cell biology department at the University of California, Berkeley, who's known Watson since 1970, said the Nobelist's personal beliefs are less important than the impact of what he says.

    "Is he someone who's going to prejudge a person in front of him on the basis of his skin color? I would have to say, no. Is he someone, though, that has these beliefs? I don't know any more. And the important thing is I don't really care," Botchan said.

    "I think Jim Watson is now essentially a disgrace to his own legacy. And it's very sad for me to say this, because he's one of the great figures of 20th century biology."
  2. Daal


    irony is hes probably right. anyone pretending all races have the EXACT median IQ is a coward too afraid of being criticized
  3. " "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -"

  4. Thanks, smartest comeback I've seen in a while.:D :D
  5. fhl


    Poor guy just didn't understand that the Nobel committee awards it's prize for saying that Bush is a moron, not blacks. He's learned.
  7. The operative phrase here is "the same as". Is this 'the same as' quantitative - as in able to score as well on I.Q. tests? Or is this 'the same as' qualitative - as in having a similar distribution of aptitudes ( blacks and whites equally talented at both jazz and physics )?

    In either case I would say the answer is no.

    I don't think blacks are inferior to whites any more than whites are inferior to orientals ( who score higher than whites on I.Q. tests ).

    In any case - big discussion, even bigger can of worms.
  8. man


    i find the discussion distorted with the main distortion being the
    term "intelligence". the way IQs are tested is not independent
    from the environment people grow up in. so, if you want to find
    out whether it is the race that makes a possible difference in IQ
    you need to compare apples with apples, meaning here whites
    with the same amount of income of their parents as the blacks.
    i can hardly imagine that the average black lawyers son has a
    lower IQ than the average white lawyers son ...

    but is the average white kid more intelligent than the average
    black? in 2001 the average black family income was USD30' and
    the white USD49', about 60% more. question: do i think that
    white families with an income of more USD49' are doing better in the
    respective tests than again white families with an income of USD30'?
    i think kids in richer families find more opportunity to exploit their
    abilities, and consequently do better in IQ tests. so i'd say the
    possible findings between whites and black more reflect income
    than genes ...

    in addition to all this, IQ as such is a debateable concept. we put
    way to much emphasis on intellect and undervalue other features
    of human capabilities.
  9. LOL , so according to this pathetic theory IQ for every student in ex-commy country 20 years ago would of be in the single digits , right ?
    How many US lawyers sons ( any color) could make to top 10% of the math class in Russia or China ?
  10. Very few. Foreigners come here and they score dream numbers in placement tests. I'm not Russian, I'm not Chinese, but when i took the placement test i was placed in a class where most of my classmates spent 2-3 years to get to, and that's after 6 years of my graduation from high school and no further maths classes. Education needs to be reformed in the U.S big time, because education does affect the intelligence level of a human. Do you want to know which race is smarter? Go and check out statisticks about each one, the highest level of education the average member reaches, number of drop outs every race has in relation to the total, the ratio in lower level maths classes, the ratio in engineering classes
    #10     Nov 22, 2007