Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe
Iconic Films
2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Sunday Times
October 14, 2007
The elementary DNA of Dr Watson
History will remember James Watson for the discovery of the double helix. But his pronouncements are often highly controversial. His former protegee examines the complex legacy of a Nobel laureate
The names Watson and Crick, it has been said, have “joined Darwin and Copernicus among the immortals”. The pair’s discovery of the structure of DNA, in 1953, has been hailed by fellow Nobel laureates as the greatest single scientific achievement of the 20th century. Today the only one remaining of the two, Dr James Watson, 79, stands alone as “the godfather of DNA”.
When, sitting at a dinner in Lincoln College, Oxford, in 1996, this ageing geneticist gingerly leant over to the guest by his side – the formidable headmistress of a large girls’ boarding school – and said, “I’m looking for some girls,” he was met with an appropriately cold stare. However, when he explained he was in England to hand-pick two students, one male and one female, to live in his Long Island home with him and his wife, Liz, and work as geneticists for a year at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, it was an opportunity too good to lose. The headmistress promptly replied: “Well, funnily enough…”
It’s August and I am standing on the shimmering forecourt of the laboratory’s towering neuroscience building. “You’re doing this for the future of women in science,” my headmistress had impressed on me, 10 years earlier, as I left to start my stint at the laboratory bench. Watson, she said, had come over specifically to recruit a girl – a change from the male-dominated programme to date. Glancing up, I see a familiar figure pacing briskly over sun-drenched paving slabs towards me. At 79, Watson looks remarkably unchanged, perhaps his scant wisps of hair a touch whiter and gait a little less sure. “Ah, Charlotte,” he says enthusiastically and, pausing to give me the wide, open-mouthed smile I remember well and fixing me with intense, pale grey eyes, he presses my shoulders and plants a kiss firmly on both cheeks.
I am back in Long Island to discuss the geneticist’s latest and, he tells me, final memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. His early life and academic career, peppered with useful tips for “those on their way up” as well as those “on the top who do not want their leadership years to be an assemblage of opportunities gone astray”. And – as befits the ultimate memoir of a forthright scientist – an inflammatory epilogue with eye-popping theories that will, undoubtedly, leave ethicists choking with disbelief. We are not alone, however. A rotund thirty-something man asks for a photograph, puffing his chest and beaming proudly into the camera lens. Later, Watson tells me that the visitor was a science reporter who confided he has a form of schizophrenia.
Related Links
The visitor’s trust is well founded. Standing just a few hundred metres from the building, vast construction frameworks jut above the campus. This, Watson’s latest project – an impressive $100m new-build – heralds a new era of genetics. It will soon become Cold Spring Harbor’s platform for unravelling the genetic causes of mental disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. He is convinced that within 10 years “we will be able to diagnose the problem of schizophrenia by looking at the patient’s DNA”.
James Watson, or Jim, as the majority of scientists call him at the lab, has an energy that’s infectious, almost childlike. Born in Chicago in 1928 into a family who believed in “books, birds, and the Democratic party”, his outgoing character comes, he tells me, from his mother, the well-liked and extrovert Margaret – a raven-haired beauty who worked enthusiastically for the Democrats, the basement of their modest house doubling as a polling station at election time. His father, James, worked for a correspondence school and was a quiet, kind character who introduced his son to books and instigated a love of biology with early-morning birding forays in the nearby park. Watson recalls that he was conditioned to accept his father’s disdain for “any explanation that went beyond the laws of reason and science”.
Caught up in the Depression of the 1930s, he slept in tiny attic rooms with his younger sister, Betty, in the middle-class neighbourhood of South Shore, playing evening games of “kick the can” and softball in bungalow-lined streets. Skinny-framed and physically weak in his teens, his only consolation from school bullies was his parents’ empathy, encouraging constant trips to buy milk shakes to “fatten him up”. He recalls how a pupil cheerfully told him how, given his social awkwardness, “none of my classmates thought I would amount to much”.
In his picture-lined office, sitting beneath a rough paper sketch of a twisting DNA helix, Watson leans back in his chair, excitedly discussing his book. “Not being boring isn’t sufficient to be a success in this world, but certainly,” he pauses, fixing me with a brilliant smile, “it helps.” He says he hopes the book will encourage people to go into science and – tilting the cover to the light points out a hidden “Other” between the words “Boring” and “People” – “One, I’m a snob; the other, I’m a realist!” He giggles in delight.
Watson didn’t grow up thinking he was particularly gifted. “I never was one of those boy geniuses who could do maths,” he admits. But he does remember his teachers liked him, commenting that: “I must have had some spark that I didn’t know I had myself.” At the extremely young age of 15, he was admitted to the University of Chicago; his mother knew the head of admissions, he says, and “I always thought I got in because they liked my mother”. For a brilliant but awkward teenager, university was the break he needed. “A world where I might succeed using my head – not based on personal popularity or physical stature – was all that mattered to me,” he writes.
Watson prefers to eat at Winship’s, the chatty, down-to-earth laboratory bar overlooking the harbour, named after my boss of the time, whom he describes as having the “second loudest laugh I’ve ever heard after Francis Crick”. He mingles enthusiastically, hands shoved deep in dark-
red knee-length shorts, an orange floppy sunhat perched on his head. He remembers, as I do, being seduced by the informal and intelligent atmosphere of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, something he first encountered as a 20-year-old biology graduate on a summer course. He says that in these early days, molecular biology was a very small field and people “didn’t know what DNA was”. He was under the spell of Max Delbrück, the charismatic young German lab director who played tennis and wasn’t “stuffy”.
For Watson, the ability to socialise is a key skill, one he believes can help propel you far beyond your peers. “Gossip is a fact of life also among scientists. And if you are out of the loop of what’s new, you are working with one hand tied behind your back.” The trait is clear among his staff, who, chatting easily at the bar, have the “ungeeky” Watson touch. My headmistress recalls the geneticist wanting a “bright but not very boffiny candidate who had lots of other interests” and who, above all, was “sociable”.
When Watson arrived in the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge University as a 23-year-old postdoc, thirsty for the truth about the genetic material in our cells, his sociable American ways encountered Francis Crick’s “extraordinary conversational ability”, and he was hooked. Suddenly it no longer mattered what Delbrück thought: “It became what Francis thinks.” The pair freely discussed their scientific findings with other researchers at Cambridge and King’s College London, and Watson says this was essential to the pair’s ability to work out the detailed structure of the DNA molecule.
But there was someone who seemed immune to Watson’s precocious intelligence and eager collaboration: the acclaimed x-ray crystallographer Rosalind Frankin – someone described by Watson and Franklin’s estranged research colleague Maurice Wilkins, who shared the Nobel prize, as “hostile”. Whereas Watson admits to never having a problem asking for advice, writing that it is better for someone to “know my inadequacies than not to be able to go on to the next problem”. Franklin seemed unwilling to risk criticism, reportedly preferring to work on DNA in isolation, jealously guarding her results. Watson comments that “avoiding your competition because you are afraid that you will reveal too much is a dangerous course”.
As he chews a melted-cheese sandwich and sips an iced coffee in the bar, he reflects on his relationship with “Rosy”. “She was possibly somewhat Asperger’s,” he says quietly, “because she didn’t seem to even want to look at people and would hurry past them. I think she wasn’t good at knowing what other people thought and so she would insult them. She had some terrible interviews with the Medical Research Council and I think she cried afterwards. She was just awkward.” Then he softens: “I tell people, instead of feeling angry at awkward people, you realise it’s not their choice. It’s awful. And I think science selects for awkward people because you think in dealing with ideas, you don’t have to deal with people. But the moment you’re in science and you realise you can’t deal with other people, you’re at an enormous disadvantage.”
It is hard to ignore the accusations that emerged around that time. In 1962, Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel prize for physiology or medicine, but by then Franklin – whose data was so crucial to the discovery – had died at the age of 37, her life cut short by ovarian cancer. But when, in 1968, Watson wrote an account of the DNA “race” in which he revealed that Wilkins had shown him Franklin’s data without her knowledge, and compounded it by being derogatory about her physical appearance, he was slammed by feminists riled by what they believed was a blatant case of sexism. Although the prize can only be shared by a maximum of three people in one category – and Franklin’s input was readily acknowledged – they claimed her contribution had been overshadowed. When, in an interview at the time, he was asked why it mattered how a woman looked, he said: “Because it’s important” – a statement surely grounded in the genteel influences of his early life, when manners mattered, and being unkind “just wasn’t the way to behave”. And occasionally, throughout the day, his “old-fashioned” ideals come through. He describes Max Delbrück’s wife, Manny, as someone he liked very much but “not the sort of wife he needed”, adding that she was a terrible cook and would never have enjoyed the entertaining and fundraising that comes with being a university president’s wife. He also refers more than once to his disdain for women turning men into “girly men”, which means “men who don’t have the courage to say anything – it’s absurd”.
Feminists are a constant source of trouble for him. I remember him turning to me the day the headline “Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner” appeared in a British broadsheet 10 years ago. Eyes wild and voice uncharacteristically strained, he asked: “What should I do about the press?” He refers to the incident again at lunch. “It was a hypothetical thing,” he explains. “If you could detect it pre-natally, could a woman abort a child who was homosexual? I said they should have the right to, because most women want to have grandchildren, period. We can’t do it, but it’s common sense. Anyways,” he says, shaking his head wearily, “it was a bad day when that headline hit. I was just arguing for the freedom of women to try and have the children they want, not what is right or wrong.”
One former pupil, an eminent biologist and staunch feminist, is outraged at his account of her in his book. He describes her as having “bolted from the room” when the ex-Harvard University president Larry Summers gave his infamous lecture suggesting that the low representation of tenured female scientists at universities might stem from, among other causes, innate differences between the sexes – an “unpopular, though by no means unfounded” theory, Watson comments. “She can criticise men; men can criticise women,” he says. “People criticise me all the time and you just take it. If you enter the public arena then you’re subject to it.” On the subject of gender equality he says, adamantly: “All I care about is great science.”
But he happily admits to appreciating a pretty smile or a well-dressed physique. A love of things aesthetic is unmistakable – pictures, glass sculptures and his elegant wife, Liz, 20 years his junior. He once said that in the early days, “almost everything I ever did, even as a scientist, was in the hope of meeting a pretty girl”. However, on the subject of science, he seems impartial. He admits that Rosalind Franklin would have seen the double helix first “had she seen fit to enter the model-building race and been better able to interact with other scientists”, and makes a point of mentioning that a former female student whose career he “certainly encouraged” – who is now a high-powered biology professor – calls him “the first real feminist for women in science”. As I sit with him, another former female student is being derided for her poor personal hygiene. He jumps to her defence: “No,” he shakes his head, dismissing it. “She was very intelligent.”
We drive in Watson’s silver-grey Volvo between tall sycamores and past the laboratory basketball court – a favourite pastime for many of the staff, fulfilling his rule to “exorcise intellectual blahs” by incorporating “plenty of physical exertion
to get outside your head regularly”. The road winds down to Ballybung, the Watsons’ peach-coloured Palladian-style home perching on the edge of Long Island Sound, which serves as a tranquil retreat from the bustling campus.
The lab is undoubtedly his second legacy. When he took on its directorship in 1967 at the age of 39, it was an ailing institution whose endowment was effectively zero, but it stands today as one of the world’s foremost genetic research institutes. Last year its budget stood at an impressive $115.4m. Success, he believes, comes from having the right objectives: “Ones that are important and which are achievable.” Is he proud of the achievement? “Yes, I always wanted anything we did to be in the top five in the world. But I achieved it by encouraging people and making people think that you’re good enough to do something very good and make sure you don’t waste your life with unimportant objectives.” He says Cold Spring Harbor couldn’t survive if the science was pedestrian: “It has to be unusual or you die.”
When he took on the directorship, he split his time between Cold Spring Harbor and his professorship at Harvard. At 39 he had been captivated by the Radcliffe sophomore Elizabeth Lewis, the young assistant in his university faculty. After a lightning romance, he memorably wrote a postcard to a close friend saying:
“19-year-old now mine.” As I wait in Ballybung’s homely kitchen, Liz breezes in clutching a bunch of sunflowers to “brighten up the hall, because they are so pretty”. A dark-haired beauty with wide-set eyes and a dazzling smile that, says Watson, “would always make me feel good”; it seems clear her intelligent and solid support contributes much to the laboratory’s success.
On late nights back from the lab, I would stumble over little presents and notes on the stairs to our annexe – timely reminders from Liz not to forget a drinks party that weekend. The Watsons, I soon discovered, never stop working. The house was invariably crammed with rich benefactors and potential donors. Unaware of funding concerns then, I find out that the new buildings I saw earlier will need an additional $100m on top of the building costs, to “attract researchers”. Jim is as blatantly direct about his fundraising tactics as about everything else. He writes: “Nothing attracts money like the quest for the cure for a terrible disease.”
But the quest for the root causes of mental illness is not driven only by a lust for the truth. Of his two sons – Rufus, 37, and Duncan, 35 – Rufus lives at home, seriously incapacitated by an ability to plan ahead. “Rufus couldn’t really do his schoolwork,” Watson says. “Even though he was bright, he could never write a term paper because he couldn’t really organise his thoughts. He can handle one day and that’s all that he wants to think about.”
Rufus was first hospitalised at the time of the 1986 meeting on the human genome. Watson realised that he would never really find out what was wrong with him until he could isolate the genes. But, as more is uncovered about the causes of schizophrenia, he wonders if he himself is to blame. “I worry that I was 42 with Rufus,” he says. “I read that the frequency of schizophrenia goes up with the age of both parents.” This leads him to expound his latest socio-biological theory, that “Viagra is fighting against evolution” – because if evolution has selected for erectile-dysfunction disorder, it is to prevent older men fathering children. He suggests that “men should store sperm at 15 to be used if they want to be fathers at 80”.
He talks of the “horror and destruction” of life that can arise from having a severely autistic child, and hopes that by diagnosing autism early, “we might prevent some [autism-prone] families having subsequent children”. His mother died young, at 57. He says her heart was weakened by rheumatic fever earlier in her life, and that his father died of lung cancer. It was the quest to understand the biology of cancer that ultimately lured him from his professorship at Harvard. As the director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, he could preside over seasoned professionals, focusing his efforts first on “recruiting scientists who cared as much as I did about the biology of cancer, and then on finding the funding they needed to make their ideas work”.
But what of the man himself? “I used to be three inches taller,” he says conspiratorially. “I used to be almost 6ft 2in and now I think I’m barely 5ft 101/2in.” His voice drops to a whisper: “You get smaller.” The other disconcerting thing for the geneticist is that, when they sequenced his DNA, he hardly had anything left of his Ychromosome – an evolutionary phenomenon that commonly occurs as men age. “I try not to think about it,” he chuckles. Acutely conscious of his physical appearance in his youth, he still finds looking at himself irksome. “The trouble is,” he says, as the photographer shows him a picture, “I don’t like the ones that look like me.” His ideal look? “Twenty-five,” he chuckles, “but I’d be satisfied with 35. A man, no matter how old, wants to think of himself as no more than 35, and to look at a wife who was 45… No! That would immediately tell you how old you are.”
As I sit on the plush tennis lawns of the nearby Piping Rock club, I am aware – as Watson powers formidable forehands cross-court – that even during his daily relaxation he is unfailingly competitive. “I play for two reasons,” he tells me. “To stay fit, and when occasionally I win a good point against a good player, I feel good.”
Does he ever reflect on his achievements?
“I don’t think back much. I’m still thinking can we find the genes for mental disease while I’m still mentally alive, and will we have stopped cancer in 10 years, and… will my tennis serve improve?”
We are waiting at a red light on the way back from tennis and, for Watson, a meeting with a potential sponsor. I remember that while I was thrilled when a sheet of familiar laboratory paper landed on my desk a few months ago, asking if I would like to interview him for his new book, I was wary of the ethical content. “If I believe something then I’ll say it,” the scientist says. “I figure, generally, at least half the time I am reflecting common sense, which is not a lie.”
Back in 1990, the journal Science commented: “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.” When, in 2000, he left an audience reeling by suggesting a link between skin colour and sex drive – hypothesising that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos – some journalists suggested he had “opened a transatlantic rift”. American scientists accused him of “trading on past successes to promote opinions that have little scientific basis”. British academics countered that subjects should not be off limits because they are politically incorrect. Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution, said that “nothing should stop you ascertaining the scientific truth; science must be free of concerns about gender and race”.
He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “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”.
When asked how long it might take for the key genes in affecting differences in human intelligence to be found, his “back-of-the-envelope answer” is 15 years. However, he wonders if even 10 years will pass. In his mission to make children more DNA-literate, the geneticist explains that he has opened a DNA learning centre on the borders of Harlem in New York. He is also recruiting minorities at the lab and, he tells me, has just accepted a black girl “but,” he comments, “there’s no one to recruit.”
Watson will no doubt enthusiastically counter the inevitable criticisms that will arise. He once commented to a fellow scientist – perhaps optimistically – that “the time was surely not far off when academia would have no choice but to hand political correctness back to the politicians”. Even after a year at the lab, I am still unnerved by his devil-may-care compulsion to say what he believes. Critics may see his acceptance of “softer-science” studies – that attempt to link IQ with specific genes, but remove society and other factors from the equation – as a dangerously flippant approach to a complex issue. His comments, however, although seemingly unguarded, are always calculated. Not maliciously, but with the mischievous air of a great mind hoping to be challenged. I ask him how he placates those he offends. “I try to use humour or whatever I can to indicate that I understand other people having other views,” he explains.
As I motor back to New York, I reflect on a man who – at nearly 80 – is, and will remain, an immensely powerful and revered force in science. I wonder whether it’s possible, as his desire to shock seems so strong, that a fear of boring people really does play on his mind. Perhaps the best description of the man is from the driver. “Dr Watson’s so kind and still very young at heart,” he drawls as we leave the campus behind. “He’s got a lot of curiosity about everything and he’s always working. But to him it isn’t work: it’s a challenge to the mind. And if he runs into a problem, it’s fun time.”
Avoid Boring People by James D Watson (Oxford University Press, £14.99) is published on October 22. It is available at the BooksFirst price of £13.49, including postage and packing. Tel: 0870 165 8585
Dr Watson’s tips for success
- Always make necessary decisions before you have to
- Be the first to tell a good story
- Don’t back schemes that demand miracles
- Never be the brightest person in the room
- Only ask for advice that you will later accept
I am a 58yr old white female of average intelligence and have worked with people of all races.
In my 40+ years in the work force I have never noticed a difference in peoples' intelligence due to race. Look at Barack Obama for instance. Mother's genes?
Shirley, New Albany, Indiana, USA
Some of my best friends are evolutionary biologists...but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one.
Russ, Crystal Lake, Illinois USA
Hi i am not ivy league educated (in fact i'm so certain my IQ is average i refuse to take an IQ test, i mean who wants to live there whole life knowing there intelligence is summed up in a few numbers on a paper i mean geesh isn't there a study guide or something for this test, come on) for example most comments i read in high brow scientific publications looks a little like this to me {The catilitic converter of the bastard endogemic pertaintavly explanetiates the conduit of the lesbian titanium, furthermore i deduce a proactivate multiple sclerosis for a herniated testicular miopsis} I am a white girl. both sides of my family can prove by very old census to have native american ancestry, in fact most white americans claim to have some. i once asked a guy who bragged about the superiority of the pure white race whether or not he had any "Indian" ancestry "Of course" he said "my great great grandmother" i had to be the one to break the news to him native americans aren't white.
Channie, New Braunfels, Texas
There are many opinions expressed here, but the major factor in discussing Dr. Watson's position re genetics and IQ, is that the IQ data had been collected for over 100 years, and whether you think other factrors have been ignored or not, the numbers are the numbers, and they are consistent. Political Correctness plays no part in making authentic scientific findings.
What other conclusion can anyone draw from those numbers?
No matter your race, if you entered this discussion, you are undoubtedly "above average" IQ. However, denying the time-developed consistent average number for your race belies that you are "above average". Leave Dr. Watson out. He didn't collect or make up the numbers.
Consider why it is that you deny what the averages clearly demonstrate.
Roger, Honolulu, Hawaii
On the whole, I agree with what Dr Watson has to say, though I think he's gone a bit OTT - any publicity is good publicity though, right?
Nobody with any knowledge of sport can doubt that Western Africans are generally the best at sprinting, East Africans at long-distance running, North-eastern Europeans at strength events, etc. Why wouldn't these evident physiological differences in performance have parallels in various aspects of intelligence?
Citing individuals with particularly impressive qualifications/talents/whatever is largely irrelevant. This debate is about populations, not individuals. One of the most intelligent people I've ever met was a Nigerian student, FWIW.
People dismissing this due to the effect of 'nurture' compared to 'nature' should consider the above sporting examples... and the fact that environmental effects *can* be analysed and taken into account.
Richard, Bristol, England
Reactions portraying this brilliant and highly accomplished scientist (with an apparently flawed metaphysical viewpoint) as an outrageous outlier of the “intelligentsia†is unfortunate and obscure the very subtle, yet generalized disciplinary apparatus that have historically been used to obscure alterable factors, and thereby preserving the historically-contingent environment of choice that encapsulates us all, differentially, and largely class-based (yes, with additional signifying confounders) at the point of human conception onward… immediately modifying each human proto-agent during gestation, at its birth, throughout its agency development, and significantly effect subsequent point-in-time agency within the environment of choice, and more importantly, the observable and/or measurable expressions of what remain of initial genetic potentials that we can detect from incomplete but scientific information...
T, LA, USA, CA
Dr Watson is a great scientist. He has done a lot for science and society. I cannot comment on whether he is right or wrong but, scientists often come up with such controversial statements. Dr Watson's statement will not change the fate of africans.Whatever they are ,they will continue to be so. Let's forgive him for such a folly. For his contributions to science are so great that it overshadows such controversies, if any.
Rahul Sharma, varanasi, india
Dr. Watson is a genetist, and so he naturally favors the nature side of the Nuture vs Nature debate. There are genetic differences between races and hence their children behave differently. Beyond that the enviornment has a huge affect on our phenotypes.
About Mundo's comment "if it wasn't for the Europeans who colonized whole of Africa and those who stole Africans as slaves, today Africa would be the greatest continent of all. "
1. Just about every country was conquered by someone else at some point in history. South Africa and India are doing much better than Africa, excluding S Africa.
2. The African economy had gone backwards in the last 40 years.
3. Direct desendents of slaves have a greater standard of living than those who stayed behind.
4. The brain drain created by poverty has far more immediate affects.
And hey, they only name I know for my ancestors is gaelic for "slave". Basically, you should be more upset about slavery that is going on today than historically.
Lindsey , Elizabethtown, PA, USA
To all who think like him,
This clearly shows how most of the westerners have very nallow minded and outright stupid. In actual sense most Africans are more smarter than anyone ever think. Good indication is how i have seen Africans come to the western countries, pursue high education do so well that they are always in many cases ahead of the rest of the class. They are able to do this studying in foreign language and do better than the native speakers of that language.
Its important for your shallow mind, Dr. watson (wonder what a Dr you are with suh thinking) to know this fact, if it wasn't for the Europeans who colonized whole of Africa and those who stole Africans as slaves, today Africa would be the greatest continent of all. The resources of my continent is unmatched to any, the beauty of the people, animals and plants is unmtached.
I have a big dream, that one day, may be after our generations have passed, African will unite under no western world influence. Remember
Mundu, kiambu, Kenya
quote from the original controversial article: "He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower levelâ€."
Anyone reading this must conclude Watson is not a racist. He just means that even though there ARE indisputable physiological differences(maybe there are even some cognitive minor ones) among human races, those differences happen in MEAN measures, e.g. on AVERAGE (so even if differences between races are accepted, nothing in nature prevents a more melaninated person from scoring higher than a less melaninated one. Thus he seems to conclude (and we must follow) people should be selected based on MERIT instead of race. That does not sound racist at all when thought through, don't you think?
People get all jumpy because he made the bad mistake of using blacks as an example. There'd be no fuzz had he said Asians skyrocket on IQ tests.
Hugo A. M. Torres, Sao Paulo, Bra
Labeca Annick:
if you claim you can really speak 10 languages either you are lying or you don't know what to know a language really means.
If you can discuss philosophy, politics or math or anything significant in ten different language you are a genious, and that's not likely your case.
many restaurant owners claim they know many different languages.
yes, they can get orders by customers and tell them what's on the menu.
And what about if your good genes were coming from a french settler?
How is that France produced cartesius and most of modern calculus scientists while West indies produced just you?
bruno, Italy,
This is why I will never see a white man as my friend though this may be a prejudice. I don't trust any of them now, and I will never!
It came as no surprise to me anyway because that is how Watson has been told time and again by different whites through time. But I pray for long life for people like Watson and the other whites who think like him. Just wait!
George Baah, Cantabb, UK
Perhaps Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is relevant here. IQ testing as we know it is passe.
So Prof. Watson's statement that “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really†- may be re-evaluated in the light of Gardner's theory.
As a grad student in theoretical physics, I might want to test biologists on stuff I know but they do not, and decide they are all stupid. But this kind of reasoning is based on assuming that facility with certain limited areas of human knowledge/thought/perception defines intelligence without a shade of doubt - which does not sound right to me.
Some unknown person like me might make a few racially insensitive comments, but a Nobel laureate can make much greater impact, so perhaps Prof. Watson could have chosen his words with greater care.
In any case, we now know that getting a Nobel Prize is also not indicative of "superior" intelligence.
Aniket Srivastava, Kanpur, INDIA
We are not the same ! And diversity needs to be celebrated and arrogance relegated, a question has been posed lets sit back and wait and see what the answers will be, and whom they will be given by. Let your heads lead you and don't be afraid of being enlightened even if they are not the answers you want to hear.
Craigeblack bajanbiologist, Oxford, uk
Mr Watson makes it doubly hard not to believe that a small but very powerful and influential family of white supremacists just cannot help but prove that their strand of racism is incurable, for it is possibly genetic in it's source.Colonialism, slavery of the peace loving and hospitable African people/race and perpetual bigotry could never have shown it's ugly head and near permanent destructive power without the applauding of the likes of such un-trainable lot of reckless seekers of supremacy glory theories.The challenge is how to escrow his perversely earned royalties from his books towards programmed debunking of that very nonsense exuding from his platform and inexcusable gaffe!
Rowlence, Lusaka, Zambia
"[A]ll our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours"? No, not really. Our social policies are based on the fact that people should have equal *opportunities*, and that we should not assume that somebody does or does not have particular abilities or characteristics simply because he or she is a member of a particular group. That's something different altogether.
In this practical light, it is completely irrelevant whether ethnic groups differ systematically in their intelligence. What matters is whether one treats members of different groups differently when their intelligence (or whichever individual characteristic you want to look at) actually is the same (e.g., when two individuals from different ethnic groups have an IQ of 100), simply because they *are* members of different ethnic groups. Doing so would of course be racism.
That said, the scientific debate about intelligence, heritability, and group differences is still very much open.
Eric, Groningen, The Netherlands
He truly is intelligent, he knows that making inflammatory statements on the intelligence of difference races is going to sell books, and that is the aim of book writers. Whether or not Dr. Watson truly believes what he espouses he must know that his comments will only result in negativity. Genius and old age does not give one a blanket right to be irresponsible in the remarks we make, especially when the person is so highly respected.
Chris A, London,
In the early 20th century, European and American scientists observed social and economic disadvantages in their societies, then proceeded to measure skull circumferences to explain the differences. And they found them ! Surprise, surprise, Black African skulls made them 'stupid' !
In the 21st century, these same disadvantages are observed around the world, more so in Africa. However, we no longer measure head circumferences, we use GENES. It is our new tool. It is technical, fanciful, and makes us all look clever.
Science is amoral, but scientists are moral agents. We (scientists) reflect, in our pursuits, our moral compass.
Thank you Dr Watson, and may the Cold Harbor Laboratory reap considerable funding from the task of isolating the Intelligence gene(s)
Anthony Oke, Cannock, United Kingdom
Looking at all of the possibilties of where to find intelligence. I take the view point that customs and environment most definately have an effect on whom could or would create gun powder. After centuries of war, caucasians had to exist with new technology of differnet nations. While, in admiration of the nurturing homeland of Africa, genes there had a very different ritual and tribal existance that man really needs to get back to. I would rather co-exist and protect a tribe against lions than nuclear threats. So, should a race strive so hard to catch up to the possiblity of being destroyed? Or bask in the indifference of a nurturing earthly existance...Do you rule a race or try to rule all races?
Mick, Escapeto , OR
Reading through the posts I am struck by how many people are confusing averages and individual examples. Stating that a single white quarterback is proof that black's have no edge in sports, or that a black Mensa member disproves Dr. Watson's claims are both equally irrelevant arguments. He has at no point said that all whites are superior intellectually to blacks, or that all people of Asian heritage are superior to whites. He is stating that the data we have to date shows gaps in mean IQ between these groups. It would be astonishing if this was not the case. I've scored as high as 162 on IQ tests, and am quite certain there are people of African heritage more intelligent than I, and am also quite certain that if we use IQ as a measurement I am far more intelligent than the mean Asian person. This is irrelevant. I also assert that through recorded history there may be a correlation between a nation's average IQ and other types of success, but this is hardly the primary factor.
Phil, Cleveland, OH
James Watson and Francis Crick are the Madonna and Bono of all modern biotechnology, biological science, and genetics. Unfortunately, once a young scientist such as myself found out that it was Rosalind Franklin's X-ray crystal structure that informed the double helix model, and that Crick was the real mathematical genius, and reads the original paper with Watson's drawing in it (no data, mind you, just a drawing), I could not help but wonder - how can you publish a model, for which you personally report no evidence, and not credit the person who did the actual experiments - to the extent that barely anybody outside of science has ever heard of Rosalind Franklin? And then win the Nobel Prize, and accept it, without ever really giving her credit?
A few years in, you realize science is run by people just marginally more ethical than trial lawers.
Mich Genom, Biologist, New York,
Hey! Fellow blacks, we know what the whole world is thinking about us. The past is gone and we better stop arguing. Let,s never be nervous about it. After all every one is entitled to his/ her opinion. U do well to remember how the chinese had their fair share of treatments in the States, and to realize how they are currently climbing up the ladder past the red mark delineated for them, by the whites. The chinese never complained but worked hard. Guys, i learned from chinese friends how, we to our disadvantage always rant and rave to every little thing the whites do, and how the Aseans to their advantage react with indifference to pressure . They bend, squeeze and find their way out. The bottom line is let us be wise, keep quite and let our wise actions speak more than our words. Let,s straighten up, and behave. Then and only then can we catapult ourselves more into the intellectual than the physical. However, the combination could be more irresistible.
Emans, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
What concerns me here is not whether Dr Watson is correct or not correct, but the fact that it is impossible to have and open non hysterical discussion on the issue. People are even citing racial hatred laws, are you serious?
The truth is there are a number of factors to throw into the mix, not least of which is cause and effect (as any statistician will tell you is as important as the data itself)
This argument ultimately boils down to the whole nature versus nurture discussion, and has supporters on both sides. I thoroughly recommend reading Steven Pinker’s 'The Blank Slate’ whereby the evidence strongly suggests that genetics is the primary factor is determining all number of traits (from the physical to the behavioral)
As a final caveat; in the UK, to all the protestations of racism, the most successful 'race' in the education system are the Asians (and specifically the Chinese)…that statement, like Dr Watson’s, may be controversial but it isn’t racist.
Peter Gibbinson, Keston, UK
I agree with Immaculate. Europeans and North Americans are responsible for many of the problems of Africa, Asia, Latin and South America. It is a socially induced disease, not a genetic one. But future will be quite different. Unlike Watson, I am optimistic.
Geneticist, Houston, USA
I am born in Uganda and, unlike james Watson, I have hope for Africa. If we had also gone plundering and colonizing others, we would be more intelligent
Immaculate
immaculate, Toronto, Canada
wow..
if every non-black person in the world thought like dr watson, where would we raise our kids...
omeni, London, UK
I don't think it'll ever be possible to prove whether Europeans are more/less intelligent than Africans or Mongoloids or Martians. However, is it for purely environmental reasons that when Europeans first went to the "Dark Continent" on the whole most were still thousands of years behind Europe in technological terms? Mathematics was first mastered in the Middle East which isn't exactly the most environmentally favourable place in the world! The Egyptians in North Africa were way ahead of most of the world at one time but "most" central and southern African cultures were, and in a few cases still are, "stone age". As modern humans are supposed to have arisen in this area logic would tell me that they had quite a head start on the rest of the world living in the same stable environment for so long. What is wrong with postulating that there could be neurodiversity across the world? There are important physical differences arising from environmental factors so why not neurological?
James, Manchester, United Kingdom
I agree with Michael from Moscow. I ordered a copy of Watson's book yesterday.
James, Weatherford, Texas
An Italian journalist seeking the viewpoint of an African scientist interviewed me on the telephone on the James Watson stiry. Her article appeared in the 18 October issue of the La Repubblica Italiano. My main point was that if James Watson had been my classmate at university, he would think differently about Africans.
Adetokunbo O. Lucas, IBADAN, Nigeria
As a black person, I agree that Watson should be allowed to prove his hypothesis rather than banned alltogether from speaking. However, until he has proven it conclusively, he should not be allowed to speak.
Intelligence is sometimes based on the conditioning and environment in which a person is brought up.
I was brought up in a priviledged African family and was privately educated in England including gaining two degrees from Cambridge University where I was always in the top quartile of my class which consisted mainly of caucasians. To the chagrin of my mostly caucasian colleagues at work, they too find it difficult to dispute my intelligence.
It is more likely than not that a lot of Watson's conclusions are based on black people who perhaps have not had the same type of intellectually enhancing background as I have or a lot of caucasians are exposed to. Watson seemed to be fuelled more by sheer bigotry than pure science. Let him publish the conclusive evidence first!
Liz Cole, London,
Glad you posted that twice, JohnDoe, I had to read it again to understand what you were saying but I think I've got it now... I totally agree with you - the notion on intelligence testing that excludes the effects of nurture has manifold perils. But I also feel that the good doctor's comments were prompted less by senseless bigotry than by a sense of mischief, possibly a top - heavy ego, a conviction on the impartial truth of his view, and a frustration that these issues are avoided because they are both highly emotional and extremely complex.
Although I find these comments rather odd, It is a huge leap to say the motive was to spread senseless bigotry, and smells suspiciously of bland political correctness.
Charlie Gillespie, London,
It is foolish to entertain the thought that any existing intelligence test adequately controls for the quantitative effect of nurture on the penetrance of intelligence genes. A function yielding a variable correcting for nurture would have to somehow quantitate and weigh the effectively stochastic sequence of sensory events that an organism processes from its birth until the IQ test, and is complicated by culture, availability of resources, human interactions and life events; which clearly differ among races due to the distribution of wealth and existing societal biases. No eugenics project has come anywhere close to this. It is shameful that a man known for his mastery of science could ignore the scientific rigors inherent in his practice in order to spread senseless bigotry.
John Doe, Cold Spring Harbor, NY / USA
It is foolish to entertain the thought that any existing intelligence test adequately controls for the quantitative effect of nurture on the penetrance of intelligence genes. A function yielding a variable correcting for nurture would have to somehow quantitate and weigh the effectively stochastic sequence of sensory events that an organism processes from its birth until the IQ test, and is complicated by culture, availability of resources, human interactions and life events; which clearly differ among races due to the distribution of wealth and existing societal biases. No eugenics project has come anywhere close to this. It is shameful that a man known for his mastery of science could ignore the scientific rigors inherent in his practice in order to spread senseless bigotry.
JohnDoe, Cold Spring Harbor, NY / USA
I am black and by no means a mediocre worker. Neither am I less intelligent than any white person. Any one who seeks to make a persons color a factor in their intelligence level needs to take a deeper look at themself.
Let it be noted that civilization started with dark colored people. How can a less intelligent person produce a more intelligent person? Some one must have done the teaching. Can a parrot teach its children to talk?
Shewlyn, CO, USA
As a scientist, I often find myself compelled to point out that most science is just a work in progress. We once believed that the sound barrier couldn't be broken. The math told us it was true, until we proved otherwise. There are few scientific "facts" that haven't at one time or another been falsehoods.
There is more to what affects the results of testing than genetics - there is often experimenter bias, intended or not. How can one create an intelligence test that is truly objective, after all? I am all too aware of how easy it would be to construct an intelligence test that could support any hypothesis. Perhaps this is what is needed - an IQ test that shows that white people are not as intelligent as first thought.
This, of course, isn't the point. We don't treat one another equally because we are equal in every way, but rather because it is the only reasonable thing to do - or at least try to do.
Shane, Auckland, New Zealand
What next? are women inferior to men, and if so, are we going to feel inherently gloomy about the prospect of half the world because all our social policies are based on the fact that women's intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really? What about midgets, or old 79 yr old white males Nobel laureates, as compared to, say, 20-yr old biology graduates? Once we start associating a particular characteristic with a particular intelligence level, where do we stop?
Dan, Alexandria, VA, USA
Dr. Watson's fault was that he made a highly speculative remark and deemed it as scientific fact. He's 79 but people who I know who have met him recently have all certified to his sharpness of mind. So he very well knew what he was doing.
What they also tell me is his statement is completely aligned to his character - he craves sensation, he hates norms and passionately crusades (as much as he can) against the climate of political correctness.
I think if the media had taken this statement in the context of his personality, we would not be making such a royal fuss over a few careless remarks.
Sach, Bombay, India
I recall reading that Dr. Watson's IQ is only 115. This is just one illustration that IQ scores are inadequate indicators of either human achievement or human foolishness.
Mindy Kornhaber, University Park, PA USA
This is an interesting debate. My conclusion is that it seems there is a feeling of insecurity among the white race. The orientals are most intelligent and blacks are the most physically strong and coordinated. Where do our white friends stand? In-between? No no no. They don't want that. Why are whites supremacist picking up fight against the black race again? Do they want another slavery? Is not going to happen again.
Listen to the real threat. Given the physical superiority of blacks, which is unquestionable, if the black race is to be credited with superior IQ, then they may rule the world sometime to come. Dr. Watson and his colleagues don't want to see that happen. That is the bottom line.
Martin, Nottingham, UK
Audrey, the very fact that you make such a statement reveals your ignorance. Fifty years ago, especially in your neck of the woods, it was commonly believed that blacks could not chew gum and walk at the same time. This stupid and racist view of our physical abilities changed only after we were given the equal opportunity to prove otherwise. The same holds true for intelligence. It is opportunity, not just inherent ability, that allows anyone to have a chance to succeed. Mr. Watson himself admitted that he was accepted into college at a young age because of the connections his mother had with the administration. Were it not for that chance, we might never have known just how much he had to offer us. Consider that fact as well as the opportunities you have been given the next time you want to cling to such absurd and outdated ways of thought. By the way, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that whites can't dance or play sports as well as blacks. Just ask Peyton Manning.
Haven Robinson, Los Angeles, California/USA
I heard the same things said when I was a sophomore at Columbia back in '96 when the Bell Curve was popular. Someone asked me if I as a black student felt angry that whites were considered smarter than blacks, to which I replied: "If you want to record stats, count just how many spolied, rich white kids drop out of school by the time I get my degree in the next two years." Why is it that the stats and theories are always invented by whites to prove their so-called superority? It seems to me to be an insecurity issue that white people need to address amongst themselves.
Haven Robinson, Los Angeles, California/USA
>>He says that he is “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 reallyâ€, and I know that this “hot potato†is going to be difficult to address.<< already chopped a statement into pieces. I doubt, that the discussion about what he said or meant etc. will make it clearer. Scientists focus on scientific publications which are approved by them.
Goetz Kluge, Albany, MA/USA
No matter what, the darker races will always be slandered and insulted by the leaders of the white race. I've never seen it fail. If a black person or culture does something well, it is discredited or ignored. If not, then it is to be expected. There is now, and has been for centuries, a white supremacy system that has always engaged in psuedoscience to justify its continual war against dark people. So I am not surprised. Anybody ever heard of biased sampling? If you are always testing the weakest samples then you can create a lower IQ argument. That is what I think of IQ tests. I am a black American man, working on my third degree (this one in accounting) for which I maintain a 4.0 G.P.A. When I scored 147 on the Stanford -Benet IQ test at age 27 (now age 50) for entry into Mensa (didn't make it, off by one percentile), they never asked me my race. None of these genetic researchers ever surveyed me. I suspect the sample is biased or the data is simply fabricated.
Charles , Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Did anyone ever read "How to lie with Statistics" (1954) by D. Huff. Perhaps when we look at the IQ tests and intelligence issues, we should seriously question the testing system. As to neuroscience and intelligence, well it is still in its infancy. They do not really know what goes on in a fruit fly's head yet !
Stephen Pain, Odense, Denmark
Your assuming that all men of science are evil when I would submit that is not normally true. Is it bad to state a factual observation if it is true? To not state a truth does not make it untrue, it just makes it unsaid. I think to make an untrue broad generalization is worse than not speaking the truth. We should never be afraid of the truth if we seek the truth to improve mankinds lot in life.
Eugene Keith, New Castle, USA, Indiana
Why is it that it is a well-known and accepted fact that generally speaking blacks are more physically coordinated than whites.... they can dance better and are better athletes, overall and in general. This doesn't mean that no whites can dance or that no whites can play sports, or that all blacks are better at those things than all whites, just that in general most blacks are better at those things than most whites. Why is it so difficult then to make the jump that there may also be an intelligence difference as well.
Audrey, Montgomery, AL/USA
When you utter a truth that is regarded as very "not nice" you are supposed to retract it immediately and shut up. Watson's truth is not new. It is the same truth that was published by two eminent social scientists in The Bell Curve and that was also uttered years ago by another Nobel Laureate: Shockley. But it is "not nice" and therefore for minds governed by "niceness" it cannot be true.
Hal, Tucson, USA
Here in South Carolina, US, our test scores clearly show the difference in intelligence levels. The results are astounding. Do not take my word for it. Go to http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/pact/scores.html . I haven't check other states, but I encourage everybody to go back and look at test scores broken down by race. Dr. Watson is not a racist, he is a realist.
T. Seaman, Charleston, USA/SC
The Bell Curve book made it clear that there are extremely bright blacks, more intelligent than the average white or more intelligent whites, but there are simply not very many of them. Intelligence is distributed along a bell curve and the black bell curve is shifted to the left of the white one. And the white one is probably shifted a bit to the left of the Asiatic one or the Jewish one.
Hal, Tucson, USA
As a relatively thick white person I am glad to know I may, statistically, have so many black friends. All this "you've got to be intelligent" stuff, invent, become a Wall St maven, break Fermat's last theorem, build nuclear reactors and put a woman on Mars is, frankly, overwhelming for a species who've on average only about 80 years longevity to do it all in. Since the high IQ brigade have learnt the world will disappear into a black hole in 5 billion years, it makes the debate rather meaningless. Here's to low IQs and dysfunctional societies everywhere. Sometimes being beaten in class by the smart kids and the sense of inferiority that gives isn't worth the gains that those smart kids make for the rest of us. I didn't ask them to be smart nor criticize me for being thick. When's the next plain to Africa?
Capernicus, Hong Kong,
I'm a 49 year old, well educated black male. Sad, but true, there are times I too wonder whether the races have the same intelligence quotient. As I prepare my nine year old son and two year old daughter for the "realities of life", I'm constantly reminded of thoughts that propelled me through engineering school during the 70s and business school during the 80s: (1) All white people are not more intelligent than all black people; (2) the statistical difference between the average white person's IQ and the average black's is less than one standard deviation; (3) most people (be they white, black or brown) are average; (4) based on SAT scores and ITBS scores, some black people, like myself, are more intelligent than most whites; and, finally, (5) being slightly less intelligent does not make a group inferior.
N. Locke, Atlanta, GA (USA)
Once it was said that science could not ask the question "Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?" as 'everyone' knew the answer already from reading the Bible.
Now it is said that we cannot ask the question "Are there intelligence (or other) differences by race or color?" because 'everyone knows the answer' or 'that might lead people to act badly'.
Science should be free to ask and answer any questions. We should be careful how we apply the answers.
Jim, Memphis, TN, US
To lead is often perilous!
Kevin, St. Louis, MO
Science is rapidly becoming dangerous to human thinking. Once we remove morality, science provides justification and technology for any unspeakable evil men can conceive. Perhaps we should build a 'genetic' weapon which only kills certain ethnicities. Or kills schizophrenics? Why not build a genetic weapon? What if the target race really is 'inferior' according to some specific metric? We must remember that Hitler's genocide was made possible by scientific innovation; it was 'rational' in the sense that it viewed the body politic as a single mass entity, subject only to the laws of history. Our species is not morally equipped to deal with the 'truths' of genetics. What if a particular race is more virile? Or more 'intelligent'? What then? During any systemic shock, some narcissistic fool will seize upon these truths of genetic superiority , and as history teaches us, will promise heaven on earth while delivering precisely the opposite. The darkness of genetic weapons approaches.
Shiva, Washington, D.C.
As anyone with a molecular genetics background knows, the commonly understood idea of human "intelligence", meaning seeing patterns, understanding associations, and drawing conclusions across many different situations is hugely dynamic. Experience and stimulation change brain organization, inducing the genesis of new synaptic connections and adjusting neuronal signalling capabilities. Even gene expression can change according to environmental cues. Neuroscience and the study of epigenetics proves what utter idiocy is behind comments such as what Dr. Watson and, apparantly, Matthew from London said. It astounds me that anyone, aged or no, could possibly ascribe to such drivel. Next time, before he speaks, perhaps Dr. Watson should look into what his own discipline is about.
Lavanya, Chicago, USA
His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not trueâ€.
This is my hope too. But not only in terms of employment, all of my life experience says it is not true. But I hope still.
Peer Winter, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I think some of those tests showed that oriental races were smarter than the white race. So what? We should try to see if this is true. I would welcome grandkids or great-grandkids with a parent of a race that has higher IQs. Why not try to naturally improve the human race?
And if this turns out to be a dead end, OK. As a woman at the head of my graduating class in science I will tell you that I lost interest in pursuing a career when hormones kicked in and I wanted to be a wife and mother first. Look at that as a reason there are not more women in those fields.
There is a saying that 'I could teach your grandmother to fly a plane if I had enough time in the air force. Perhaps we could over come inherently dumber genes by providing longer courses of study if that comment turns out to be true. But never let political correctness turn a scientist away from a field of study. some people are smarter than others. If we can learn why and find out how to do something about it, why not?
nancy Parker, spokane, wA
No one can say what they really think anymore. Minneapolis schools are facing a huge budget shortfall because they get paid per student and everyones leaving Minneapolis. Why are they leaving? Because Blacks are turning so many neighborhoods into war zones. It is a cultural problem and their culture is winning.
Did you know the Jena 6 jury was all white? The reason is because all the minorities called for jury duty didn't show up.
I always deal with each black person individually because I've met so many really great folks and can't possibly generalize. Unfortunately the really bad black criminals are terrible PR for the blacks because they get so much airtime.
Whenever you see a horrendous car chase where people are hurt it's almost always a black guy who runs from the car and hides in the bushes. Bad PR.
John, minneapolis, usa / mn
After reading this story I am reminded of a proverb in the Bible:
"Do not argue with a fool because those who are listening may not know which one is which." It is clear that this man is just an old over educated fool who when he finds death will tell death that genetically he is incapable of learning to do anything other than kill and only they will the good doctor realize that killing is what death does best.
Anthony Houston, Charlotte, NC
Rosalind Franklin is the woman that should have received the Nobel Prize. Watson and Crick took over her research and never gave her the credit of being the real pioneer of DNA.
I guess they think women are not intelligent enough.
Ruben Misrahi, Beachwood, USA
This words from this man are idiotic. A persons intelligence is based on their surroundings. If their surroundings are not nurishing, then the person will more than like not be as intelligent as they could be. Africans developed math and science so how is he going to say such stupid stuff. GOD made all of us in his image and HE aint STUPID.
Tipdip, Hollywood, fl
I don't believe Dr Watson has said anything about blacks being inferior. He said what everyone familiar with IQ testing has known for years. Black Africans, on average, score lower than white Europeans, on IQ tests. But what needs to be kept in perspective is what these tests actually measure. They measure the estimated capacity for success, as defined by white European culture, in a white European society. It seems only logical that white Europeans would have an advantage.
And of course, this is all based on statistics. Statistical analysis says nothing whatsoever about any individual.
Ted, Santa Barbara, California/USA
Finally!
Every one is so afraid of saying what has been apparent for centuries because saying it is equivalent to social suicide. No one is saying that ALL black people are stupid or genetically inferior, what the honorable professor is saying is that GENERALLY blacks are more stupid and the reason for this is genetic. Why this is so can be talked about, discussed, remedied, etc, et nosium, but the fact has to be acknowledged in the face of reality. There are very intelligent people of all races, but there are more in some then in others percent-wise.
For some people this is hard to swallow because they have been told over and over that everyone is exactly the same and the only difference is the environment. This is pure socialist propaganda and has no bearing on reality. Ironically, people who embrace Darwinism reject the possibility that evolution allowed people in different geographic environments to develop differently.
Ales, New York,
Well people who promote people who don't do a good job are the ones that are stupid, regardless of color, race, religion, ethnicity. I don't need his credentials to come to that conclusion.
reza, chicago , IL
I don't think Dr Watson was implying that EVERY black person is less intelligent, just that the bell curve of intelligence distribution isn't quite in sync with that of Europeans. Black individuals claiming that they speak 10 languages, or invented the wheel or what not, just don't understand statistics, or bell curves or what Dr Watson was saying if they think they have proved him wrong.
Matthew, London,
"people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"
I am glad to read that!!! God!!! I was wondering how I could speak 10 languages including Japanese, Chinese, and Hindi as a French West Indian, and having a high-level job. Sir Watson. Now i know, and I thank my DNA for being "inferior" than the European DNA!!! Please Sir Watson, one more try!! Your research are still weak!!! Allez hop hop hop Courage!! (In French in the text)
Labeca Annick, Paris, France
Respect!
Michael, Moscow, Russian Federation