Freedom of speech is a precious thing, so not only should it be a right it should not be abused. Watson as a Nobel Laureate has the eyes and ears of the world, not to mention any platform he choses; any utterance of his would be given serious thought.. So to make the profound comment he did without having recently published work on his findings in that area is just to cheaply use the media and the advantage of his name to strike a blow and blindside whole populations, hopeful children in poverty with a negative and unfounded attack. Even if what he said was remotely true, he has a obligation as a scientist to presnt his thoughts in conjunction with his research. He should not be allowed to speak anywhere. He has his legacy.
Maybe this is just a case of age and time denuding the intellect of what was a giant of a man.

R. Burke, toronto, canada

Watson should have been allowed to speak. A debate would have been entertaining. Why not? I think Watson's wrong and personal experience tells me that he his. But let the old buffer speak and make a fool of himself, if wrong he be.

For years we have been told that HIV is a danger for everyone when in fact the PC fascists have repressed the fact that HIV infects black people, black or white drug addicts and gay men of all races. Caucasians have a very low risk of heterosexually acquiring HIV as long as they don't have sex with needle-sharing addicts. All this info was and is suppressed for PC reasons - we shouldn't upset black people.

The final irony is that Watson - who would abort babies with cheating/criminal genes - got his Nobel title with the unacknowledged help of a third colleague who should, in my opinion, have shared in the prize. Her role in discovering the double helix was suppressed and acknowledged by Watson.

Any form of scientific suppression is a terrible thing

Greg Palmer, Duesseldorf, Germany

You can pick racist inclinations just from reading some posts. Racism is very real and it usually comes from uninformed bigots who do not bother to understand how things work. Success is never a result of intelligence alone and a lot of uneducated business people will testify to that. It can result from a multitude of reasons including bravery, connections and many others. Even stealing and oppression are sometimes important traits of successful people (Read history and you will know that a lot of what kick-started and suppoted the industrial revolution was plundered from places like Africa. Since the playing field was levelled I've seen Britain sliding down the rankings from largest economy in the world to fifth largest and still falling. Yes we are behind in Africa but thats because of historical reasons. Give us the top universities and the democratic institutions and we will see if we dont rise up. Britain has made great strides in reducing racism but a lot of racists remain.

Mupam, Hoddesdon, Herts

Intelligent Africans are more intelligent than not-so-intelligent whites. There must be lots of Africans more intelligent than the average white. That said, it's true that black Africa is far behind in countless ways. (I have lived in Africa myself.) I think Dr. Watson's point is: without recognizing and understanding that difference of Africa, there would be no future for the continent. While we can't say the whole African race is less intelligent, we can't ignore the fact that Africa needs help. We shouldn't pretend there's no difference between Africa and far more developed parts of the world.

Yutaka , Sao Paulo, Brazil

A pope silenced Galileo.A British scientific institution silences a scientist.At issue:Freedom of speech.

SM Horszowski, Ferragudo, Portugal

the science in the anthropology field must concern many abilities, the case of a study done by our self concerning the region of khmis-zemmamra in the south of morocco where the dinosaurs have been living, we found some primitives with criminal, subversive and animal bio-anthropoides impulsions, they use for their murdrer à magnetic weappon for transcranial magnetic destruction of their victims and are hidden behalf the provencial delegation of hay mohammadi and casa-anfa and are not yet been discovered by moroccan autorities.

Alami mehdi, casablanca, morocco

What's it with white males who have built formidable reputations on the strenght of their intellectual achievements? First, it was Lawrence Summers trashing women and now Dr Watson trashing Blacks. Do they lose it when their best work is behind them?

Sarbo Sen, Calcutta, India

Quote from Marco Borg:

"Since most people suspect that most Indians , Pakistanis and Africans in the British media are selected precisely because of what they are I tend to disregard their views."

So do you believe that Anjana Ahuja was appointed science journalist on the grounds of being an ethnic minority, and the fact that she holds a PhD in space physics from Imperial College, London, has nothing to do with it? Ignorance is bliss!

Yeneba King, Birmingham, England

Marco Borg should stick to the subject at hand.

Kat, London,

Groups of people differentiated by skin color happening to have identical cumulative intelligences is about as likely as them having identical athletic ability or identical artistic ability.

In other words, it is highly improbable.

On the other hand, the overlap of these abilities by individuals of different races is so great that racism against individuals is inexcusable.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

Very noble of you. I take it you'll be encouraging the brilliant Chinese geneticist Dr Bruce Lahn to continue with his research on genetic mutations in non-Africans which, he has shown, coincided with written language and the first civilisations. You will know that the shrill voices of the PC fanatics turned this sensitive man away from his research.

Eugene, Chester, England

I read Wednesday's headline "less intelligent", but did not find it repeated in the quoted remark in the body of the report.
I took Dr Watson's comment to suggest a possible 'difference' in intelligence, not defined as lesser or greater, as has been automatically assumed in many postings.
Long ago I took a course in 'computer aided design', during which I was assured that I was unlikely ever to use more than 17% of the capacity of the available programme - whilst engineers and the like would be using other bits.
Is it implausible to suggest that the human brain may also have developed specialities to suit, say, survival in harsher environments such as colder climates?
Not less/more intelligence but using the bit that counts.
I'm no scientist, but I object to those whose minds are closed to new ideas.

MikeM, St. Albans, England

Wheather Africans are just as intelligent as whites is argued on eminently complicated grounds. Such as DNA and statistics, and wheather such wiews are nice and so on. But whites have some proof of accomplishments over a very long time. Africans of course should point out the great accomplishments of Africans for a very long time and the matter will imediately be setled.

As for calling Dr. Watson an old dinosour. Dr. Ahuja is indulging herself in exhibiting her manners as a hip young and pretentious jurnalist. It is one thing to analyse someone elses data. As she is said to have done. It is an other matter to create data that everyone is still analysing. As Dr. Watson has done. I would not have as she has the hutzpah to call Dr. Watson a dinosaur. But then I am not as clever as Dr. Ahuja.

George Steiner, Lachine,

The assumption is that all races are equallly intelligent is just that - an assumption. It is not the self-evident truth some of us seem to think it is. Those who say that Professor Watson is wrong present neither arguments nor evidence to show where or why or how he is wrong. What is this evidence? What are the arguments? It is not enough to dismiss his assertions simply because they make us feel uncomfortable.

John Vincent, Christchurch, New Zealand

Anjana,
You have it spot on and I totally agree with you that stifling debate on any subject makes the subject appear stronger even if it is not.

David Ainsworth

David Ainsworth, Glasgow, UK

Professor Watson knows as much as anyone else about genes and intelligence. He is a Nobel Laureate in his fiels. Since most people suspect that most Indians , Pakistanis and Africans in the British media are selected precisely because of what they are I tend to disregard their views. But I don't blame them. It is a human trait to put one's career above everything el
se.
But what annoys most people is Political Correctness. It is very much a minority religion derived from Wall Street financial manipulators and media owners alike. It created multi-culturalism which basically encouraged Asian , African and Moslem invasion of Western countries. Furthermore its adherents imposed anti-discrimination laws which basically prohibited defending one's country and one's culture if you're European , that is. But most of all it prevented even the disclosure of statistical truths, even when one's observations manifestly substantiated these truths. Political Correctness is killing us.

Marco Borg, London, United Kingdom