What is the row about?
James Watson, the molecular biologist who collaborated with Francis Crick in
working out the structure of DNA in 1953, made some incautious remarks about
race and intelligence in an interview in The Sunday Times Magazine.
He said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all
our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the
same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said he hoped
that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with
black employees find this not true”.
What does the evidence actually show?
Dr Watson, who is 79, was probably basing the first part of his remarks on
research that is most clearly summarised in The Bell Curve, a 1994
bestseller by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. This was a
neoconservative take on data collected over many years by psychologists
measuring IQ. It claimed that the evidence showed a consistent gap of about
15 IQ points between whites and blacks, that IQ tests measure something real
that determines success in education and in life, that this factor is
strongly inherited and that it is unaffected by education.
If all these claims are true, then social mobility that rewards the highly
intelligent means there will be a growing gap between a cognitive elite –
mostly white – and a cognitive underclass – mostly black.
Were these ideas new?
No. Francis Galton, the intellectual founder of eugenics, declared in the 19th
century that ability owed more to nature than to nurture, and that there was
a huge gap in abilities between the brightest and the stupidest. The more
mobile a society became, he predicted, the more an aristocracy of birth
would be replaced by an aristocracy of talent.
Isn’t that a good thing? Surely we are all in favour of merit being
rewarded?
Yes, we are. But we also hold fast to the belief that all men are created
equal. The idea of a permanent, ineradicable distinction based on colour is
repugnant. So the claims made in The Bell Curve made most people uneasy,
and some furious. Few books have been so roundly denounced, or made their
authors subject to such relentless attack.
If they are right, what are the implications?
If all the claims they made were true, then attempts to provide equal
opportunities are doomed to fail, and educational “catchup” schemes for
black or minority ethnic children will not work either.
But does everybody accept this?
By no means. Disregarding the ad hominem attacks made on the authors, a
formidable range of arguments has been deployed to discredit their thesis.
Each element of the argument has been disputed.
For example?
Critics do not accept that IQ measurements are culture-neutral. They believe
that they favour those from a conventional white middle-class background,
and that the differences found exaggerate any that really exist.
What Herrnstein and Murray were actually measuring was a combination of
intelligence plus education – which they partly conceded by acknowledging
that scores rose with an individual’s education level. They also exaggerated
the heritability of IQ. They reckoned that between 40 and 80 per cent of an
individual’s IQ came from the genes. A more accurate figure might be 35-45
per cent, critics say.
What about the effect of the environment?
Some of the most powerful evidence against their arguments come from newer
studies of the links between nature and nurture. Herrnstein and Murray
treated the two as if neither could influence the other. But more recent
work has shown that nature and nurture are intertwined, so that the effect
of any gene can be understood only by reference to the environment in which
it is expressed.
The neatest example of this is a study of identical twins by Eric Turkheimer
of the University of Virginia. Previous studies of identical twins have
tended to show they have very similar IQ levels, reinforcing the idea that
IQ is strongly heritable. But most twins share the same environment, and
most studies have been on middle-class twins. Professor Turkheimer searched
for identical twins among poor families and found their IQs varied quite a
lot. A French study found that when identical twins were separated for
adoption, those adopted by poor families had IQs fully ten points lower than
those adopted by well-off familes.
How does this affect the argument?
It means that IQ is malleable. And that in turn means that gaps between races
– if one accepts that they exist – could be narrowed. We are not the
prisoners of our genes to the extent that The Bell Curve pretends.
Is that it?
Not quite. Critics have also questioned the strong link claimed between IQ and
success in life. If IQ is partially a measure of education as well as
intrinsic ability, then it is hardly surprising that better educated and
more successful people have higher IQs. It is not a case of IQ determining
success in life, but rather the opposite.
Who won the argument?
Neither side can claim a knock-out. The situation is more of a stand-off. Both
sides have made their case, at length, and then retired exhausted.
Psychologists really do not want to engage in the argument any more, because
it cuts so deep into the social psyche. Those who do tend to find that they
lose their jobs.
This is supposed to be a world in which anything can be discussed, but there
are still some forbidden areas.
So those who get involved tend to be outsiders: the inventor of the
transistor, William Shockley, went to his grave protesting the intellectual
superiority of the white races to a steadily diminishing audence.
James Watson risks the same obloquy.
The Bell Curve aside, is there any reason to disbelieve that racial groups
differ in particular ways?
There is not. In his new book, Avoid Boring People, James Watson puts it
this way: “A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the
intellectual abilities of people geographically separated during their
evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve
equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of mankind will not be
enough to make it so.”
He might as well have referred to athletic abilities, since recent Olympics
have shown time and time again the remarkable talents of East Africans at
middle-distance running, while sprints are dominated by men and women whose
heritage is in West Africa, by way of the slave trade to the US and the
Caribbean.
It is hard to believe that there are not some genetic differences, honed by
natural selection, that play some part in this.
However, these differences are a pretty small part of our genome. While human
beings may look different, they are close to identical under the skin.
Should Dr Watson have been silenced by the Science Museum?
No. The museum constantly claims that it wants to be seen as a happening place
where new ideas are presented. It was a feeble response, the more so as he
quickly distanced himself from his own remarks. There is no reason to label
James Watson a racialist – he is more a clumsy controversialist. Such people
are better challenged than silenced.
James Watson is an intelligent scientist who happens to believe in one of Evolution's main principles, and that is in order for a species to survive it must suffer and struggle. Only then can the mighty be weeded from the weak. Dr. Watson is an atheist who (like many other scientists) have grown egos based on intellectual success.
I find it interesting that Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton (mentioned in this article), was the man who introduced eugenics. The answer becomes quite clear when we link Galton and Darwin together... Darwinism (or evolution) is based on a racist premise to explain the reasons why Africans were lacking a civilization compared to white Europeans.
The fact of the matter is... God created all of us in his image. And the fact that scientists, evolutionists and atheists subscribe to the backward ideology of Darwin and his relative's theories, proves just how ignorant these people are. Racism is sub-consciously injected into their morality and belief system!
Alex Aguayo, Newport Beach, California
I do not know why everyone is arguing. Its down to evolution !!! And for all you white people out the, don't think that just because IQ's say one thing does not mean that one day you will realise that a black person will score better than you.
Sueri, King's London,
I think than most people misread Dr. Watson's words and read into it that he intended to mean "and so, inferior." In education there already exists a theory that there exists multiple forms of intelligence. None more or less superior (or inferior) to the others, simply different. That tendencies to various types of intelligence might occur in people from specific geographic regions not only makes sense, it would make sense of the kinds of disagreements that often leave us scratching our heads because we cannot understand why the other side can't understand where we come from. It is this I think Dr. Watson was referring to, as is reflected in the wording of his apology.
Mike, Lincoln , Nebraska
In regards to this argument, and the statement that whites are more intelligent than africans, and the associated fact that human life seemed to stem from africa, can one now make the conclusion that it was infact the intelligent africans that left that continent, as they realised what a problem it would be living there with the non intelligent ones that seem to be hell bent on destroying africa and have been doing so through history.
Pete, St Albans, England
Disagree that race= species. I am a biologist and we use "species" to indicate those that can breed and produce fertile offspring (though frankly even that definition is on its way out in favor of other more descriptive definitions) and "race" to mean groups of the same species with similar ethnic heritage.
emma, Cambridge, MA,
As a happy racist I'd just like to say how intollerant and humourless lefties are.
"Close to indentical under the skin"?
Then why don't surgeons don't do interacial transplants?
john fitzgerald, bristol, england
Is it me, or is it questionable that "white" people declare this IQ superiority?
What is the motivation of researchers who investigate such questions? What is the motivation of the bodies that fund them? Is it the pursuit of Truth? Or, is it a sense of inferiority that they are trying to eliminate intellectually? Or maybe a sense of colonialist guilt they are trying to expunge by justifying the destruction of non-Western cultures and the subjugation of their people as the unavoidable march of progress and evolution?
I don't closely follow the research, but the media debate suggests it predominantly focuses on the difference between "white" and "black". If the 21st century sees the avaricious West eclipsed by the diligent cultures of Asia (ex. China, India, Korea...), will these researchers and their funding bodies seek an IQ difference between "white" people and "brown" and "yellow" people? Will they stand up and declare a difference unfavourable to them.
peter, Pittsburgh, usa
It is silly to say James Watson has been "silenced" by the Science Museum - he is of course free to speak elsewhere.
They have decided that theirs - this favourite of school children and foreign visitors - is not an appropriate forum for a such a discussion.
There is a double naivety about the article. First that science (and the scientist) represents freedom and openess. Much science is done in secret for commercial or security reasons. The scientist is in anycase usually an employee doing as he is bidden. And which scientists advocate open distribution of atomic secrets?
Secondly that the correlation of intelligence with race is a solely scientific question. A hierarchy of the races (in terms of intelligence) would have Countries even Continents ascribed places in a global caste system. Parity of esteem, of rights, of voting power are aspirations in the modern world. Just as hierarchy was in the 19th Century.
Freedom from racial typecasting is also a freedom.
.
Bob T, London, UK
I can't remember who was the scientist or psychologist (was it Prof. Eysenck perhaps?) that placed the various ethnic groups in a hierarchy based on their 'intelligence'. Top of his list came the Jews followed by the Chinese, Caucasians, then the rest.
But since humankind is now thought to originate from Africa who then spread all over the world, surely a case can be made for the effects of the environment ie. climate, type of sustenance, abode and interplay of various other factors on the resulting culture, religion, practices, worldview etc. of a particular 'race' wherever it had chosen to settle, more or less permanently within a certain geographical area. And might not all of this then play a significant role in creating the kind of intelligence of which Dr. Watson is talking about? We must also consider the time scale involved in the generation of a particular racial stock. My position as regards the 'nature vs nurture' argument' is with the latter part.
SD Goh, PJ, Malaysia
I abhor racism of any form. However, I also deplore the actions of the Science Museum, which are stifling rational debate on an emotive subject, due to political correctness.
Is it not now generally accepted that there are a variety of intelligences, and that IQ is a narrow measure of intelligence? On that basis, it is surely reasonable to argue that, when man first reached out across his African birthplace into new lands, the people who did so displayed an inquisitiveness and curiosity beyond that displayed by their counterparts who stayed at home.
So is a certain degree of evolutionary difference in types of intelligence not envisageable between the travellers and the "stick-at-homers"? One might also anticipate variations in yardstick IQs across time, within ethnic or national groups, as a consequence of changing emphases on art, music, performance, astronomy, science or mathematics.
Human intelligence, in all its forms, is surely a worthy object of scientific study.
A Steele, Bristol, UK
I am very surprised, in an article that gives a superficial air of authority, that so much play is made of the discredited work of Herrnstein and Murray and that no mention is made of the Flynn effect.
Thomas Luscombe, Dunedin, New Zealand
Once again the left mob has triumphed over the presentation of facts and good reason. If what Dr Watson is not true, why is Africa in such a mess and I have lived there for 25 years unlike 99% of the mob who shout people like Dr Watson down. What has happened to the person in the street's ability to work things out based on the obvious evidence? Dr Watson has not said that all blacks have a low IQ, but those in Africa have as a group. Mugabe for one is an exception. The Asians were in the same position 50 years ago and look at them now. They have worked their way out of the poverty while Africa has suffered black barbaric leaders, life expectancy has returned to 35 - 40 years from the 65 -75 under the colonialists, especially Rhodesia and South Africa, starvation and abject poverty in a continent that is rich and fertile and was able to feed itself when farmed to European standards, and so on. Why are so many Africans trying to escape to Europe? But truth will out eventually
B J Deller, Marbella, Spain
The racialist views raises a row because, as the Times aptly states "Surely we are all in favour of merit being rewarded"... only success in life obviously does not depend only on merit. Not only your family's position influences your education, but of two people of equal abilities, the people in charge and in some ways responsible for their choices trust more whom they know more. There is nothing pervert in this, but it actually makes the reward of merit uncertain, especially at times of great competition between individuals.
Pol Briand, Paris, France
My main concern regarding Watson's statement is the fact that he (as well as, in general, academics in English spoken countries) debate about race in context of humans. Among biologists one definition (and generally accepted) is that species within the same race produce fertile offspring and therefore belong to the same race. Using a word which is not scientifically correct and trivialised by those with poor scientific sense, is not only misleading but also confusing. Race is commonly used when speaking about animal breeding since this matters different species (races). With this in mind it's difficult to understand why people commenting Watson's idea yet speak in terms of race.
Michael, Sweden
Michael, Stockholm, Sweden
In supporting the idea of differences in IQ between races people often point to the more easily measurable differences in athletic ability between races as an indicator, as mentioned in this article. I believe this argument actually supports the idea that the fundamental differences between races is actually very small. The reason being that although the fastest sprinters in the world nearly always have a West African heritage, for example, the margin between success and failure at this level is tiny. The fastest white sprinter in the world is actually still only a fraction of a second slower than the fastest black sprinter. The difference is remarkably small. Black sprinters have the telling edge, of course, but the difference isn't great. So the idea that the effects of different geographical environments have had a profound effect on the development of the various peoples of he world isn't supported by the 'athletic' arugument.
Ted, London, UK
Dawin said, in THE DESCENT OF MAN CHAPTER VII
"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,- as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,* the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.*(2) But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes"
Darwin clearly believed that some races had evolved further than others. Darwin a racist too??
Asad Rehman, Ilford, London, UK
The fact that folks tried to 'silence' Dr. Watson for expressing an opinion, that may or may not have been proved or disproved, is evidence of the political correctness that keeps our scientists from expressing ideas freely.
How many other learned scientists keep their ideas to themselves for fear of offending the status quo?
Mark, Maidstone, UK
I'm not sure if Asians are an ethnic minority, globally speaking, but they do consistently score more highly on the same IQ tests cited in "proof" of this dubious theory than white people, so if we're going to take these things seriously, white people will surely be playing intellectual catch-up too? I seem to remember a recent study "proving" that men are naturally more intelligent than women as well - does this mean that Asian men are twice as intelligent as white women and four times more intelligent than black women?
Rose Qishta, Salwa, Kuwait
Why do Asians (Chinese) who are also "foreign" to Western/White IQ tests and culture score higher than Caucasians in these tests.? Why are these tests no hurdle to them? High IQ's do correlate with academic performance........Jews of European origin far outscore any other group in terms of IQ.......this is duplicated in academic performance in the sciences.
a marais, prince albert, canada
Wonderful synopsis of a clever man pedaling difficult ideas.
It would be such a shame if all controversial people are beaten down as Dr Watson has been. We all learn through debate which leads to understanding, so without people like Dr Watson throwing the metaphical banger into the fire, these topics would be regarded a taboo. Such a shame
Shaun, Bournemouth, Dorset
If western society is an arena dominated by whites then an IQ test is surely more suitable for whites. If the evidence suggests blacks achieve poorer results in IQ tests, then in our society they are less intelligent. However blacks have been an integrated part of society for a generation at least, so with nurture equal, what else can be assumed? Perhaps we are all born with the same capacity for intellect genetically speaking, but ethnically-dervied cultures affect inteligence through nurture. If we all turned green tomorrow, would these tests have different results in generations to come?
Joe Handford, Leicester, UK