Look at the actions of the black controlled and ran nations of Africa. Do you see any acts of intelligence? No. Why? Lack of education and morals. This is not genetic. It is an inherited attitude brought about be the environment they are subject to. In nations where the blacks had a long fight to gain control of their country and did not throw out those that built it (the European) there are reasonable stable and growing governments. In areas where the Europeans were forced by outside pressure (the UN) to abandon nations they had built without properly trained personal to assume positions and with out a proper form of government supported by the military and the people there has been chaos and they have reverted to barbarism. It is not genetic, it is an environmental and hereditary conduct. As for the conduct of people with direct African ancestry that are living in areas under the control of people with European ancestry the same applies. Where are they living?

Thomas, Newport , NC, USA

Watson gave a personal opinion which had nothing to do with his research, and certainly nothing to do with the economic development of the African continent. The kudos of a Nobel Prize should not be abused so as to further one's personal political opinions, and the Science Museum behaved absolutely correctly. Thank God!

Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Athens, Greece

This is all a bit dishonest. Watson did not have his "science stifled". If Watson had published a scientific report on why he believed there to be a genetic difference between the intelligence of various races I would be behind the "freedom of science" movement 100%. Instead he just made a baseless comment in a newspaper. He gives an example of companies and black employees. This is not science for defending; in fact, this isn't science at all. The fact that it came out of the mouth of someone who happens to be a scientist is purely incidental; it wouldn't make a difference if the claim was made by a guy at the local pub and deserves no more attention or sympathy than if this had been the case.

Abioye A Oyetunji, London, UK

To me, the fact that certain people were afraid of letting Watson speak suggests that perhaps he was on to something; otherwise, what are they so worried about? If he's talking rubbish, let it be exposed as such. ...And if some might argue that our august institutions are not the appropriate place for this sort of thing, I've just been listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the beeb. People of his ilk believe that a Jewish carpenter who died 2,000 years ago was the Son of God: flaky or what?

Bernard C.Lacey, Croydon, UK

Basically you cannot tell the truth anymore in this PC country. Fortunately there are other countries in this world where this nonsense does not exist and it pays to spend most of your time. United Kingdom? Pull the other one.

Ron, Bedford, U.K..

Science proves a point using a hypothesis, until this can be disproved, why should politics get in the way of geniuine scientific evidence? No progress can be made within the future. Dr Watson has evidence of this then he should be allowed to present this. So much for freedom of speech.

KG, Eastbourne, UK

What is it with 'political correctness'? How can a scientist serve the wider audience who need to be educated in a sense that the content and direction of what is said will serve mankind in one way or another?

To avoid controversy is sterile. There is no doubt James Watson has never dodged an issue where his formidable qualities as a geneticist have relevance. Why, at this stage of his life, should be be expected to change and toe the 'politically correct line'?. That , surely, is the province of politicians and those whose tenuous hold on their jobs rely on a strict adherence to saying 'what they might not necessarily agree with - in private'.

Polonius, in his advice to Laertes, put it succinctly enough:

This above all:
To thine own self be true,
for it must follow as dost the night the day,
that canst not then be false to any man.

Raymond Batkin, Plymouth, Devon

To run away from debate or to leave hypothesis un-challenged is as unacceptable as the meanest of assertions. It smacks of a society that has been chloroformed into acceptance, someone is making decisions on our behalf; we do not know who they are and their opinions maybe ill-informed. As this particular subject is sensitive the actions of its sponsor could be seen as fearless or reckless. If it fearless it deserves our consideration, if it is reckless it needs analysis and rejection. But to hope that approbation will make such things go away is only going to put that which is not refuted into the hands of those that can use the thesis malignly, the idea will not go away even if the man, the eminent man, is dismissed.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

James Watsons argument is flawed for the main reason that
we have yet to define what we mean by intelligence is it an abiltity to count beads or creativity it is by nature different thngs
to different beings and if he is truly a man of science he should
already know that look around you and nature will teach you.

Julie Davis, Surrey, England

Thank God

Now I have an excuse to boycott the Science Museum

John, London, UK

We have become a nation of politically correct zombies.
I think it is true that White People have higher IQ's than Black People but lower than say Indian or Chinese.

So what?

Black People have talents that others would love! Have you ever seen an Indian or Chinese dance! Or heard them sing? Athletics is dominated by the prowess of Black People. Chinese and Indian food is generally better than English.

Bruce Harper, Stafford,

As Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say,but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

alan maddox, wirral, england

This shows that you can be intelligent and Not intelligent at the same time.
I guess being a famous biologist was satisfactory - comments on human psychology and social issues are more in vogue now - but then one still needs to know about something about these subjects.
I'm sure Mr. Watson can find another forum to express his views and am glad that it doesn't have to be in the Science Museum.

Ali Toure, Berlin, Germany

Dr. Watson was unwise to believe that he could say something like this and not expect consequences. But he is old and prehaps common sense suffers with age.

Maybe after all those years messing about with, DNA, RNA etc, Dr.Watson forgot that he is the apprentice and not the magician.

DM., London,

Watson has apologised elsewhere - so this was no "theory "he was advancing. He talked crap, realised it and made amends. Blakemore is correct though that the engagement should not have been cancelled. Watson should have been asked to justify his comments. I do not think that what Watson said was wrong because of political correctness, but factually wrong - nothing to do with multiculturalism or colonial guilt.

SpiderMonkey, Cambridge, UK

I have no time for political correctness. This man is a genius and If he has a point he has a point... wether we like it or not.
All scientist say these things with at least some evidence. It's then for other scientist to disprove the theory. In some cases these theories are proven. So what if some colours of skin are deemed less intellegent that others!!!
People have raved on about Blondes for ever!! There has also been the debate about social backrounds and intellegence.
I think we take this whole thing to far in our response.
If he has called other ethnic origins names for no reason, then shut the guy up, but if he has some new evidence then we should hear it....
People need to grow up!!!

kat, Brecon, wales

The left wing thought police Nazis are at it again. I am appalled at the way that members of the humanities and soft science educated work force in academia and media have behaved towards a proper scientists attempts to stimulate real debate on a subject of great importance for society. Instead they tell us what is an acceptable answer for this area of enquiry. This is like Nazi thought police, no wonder we have such problems in society and so many misguided government policies. Furthermore how is it we can inherit our looks and height and heart and organ function but not brain function or is that too intelligent a question for media studies educated people to contemplate.

Neil McAllister, Chessington, Surrey

Professor Chris Rapley has shown his true intellectual and moral cowardice in stifling debate for fear of harming his position as Director of the Science Museum. His toadying to the baying of the race relations industry is clear evidence of his unsuitability for his post. Science has always been challenging of accepted but unproved truths. We would still think the Earth is flat and that the Sun circles the Earth if it weren't for brave people prepared to give voice to uncomfortable ideas. I am ashamed by the actions of the Science museum and the silence of those who could have over-ruled Rapley. This is regardless of whether Watson is scientifically right or wrong. The comparative intellectual pigmy at the science museum has humilliated the Nobel Prize winner - Shall we now stifle all scientific debate if its politically incorrect ?

Riley, Kyiv, Ukraine

Applauds Colin Blakemore.
Once again free debate has been beaten down by the politically correct.
I really wish Dr Watson would ride the storm rather than appeasing the liberals, the public support he had was overwhelming.

Phill Barlow, The Wirral, England

I think 'Freedom Of Speech' is one thing and another is 'Expression of Bigotry'.

As we know, all scientific theories arise from a hunch before they can be proved. Some hunches turn true and many do not.

Mr Watson's theory is based on his hunch or pre-conceived iidea that 'black africans are stupid' to say it bluntly.

The sole idea that his research is funded to prove such useless racist hunches is quite simply a waste of money. I am sure they are thousands more noble causes to defend such as cures fo those geneti illnesses.

Now we learn that his laboratory has a history of antisemistism and homophobic research. Yet people still want to waste their time to hear more from this man.

What is more interesting and that Mr Watson does not address is how do you define and then measure intelligence? Not so straightforward is it!!!

Alex Hunt, Paris, France

I am very relieved that Charles Darwin was not forced to publish Origin of The Species in today's Britain. He would almost certainly never have been allowed to discuss his ideas.

Why is it so viewed as so outrageous that the same process that gave races physical differences should not have also have made us intellectually different? There are differences in the brain between the sexes; why is it considered to be 'beyond aceceptability' to hold a scientific debate about a theory that attempts to recognise and explore the potential inter-racial differences in intellect?

Is the Left wing intellectually so shallow they can only consider debating differences that they are forced to accept by reason of them being outwardly visible? Perhaps so, after all the left has also banned discourse with Isarelis.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest,

What if Watson had pointed out the fact that Asian people have, on average, a much higher IQ than white Europeans? Would he have been vilified in the same way? I doubt it. This is not about science. Watson's crime was to break the shibboleth of multiculturalism and white middle class colonial guilt. Colin Blakemore is right. If scientists can't raise theories for peer review because they offend social sensibilities, then we are doomed.

MarkS, Bath,

I agree with Colin Blakemore.

Dr. Watson needed a forum to say his side of the story. We also need to hear the actual audio tapes. I suspect context is everything in this case especially when Watson does not believe he said what was quoted.

Watson is well known to like to play with words and to be provocative, some would say rudely aggressive; but he also has the heart of a teacher who tries to open up people to new ideas. Context could be everything here because the author of the original article is actually "horrified" at the world's reaction to the story.

You know, as the old saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then the whole world is a nail. Watson's hammer is DNA and genetics AND to him all problems can be solved with those tools, or at least attempt to be solved with them. It is likely in my opinion he is incorrect but it sure would be interesting to hear him try to make the case; or NOT, if he was misquoted, misunderstood, or taken out of context.

DenisL, Columbia, Missouri USA

Another example of how free speech is being curtailed in Brown's Britain. Any scientist should be allowed to examine any theory without fear of his work being censored by the PC brigade who wouldn't recognise a scientific theory if it slapped them in the face. Dr Watson should be allowed to speak.

Of course, if he'd labelled his research "The implications of global warming for intelligence levels amongst indigenous peoples from countries affected by climate change" He'd probably have got a massive grant and a Nobel prize.

Simon, Chatham, Kent

Now we find ourselves in the enviable position of being able to classify scientists into groups from an evolutionary standpoint: namely, those scientists who evolved backbones strong enough to stand up to this assault on academic and scientific freedom, and those who evolved backbones more adapted to allowing one to stick their head in the sand.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

I have no expertise in these matters at all and never will have as no one is allowed to put forward any scientific theory that might not be PC. We are exposed to every day some nonsensical supposed scientific "fact" on foods and diets etc only to see them shot down in flames. Wether or not I support what is said he should be allowed to talk about his ideas. It seems freedom of speech can be given to someone spouting about murdering British people by terroist acts but not something that just some people consider not PC. Whatever my views on a subject (and I am quite often a bit horrified by what I see in print and on TV) I still think our Freedom of speech much be protected. It is a slippery slope to us having no voice about anything at all.

Sharon, Bedford, UK

I think that Colin Blakemore is right.-

Josep Puig, Buenos Aires, Argentina