This is so ironic and sad.
There is no "black" or "white".
Genetic testing is showing it is a spectrum [not just becuase of the widespread inter-racial births in the USA going back hundreds of years] so the conversation is absurd scientifically.
It is sort of like nature vs nurture [which is also a false discussion since the two are on a spectrum]: nature begins altering our DNA [and RNA] the moment we are conceived [for a simple example think about solar damage to DNA increasing the risk for skin cancer]. It is not a binary thing at all. So why continue to suggest it is.
Were/are there population based differences? Of course. Does that mean if one population on average is 'better' or 'worse' that the best person must come from the 'better' group. No, it does not. These discussions are fundamentally flawed.
30
@David You morph from "differences" too easily to 'better' or 'worse'. There are differences. I would leave it at that.
18
I wish Ms. Harmon had probed Watson's views on gender differences in native intelligence. Rosalind Franklin, as is well known, should have shared the Nobel Prize with him and Crick but did not. Nor did he at the time or since give her the credit she deserved.
65
When I was young, people tried to convince me black people were stupid. But I had a transistor radio and I could hear Stevie Wonder and he clearly was a songwriting genius. Still is. So he ruined all their racist arguments. And Duke Ellington and Miles Davis ruined them even more.
The brilliance behind song crafting is a mathmematical skill. A high proportion of physicists and mathematicians have musical skill. After all, music is math. We learned that from Pythagoras, who was very likely brown, definitely not of "good Northern stock." Pale Northern Europeans were still hunter-gatherers when the darker people of Greece, Italy, and the Middle East were inventing the language of science and civilization.
As I keep saying, in science it's important to understand the difference between simplicity and simple-mindedness. There are unfortunately geniuses out there who lack this particular critical skill. It can be exruciating to have to genuflect before one of them when they are recognized for the achievements of the part of their brain that works well.
44
James Watson is in many ways a sad figure.
His failure (and also Crick's to be fair) to acknowledge the contribution of Franklin to the discovery of DNA (even the ethics of using her work without her permission or knowledge) was an earlier indicator of the nature of his character. Anyone who have read accounts of the discovery of DNA will find the views he expresses today as consistent with his personality. He has besmirched his own legacy.
His life proves, if proof were needed, that a high IQ is no indicator of a high EQ (emotional intelligence quota).
84
The principal scandal here is that James Watson had to lose his job for expressing his opinion (he is not alone: Larry Summers, President of Harvard, had to resign for suggesting - in a talk pursuant of his quest to increase women's representation is science and engineering - that one of several reasons for their under-representation might be "a different availability of aptitude at the high end").
This article does not with one word refer to the many empirical studies, using ever more sophisticated psychometric and behavior genetic methods, that converge on the conclusion that there are in fact group differences in IQ and educability, and that these include differences between groups such as blacks and whites in America.
The empirically unfounded assumption that such differences do not exist is driving the mistaken ascription of all differences in representation of these groups to racist discrimination. If that is a faulty diagnosis, the remedies based upon it will fail. The real remedy is Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Meanwhile, real racists are making hay pointing to the failure of various remedial programs to substantially ameliorate the differences they were - on false grounds - designed to remedy. Remember: Well intentioned reliance on error cedes the truth to sinister uses. That is the tragedy of perpetuating the political dogmas informing this article.
47
Who are the people creating these IQ tests? My assumption is that they are white. How easy to conclude that one group is less intelligent than another when the main group owning their supremacy is the same group who created the tests.
16
@Diva Many tests are designed to remove cultural bia, like, for instance, classifying shapes into patterns
14
@Diva but Asians score higher than whites and Ashkenazi Jews score higher than any other group
27
So, privileged white male uses criteria designed by other privileged white males, after said criteria has been selectively adjusted to ensure that white males will dominate the higher bands.
Yawn.
Seriously, why are people still going on about a system where intelligence is limited and bordered by such narrow, subjective, white-skinned definitions?
36
@Amazonia-Love I am curious, what is your definition of inteligence and how does it correlate with coutries' success and STEM achievements?
13
@Amazonia-Love But Asians score higher than whites and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average of all groups.
23
Yes, there appears to widespread ignorance about the flaws innate in IQ testing. I wish the author had spent more time pointing this out.
15
“As history now knows, the duo was able to solve the puzzle in 1953, with their hallmark models of cardboard and metal only with the help of another scientist, Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule was shown to Dr. Watson without her permission.”
Sexism and Racism—this is nothing new from Dr. Watson or any of his contemporary colleagues. Dr. Franklin died in the service of her work but it took a large percentage of this article for her name and contribution to be mentioned.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.....
29
Upon reflection the most interesting aspect of this article in all its holier than thou bashing of an old white Anglo and presumably hetero man is its ignoring the trivial extent to which particularly the academic university, alleged "liberal" and Left-wing parts of our society encourage blacks and other minorities to take an interest in science, math or intellectual pursuits of any kind. You know, occupations and interests that Watson and others, even minority persons themselves, would associate with high intelligence. While rather our identity politics obsessed elites seem determined to create all manner of alternate and diverse "cultures" of thought and occupation in which for example the black subculture, and its encouragement by our white Leftists, inflicts a tyranny of low expectations and limited occupational choices to high success (sports star, singer entertainer ...) that seem to be intended to insure that an proliferating number of identity groups are forever dependent on our, dispensing of gov redistributions and diversity quota patronage, left of center elites for their basic survival.
27
@winthrop staples Interesting, confusing set of long sentences.
Can you interpret them for me?
17
Proof, I suppose, that there are many paths that lead to the mythology of white supremacy.
Putting genetics aside for a moment, why don't more people simply make a historical argument that white supremacy is rubbish?
The belief that European / Western (i.e. white) history, cultural and scientific development are the engine that has driven mankind forward is, to put it plainly, pure bunk. If white Europeans were inherently superior, then how does one explain the 1,000 year era after the fall of the Roman empire? For a millenium, Europe was basically an illiterate, unsanitary, disease ridden continent, ruled by mostly brutal and inbred theocratic royalty constantly at war with one another, and a place with almost no advancement of science or knowledge.
As compared to the Middle and Far east at this time, where there was thousands of years of scientific and engineering advancement (example: I wonder if Dr. Watson knows when and where Algebra was invented)
15
The solution is government managed and supported intermarriage. If a yearly 20000 credit was given to white women with black babies and a 20000 penalty for white babies it might take 25 years to end this debate. This is the equilibrium state in the world anyway.
4
Surely you are joking!
5
@as
There is no "debate".
The man is expressing ignorant ideas he is demonstrably smart enough to know better than.
2
We know that race is not a social construct, but an evolutionary one.
And when it comes to differences in brains of different races, I would ask this:
Doe evolution doesn't stop at the neck?
19
@Austin. No, we know, absolutely, that race is a social construct. Look at how the definition of “white” has evolved over the centuries. Middle Eastern descent is “white” according the 2010 U.S. Census, Mediterraneans are now considered “white,” Eastern Europeans, Slavs, Hispanics, Hiberians, even Catholics are considered “white.” Race is whatever people say it is.
8
@Austin
Sadly, it seems to have stopped at yours...
7
@Austin
Race is NOT a social construct.
It is society that is a racial construct.
6
My father died of Alzheimer's disease this year. It started affecting him years before it disabled him and before he really was showing he had the disease. Dr. Watson is clearly making cognitive errors, and I'm guessing he is going back to what was the erroneous prevalent and accepted thinking when he was a young man. There was a point when my father was back in WWII. I've always felt mixed about Dr. Watson and what I regard as the intellectual theft of Rosalind Franklin's work, but I'm pretty certain this is Alzheimer's disease talking. I feel bad for him.
16
While Watson is most probably wrong, the taboo on research in this subject is equally misplaced. If his assertion is incorrect it might be answered in a scholarly manner and we can all rest. However, because the genetics and epigenetic effects are so complex, I suspect that any research on this subject will be inconclusive and thus divisive. Pandora's box is best left sealed. Either way, we should not vilify Dr. Watson for asking a question.
130
@JLC Inteligent people cannot be "kept in place" by those who want to keep them down. If that was true, Europe would never exit dark ages
7
@JLC
You say he is wrong but there is no proof one way or the other. And you close the door.
12
@W. Ogilvie
He isn't simply asking a question - he's trying to answer it without any evidence to support his views. There is no taboo on this research. What you are seeing is the scientific community, and level headed lay persons, pushing back against statements and prognostications he has made that are simply wrong.
The only people who want to believe what he does, the only people who have a vested interest in seeing his ideas go mainstream, are those who would like a scientific reason to keep people in their place. And they want justification for maintaining an order that has benefitted them for centuries.
He is wrong. He has no proof for what he says. He only says it because he wants to believe it's true.
124
Saw him interviewed on Charlie Rose once and thought, what an annoying man. Probably how he kept Rosalind Franklin marginalized and out of the picture. Odd since her picture had to contribute mightily to how they came about learning the structure of the double helix. Many of us haven't forgotten her.
39
The greater the scientific claim, the greater the evidence needed to back up that claim. Never rely on a person's reputation, CV or personality (Dr. Oz, I'm looking at you). Even the smartest of humans sometimes have crackpot theories - Dr. Carson is another great example of this overreach.
58
@DMH
Dr. Linus Pauling, I’m looking at you, too. And then, of course, there are those who transcend and overcome to become experts; Jenny McCarthy, I’m looking at you.
3
@DMH
Einstein invented the fake cosmological constant by ignoring the implications of his theories.
Hawking mistakenly believed that information could be destroyed inside of black hole.
Darwin knew nothing about genes nor DNA.
Mendel knew nothing about natural selection.
Watson knows nothing about race nor intelligence nor evolution.
7
Hey, let’s face it—his finest moment was playing with Tinker Toys sixty-five years ago, after stealing Franklin's research data and piggybacking off of Pauling.
Harsh, I know. But, c’mon, he’s laundered one neat idea into a platform for his many idiotic statements.
This racial-difference stuff's been long settled, but periodic bursts of conservative-racist politics relaunders it. Here's Stephen Jay Gould breaking down the silliness in seven minutes:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wcSSLo9TIs
51
@Doug Tarnopol
Thanks for this link.
(and looking at Gould's desk, I see I am in good company)
4
@Doug Tarnopol
Two things that aren't the same thing will have characteristics that differ. And that isn't along racial lines but people. The observation is esp. useful when its suggested we emulate human mental processing in electronic based machines. Lets categorize to the extent we keep it rational shall we. "The Truth is a liquid not a solid". I'm agreeing with you.
1
@Doug Tarnopol Gould was a skilful but hand-waving and evasive debater on this and related issues. Boil him down and his general message was NOT that there were no genetically-driven differences in intelligence between groups but rather that any that existed were probably minor and probably not relevant to societal institutions or programs -- and that scientists who studied them may be racists or "dupes" of racists. He did not advance our conversations on the topic.
9
Wow. A whole documentary and this article to explore something very simple: James Watson is, and probably always has been, racist.
It's no big deal, really. There are millions of them. Even really smart guys. Black folks will collectively shrug their shoulders about this while other will lament: "how could this be???".
It can "be" just as easily as how Watson and Crick appropriated Rosalind Franklin's photo of the DNA molecule. Thanks, NYT, for crediting her work here but this is much ado about nothing.
10
I could dispute the 'science' proposed by Watson, but that would be giving it more status than it deserves. The unscientific ramblings of an eminent scientist are entitled to no more deference than the unscientific ramblings of an eminent plumber.
Both would be better off keeping their mouths shut.
24
Lack of diversity, poor working condition with below poverty salary for vast majority of non-tenured track academic positions are some of the major reasons why such racist undertone is very prevalent in American academia and society.
Science education in USA deteriorated significantly in last few decades. That helped many social and political prejudices to take stronger hold on our society. Now USA has the highest College graduates who "strongly believe that God created Human being in its present form" and deny hard science of evolution. Many politically sensitive issues like climate change, LGBT, abortion rights, GMO and many more arise from it.
US higher education, mainly in STEM, must attract more Americans and stop relying on such unprecedented scale on foreign born students after Masters degree level. Mainly minorities (including Blacks, Hispanics, Muslim among others) form the less affluent section of the society must be encouraged with better working condition, salary and career prospect. That can only be done if American universities and public research institutes stop behaving like just another for-profit industry where degrees are for sale to anyone who can pay- irrespective of ability, intelligence, honesty, and passion ("dedication" became a dirty and most misused word in academia).
Foreign students and professionals must be allowed only based on talent and passion and not by money and/or via nepotism (aka, networking).
18
The views of Dr. Watson are not racist. In fact, the word 'racist' has no objective meaning, is considered archaic. Sadly, 'racist' or 'racism' is a social construct epithet designed to deny reality, to demonize truth speakers. Clearly, there are profound differences between blacks and non blacks. Continuing to deny demonstrable facts with ideology is an affront to science, serves no one. To better serve both blacks and non blacks, wise humane policy needs to be crafted that empowers people to their full potential, whatever that potential may or may not be. We need to acknowledge, celebrate our differences..
73
Doctor Watson is not an evil man, but his views on race and intelligence are. And he's wrong.
7
It's amazing and ignorant not to count the numerous violent invasions, outright theft of natural resources and rampant colonization of Africa by whites since slavery and the devastating effects it has had. Whites may be smarter on some levels but their hearts and souls are a very different matter indeed.
28
What's wrong with just not reporting on him. Everybody has a crazy uncle and we don't read about them, do we?
21
So many Nobel Prize winners do this. They make monumental discoveries in their field, then, with supercharged egos, they go off to spout off about some random subject they have no place in. Just look at chemist Linus Pauling and his obsession with vitamin C, or the biochemist who believes he was abducted by aliens.
12
@Sam
"So many" you say. But name five of them aside from William Shockley, Linus Pauling, and Brian Josephson.
1
Would love to see how well an intelligent white person would do surviving in the Africa bush like the natives.
32
So rich. Arguably one of the highest profile beneficiaries of white male privilege in science (Rosalind Franklin, anyone ?) making unfounded and ill informed statements about other races and intellectual inferiority. Will the Nobel committee stand up and at least condemn him ?
5
@RF FAn,
one has to wonder how many actual discoveries and inventions by white males were really their own and not without significant contributions by hidden minorities and women behind the scenes.
4
Remind me again which group voted in the majority for Trump and which groups didn't. Now what was that again about the difference in intelligence between certain groups?
232
Touché
10
@Krishna Myneni
Donald Trump won 58% of the white vote including 62% of white men and 54% of white women.
Hillary Clinton won 92% of the black vote including 88% of black men and 95% of black women.
7
I'm sorry, but voting for Trump doesn't you make less intelligent. And I don't like Trump!
12
The question of whether intelligence, sprinting speed, or any other attribute is equally distributed among all races can only be answered by convincing evidence. It would be nice if that was the case. However, the article provides no evidence to support it. Dr. Watson is not stupid. If the evidence was clear, why would he reject it?
149
If we were to treat the statement "black people are more intelligent than white people" as a hypothesis (not a political statement) we could ask the questions:
1. Why? i.e. Why would the genes for making skin pigment affect the functioning of the neural system? This seems unlikely. We could also have genes for hair pigment affecting social interaction ability ("blondes have more fun").
2. What is the evidence? What test could one carry out that measured intelligence separate from other factors? I don't think there is one. One would have to control for nutrition (hard when skin colour predicts income) and education (ability to attend school is also affected by income which is affected by skin colour). So no data that can be trusted here.
So there is no plausible mechanism, and no useful test you can do. So the hypothesis is most likely wrong at best, and naked prejudice at worst.
99
This reminds me of the story about Sir Cyril Burt, English educator and first head of MENSA, the high IQ group. Burt used what I believe were extremely sloppy statistical analyses (his Bell Curve) to try to show that blacks have lower IQs than whites. After his death he was attacked as a racist which many believe (but would never say publicly) was unfair. Almost everyone who has studied the issue (except Murray and Hernstein with their Bell Curve) believe that Burt, Murray and Hernstein were wrong, but it is unfair to say they have no right to say what they believe. As hurtful as some ideas are, censorship which deprives one of his or her livelihood and/or makes him or her a non-person is always wrong - and I would argue immoral.
71
There is a reason that the majority of NBA players are black. Blacks make up about 13 % of the population in the U.S., so obviously, they are hugely over-represented in the NBA. Is their over-representation because of environment, heredity, or is there some other reason? I see this as the same type of issue that is discussed in this article.
94
@Sophie
You do understand that what we see in the NBA today was not always the case, correct? You do understand that the same physical abilities to play a good game of golf or ice hockey apply to playing basketball, correct? The very implication in your question is either reflective of a narrowly focused ignorance of the socio-economic and historical environment in which we live (and it's okay to be legitimately ignorant by the way) - or - it's a veiled effort to make the intellectual (albeit intellectually bankrupt) argument in an oh-so-subtle way that blacks must be unintelligent and have low IQs, but received the "genetic second place prize" of being good physical brutes able to throw balls and jump high. Unfortunately, I suspect most of the white population is not ignorant but rather insistent and venal in their thinking on this point. Not sure where you fall on that spectrum of thinking.
128
What should be questioned is not humans’ relative levels of IQ but rather what the heck “IQ” even proves besides a level of ability on tests of performance within the narrow academic traditions of one small socioeconomic culture.
120
Indeed, as standardized tests of many kinds have time and again been proven to not correlate (let alone have any causal association) with true achievements of individuals. Case in point statistically are the hiring practices of Google Inc, where their standardized tests (aka puzzles on billboards and interviews) and grades from college were clearly proven to NOT be predictive of job performance as the employee.
And yet, we obsess and value these "tests". I have to wonder if this obsession correlates with some deep-seated inferiority complex of those that obsess with it.
40
For as long as I remember, otherwise honorable Americans have believed that it is right and necessary to lie about race and IQ and to persecute anyone who even thinks about the topic. Now it is also taboo to mention gender and apparently any difference at all. Look no farther than the way the witches burned the President of Harvard at the stake. And, even more contemptible, how he groveled afterward.
This is worse than a crime. It is a blunder. No matter how hard social justice warriors try to suppress the truth, it won't stay bottled up. And the very idea of social justice will be permanently scarred by the fraud committed in its behalf.
As David Reich, the author of “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past,” warned in the NYT: "I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims." Sadly, even Reich found it necessary for his self-preservation to cast a few stones at James Watson.
As Voltaire used to sign his letters, “Ecrasez l’Infame.”
126
Haha to those who believe that IQ and standardized tests are not culturally biased!! Everyone who has taken them has seen many questions that have more than one right answer where you have to know the “accepted” answer. And Watson seems ignorant that racial groups in the US have great genetic diversity within individuals. Unfortunately most of his critics can’t put together a cogent argument to convince him, despite the higher intelligence he is convinced they have. Oh well...
54
I see this story as an example of a fairly common error. A person can be very serious, informed, and scientific about one topic...even a world leader. That doesn't make him or her important in every other subject.
Many scientists have been prone to speculate, late in life especially, on topics of which they know little.
Simply put: Watson was good in his field, but a sexist and racist jerk his whole life.
I would never name an important institute after him. But Rosalind Franklin, the women he literally stole his best idea from, yes. (If I recall, after he broke into her lab and stole her groundbreaking x-ray crystallography, all he said about her was she was homely and he didn't like her lipstick.)
143
An interesting and significant population difference in intelligence is that of the Ashkenazi Jews, who have the highest IQ's of any ethnic group; Greg Cochrane, et al, from the University of Utah, looked at the evidence for natural selection, as a consequence of long-term discrimination, that resulted in a specific group, only 3% of the US population, producing 27% of the US Nobel science laureates and 25% of the ACM Turing winners. They account for more than half of world chess champions. In the article, the authors note that "IQ (as measured by IQ tests) is the best predictor we have of success in academic subjects and most jobs." The article is "The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence", in the Journal of Biosocial Science.
85
If we’re judging science on whether or not it’s “hurtful” we’ve lost track of science.
88
Maybe different people have different type of intelligence. Maybe it is not less or more but just different.
37
Look at the racial make-up of athletes on an NFL or NBA team. Are those racial differences due to "environment?"
It is right there, staring you in the face. Those differences are innate.
And if so, why can't other aspects of human functioning, and racial differences in abilities, also be innate?
81
it's not the main point of the article, but it's worth mentioning that the first person to identify the double-helix shape was Rosalind Franklin with her famous "photo 51." Her photo and research were shared with Watson and Crick, without her knowledge. It would have been a small consolation for Franklin that Crick had to sell his Nobel Prize when she wasn't credited with her contribution.
54
It is sad that in the USA one cannot hold both a job and a contrarian opinion. Sadly, the USA was founded -in case you forgot- by people escaping prosecution due to their strongly held beliefs. Yet the greatt grandchildren of said founders are engaging in exactly the practice that their forebearers escaped from.
Europe, China, and the Islamic world have historically bean hostile to contrarian views. Perhaps it is time to seriously colonize Mars because it looks like the USA of our forebearers has been lost.
53
What do you mean, exactly, by “environmental factors”? Readers might assume you only mean factors in the immediate environment of people being tested—what is commonly understood when we speak of “nature versus nurture.”
I wonder if the article might not have been improved by adding information about well documented studies calling IQ tests into question, because there is now widespread concern that the tests are pointless. It’s my impression that they do not accurately reflect, predict or even correlate statistically with cognitive ability.
This is evidentially a problem in the academic, scientific and social environment that produces the tests—far removed from the lives of those that take the tests.
18
Being an exceptional scientist is no different than being an exceptional athlete or entertainer - you can still be be a sub-par human being
50
We scientists have a communication problem.
We do not know how to handle non-mainstream opinions. We see this with anti-vaxxers, with climate-change-deniers, with creationists, and in many other cases like Dr. Watson.
If we refute them simply on the basis that they disagree with the mainstream, we create the impression that they are rebels, fighting some great conspiracy to reveal the truth.
If we challenge them on a point-by-point basis with scientific arguments, we are seen to give credibility to their views by people to don't pay attention to or understand the details of the debate. Those who deny evolution don't claim they can prove it, they usually just claim there "is a debate" - even if it's 100% one-sided.
If we reject their opinions outright (as in this case), we may be perceived as unwilling to discuss them, perhaps because we fear there may be some inconvenient truths.
So what should we do?
I don't have the answer, but I believe it's an area in critical need of research: if someone makes a statement that I can prove to be wrong, but only using scientific arguments that most people cannot follow, how should I communicate to most effectively convince the general public that his opinion is incorrect.
This particular case is one 90-year-old man to whom we should give the benefit of the doubt. He is wrong, but he seems to be sincere and honest and not out to do any harm, other than to discover the truth - which scientists do, even when that truth is inconvenient.
46
When someone offers a politically incorrect theory, and the reaction is to suppress his speech, it makes you wonder. Are there some ideas so supercharged with controversy that they should never see the light of day?
Normally, when there is discussion of something of a scientific or mathematical nature, the reaction is to analyze the data, criticize it for being poor samples, or criticize the analysis as being faulty. Alternate data and/or analysis are then offered that leads to a different conclusion. That is the nature of scientific debate.
But when the reaction is to cover up the controversial theory and to refuse to acknowledge its existence, it makes one wonder if the theory is well supported, but its conclusions are politically unacceptable.
I don't agree with the theory. I think differences, if any, are attributable to background and culture, just as I do not believe that Asians have superior intellect, though academic achievement would seem to indicate otherwise.
But I think any suppression of scientific theory, even ones repulsive on their face, opens an even worse can of worms.
103
This article makes some serious misstatements about what science knows about genetics, race, and intelligence.
The implication is that the issue of race and intelligence is somehow settled scientifically. But the truth is that science does not know to what extent the measured differences in the intelligence of groups is hereditary, and to what extent it is environmental. Twins studies tell us that IQ is 70-80% genetic, but both genetic and environmental effects such as the Flynn Effect are of sufficient magnitude that they could be responsible for the measured difference. Furthermore, as the article does say, we now know that there has been enough genetic divergence to make genetic differences in group intelligence a possibility.
What is certain is that we are rapidly identifying both physiological correlates of intelligence -- 20% of an individuals IQ can now be determined from brain scans alone) -- and the hundreds or thousands of genes responsible for inherited differences in IQ. This issue will no longer be a matter of scientific opinion in 10 or 20 years.
In the meantime, researchers who, like Watson, are blunt enough to make speculationsthat are politically unpopular can expect to lose their jobs in what can only be referred to as a modern form of McCarthyism. But science always has the last word, and I have to wonder what people will say of Watson 20 years from now.
80
@OpininginCO
Watson's statements were based on IQ tests that show some groups consistently scoring below others. That's scientific evidence, even if it does not lead inevitably to a specific conclusion.
You'll see just as much speculations from scientists taking the *opposite* position. The difference is that these people don't lose their jobs for expressing their opinions.
I'll clue you in on a dirty little secret: Watson is less alone in this than you think. Few are willing to risk their careers by being frank about this topic. Instead, they keep their mouths shut, or utter the equivalent of loyalty oaths.
Meanwhile, the research that will actually settle the issue continues quietly.
73
@Josh Hill
Indeed. In fact, as we become more adept at isolating the genetic markers involved, a lot of hand wringing will follow
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163484-found-more-than-500-genes-that-are-linked-to-intelligence/
25
Just because you aren’t familiar with the science on which he is basing his perspectives doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Scientists are now able to track intelligence in functional brain efficiency and intelligence can be predicted from brain images. IQ isn’t a measure of what you know, it’s a measure of what your brain can do. What you know is a product of that, whatever culture you belong to. A good explanation of all this is in R.J. Haier’s THE NEUROSCIENCE OF INTELLIGENCE. Haier also finds group differences, so much so that he has coined the word “neuropoverty” to capture the negative relationship between intelligence and socioeconomic factors. Covering up scientific findings that seem socially problematic just means it will take longer to address them.
23
I don't think anyone is saying all whites are smarter than all blacks or any other race. A simple question is being asked: Is there a genetic component that has resulted in some populations having different average levels of certain types of intelligence.
No one seems offended at the suggestion that some sub-populations, on average, tend to be able to run faster or longer than other sub-populations. It doesn't mean every individual runs faster, but the population means are different. Why doesn't it follow that there can be brain function differences, just as there are fast twitch muscle difference?
It isn't racist to see differences. It is racist to place value judgements...to say that the differences make one race better than another. The question being asked is a valid scientific question.
180
This article is a shameful hatchet job on a great scientist. For more than 60 years, school systems throughout the U.S. have been trying to close the achievement gap between black and white students without success. When one carries out regression analyses of tested academic achievement, controlling for parent education level, family income, poverty status, neighborhood quality, and other measures of potential environmental disadvantage, the achievement gap is diminished, but remains substantial. Contrary to assertions in the article, there is ample evidence compiled by Arthur Jensen and other reputable scholars, that would tend to support the hypothesis of possible genetic differences. But stigmatizing and ostracizing anyone who dares to suggest this is not the way to forward scientific understanding of the question. It shuts off inquiry the way the Catholic Church once banned Galileo's publication of evidence supporting the Copernican model of the solar system.
109
@Nicholas Zill
Whatever you are you clearly you are not a natural scientist.
Of course there are genetic differences among the African primate ape heirs of the one and only biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
Color aka race is an evolutionary fit pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at altitudes and latitudes primarily related to the production of Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations.
We African primate apes are genetically programmed by nature and nurture to crave fat, salt, sugar, habitat, water, sex and kin by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
Statistical analysis is worthless without science. There is no science in economics, politics, education and sociology. There are too many variables and unknowns to craft the double-blind experimental controlled tests that provide predictable and repeatable results.
9
Well said, but you have forgotten to add the calculations taking generational compounding into your account. The New York Times has done (and I hope continues to do) excellent work in this area, showing that the gaps you refer to are eliminated entirely when the known generational effects of systemic poverty among groups of different “racial” and ethnic origins (notably, blacks and people of color) are accounted for.
At present I see little use for IQ tests. Given the widespread methodology concerns about these tests and their metrics, I do wish the NYT would report consistently about what value the global scientific community places on outdated IQ tests that have blue ribbon status in the US—and probably should no longer.
22
Watson is the victim of the old Darwinian paradox, namely, that in believing humanity to be natural we believe it to be nothing but natural. Simone Weil said, "Genius is spiritual." She could have said what Reinhold Niebuhr said a long time ago, " Man is at the juncture of nature and spirit." The absurdity that spiritual things like intelligence and feeling are nothing but by-products of nature is and remains an absurdity but it is a natural fallacy in two senses, namely, 1) that it is so easy for biologists to believe because so much of what we are is in fact biological; and 2) because it is so easy to attribute mere appearances (like the results of contrived things like "intelligence tests") to things inherent in nature. Africa is a boiling pot of genius and opportunity. It's full day has not yet dawned. But poor Watson was the plaything not of his intelligence--which wasn't fully open as true science really is to things not yet seen--but to the mere appearances of intellect which he thought he saw in intelligence tests. Let us hope humanity forgives him his stupidity and remembers his genius.
12
Thanks NYTimes for essentially feeding the insane racism that is sweeping our country, and the world. As mentioned throughout this article, Watson's claims are unsubstantiated and have been categorically vilified by the scientific community. Yet, here we are reading an article about what is essentially one man's twisted opinions. The "Times" rightly excoriates Trump every day in its publications and all of the fake news that very clearly is fueling racism and nationalism, yet it is this very type of article that has the opposite affect. The "Times" has given a platform to a twisted old man's opinions to the delight of white supremacists everywhere.
12
As a scientist:
To have a scientific discussion, every participant must be free to state his opinion without fear of redistribution.
If Dr. Collins had stated anything but that " he was unaware of any credible research on which Dr. Watson’s “profoundly unfortunate’’ statement was based", Mr Collins would lose his lively hood - in seconds.
And not only his job. His entire career would be destroyed.
You can make the argument that for societal reasons, some areas of science should be quarantined. Fine.
But to label Mr. Watson's arguments as "unfounded" using the testimony of persons who , if dissenting , were to lose their livelihood is not compelling.
48
@SCIENTIST
Redistributing biased nonsense is not science. Einstein invented facts that prevented him from discovering the big bang, black holes, dark energy and dark matter. Quantum Mechanics was real no matter what Einstein thought.
There are natural scientists. And there are social studies academics pretending to be scientists. There are no economic nor political nor educational nor social " scientists". Too many variables and unknowns to ever be science.
4
What Dr Watson is saying, that people in Africa are not doing as well as other people around the world. In every other continent and every other nation they are always in the lowest percentage in education and earnings. It is hard to attribute this to any other cause
27
I have had a long, if fairly undistinguished, career in academia. After spending all but one year of my adult life affiliated with institutions of higher learning, the one recommendation that I suggest to African descended people is to be yourself, do not allow your actions to be shaped by someone else’s prejudice. Racism is a conclusion in search of evidence. When one rationale for racism is debunked, a racist will simply search for another reason to justify his or her beliefs.
32
It seems to me that we do not have a good enough definition of "intelligence" to adequately investigate differences between people who have different colored skins. I think it would be extraordinary from a purely evolutionary biological point of view to prove the darker skin colors imply less intelligence. There are billions of genes and the liklihood of such a linkage is tiny to the point of being almost entirely improbable.
"Intelligence" is actually perceived differently by different genders, cultures, and civilizations. So the whole argument is unscientific. What kind of intelligence? Which genes ae involved and what research documents those genes? The ultimate flaw in Watson's clumsy racist statements were that they were unscientific - not based on any actual duplicatable, scientific research and documentation. I think Dr. James Watson's even bringing up the topic shows his lack of social skills and empathy - also two things with genetic comonents which are thus far hard to define. We learn which genes control which behaviors with great difficulty - more by statistics and trial and error than by deduction for proven scientific hypothesis. That's why Chrispr would be more accurately labeled "Crapshoot."Why is this poor, fading old man being dragged through his prejudices on his death bed? To sell books? Newspapers? Give it a rest.
See Jennifer Dowden on Crispr for more info.
10
As a retired high school teacher, I wonder why Dr. Watson (and many others) do not know that IQ tests are culturally biased.
Think about the implications of this.
19
Erudition in one area of study does not necessarily mean erudition in others. Watson is guessing about why the disparate average I.Q. scores correlated with race. It matters not if one realizes that a correlation like that is not the same as a cause and effect relationship. Without a lot more evidence, nobody can make the kind of conclusion which Watson has made.
However, freedom of thought includes the right to think less than perfectly. As long as Watson is offering his sincere opinion with his explanation of the evidence upon which he draws his conclusion, it would be wrong to just dismiss him as a bigot. At least where his argument included bigoted beliefs should be cited before rejecting his conclusion as just racism. It that cannot be found, then may be there are facts undetermined which need to be considered.
7
Stop giving him air time. He analyzed a woman's data (Rosalind Franklin) to support his and Crick's theory. He assumes he is at the top of the heap thanks to no one else.
21
Watson's remarks are, of course, entirely substantiated by the ever growing body of scientific evidence.
No amount of shaming, framing, or defaming will change that.
Remember: "Despicable. Tarnished. Unsound."
In fact it is these slurs which are unsubstantiated. History will show Watson to be another victim of a repressive regime of thought control, like Galileo.
51
In these comments, remarks in sympathy with Watson's views seem notably more common than I think a representative sample of NYT readers would suggest. I take that to mean that folks avid for "scientific" confirmation of white racial supremacy are keenly on the lookout to find it, have long relied on Watson's views, and don't pass up any mention of his name when it comes to their attention.
10
To all of those, clutching your ideological pearls - none of you have PROVED Dr. Watson wrong. There is one source "out there" though, that confirms Dr. Watson's observations, and the real world empirical observations of many others; Forbes Best/Worst lists. Read those lists according to Race, and STARK patterns emerge.
17
You might as well be basic this on the number of white superheroes in classic Marvel comics.
11
"As the twig is bent, so grows the tree"
All things being equal any apparent differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors. Poverty, ignorance, constant trauma, emotionally unstable home life, etc . These things affect how a child's mind develops. The upheaval causes innate survival adaptations from before human beings had writing, modern society which are not conducive to sitting down and forgetting about the rest of life for several hours at a time to learn things at school or anywhere. And that is just one aspect of how the class system as has been imposed on the less well off the world over throughout history works to keep the lower classes down. We can see it in our own cities and town. I can only imagine how much harder it is for former colonies in Africa and elsewhere to lift themselves up when societal instability is a constant presence.
8
While Watson's opinion about intelligence and race clearly is hurtful to many, which is reason enough for him not to have expressed it, your column glosses over precisely why his opinion is baseless. You say that "most experts on intelligence 'consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences'” but don't explain what you mean by "most". 99%? 75%? 51%? Also, just because a characteristic such as intelligence may have a genetic base (which apparently is not disputed) does not mean nothing can be done about it. E.g. susceptibility to breast cancer. I saw no statement from Watson in your column claiming that nothing can be done to improve the intelligence of someone who purportedly has "bad" intelligence genes. As I said, regardless of whether Watson has a good faith basis for his opinion, he should have kept it to himself. But your attack on Watson's character is unfair.
18
"But your attack on Watson's character is unfair."
People who've had to sit at tables with him at VIP events say he's just plain nasty and mean. Attacking his character sounds fair to me. He's not some mild-mannered naif who's just got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
15
Oh good grief people! There is not even agreement on what intelligence is, much less where it comes from. This is either a tempest in a teapot or the inevitable weaponizing of ideas/information in the unending war for dominance
12
Is he right or wrong? This is the only thing that matters here. What we do with the facts is a political question. But establishing the facts is not.
19
Some have taken issue with the taboo of addressing the science of racial intelligence, which Watson seems so willing to address. The problem is, it is not science. Outside the physical sciences the term "science" is abused beyond recognition. Even on an innocuous subject such as nutrition, one can find numerous studies that support every conclusion and its opposite. I am sure one can come up with studies that land on all side of the question of race and intelligence. How can such studies move us forward? The can't, because they produce no useful knowledge, knowledge, that is, that can unite rational minds. All they produce is ammunition for a war of destruction. So yes, taboos are necessary to keep us from crossing some lines that should not be crossed.
7
James Watson, a biologist, says radical things about race and is excoriated for it. Noam Chomsky, a linguist, says radical things about society and is celebrated for it.
Interesting, both examples of how intelligence, or even brilliance, in one area does not necessarily transfer to another.
6
Watson also posits males are superior to females. He is remembered at NIH for a slide show that contained a picture of Mae West and his sexist asides and he and Crick's failue to give Rosalind Franklin her due in their Nobel Price.
28
Watson's evidence-free views on alleged racial disparities are in perfect harmony with his condescending remarks about Rosalind Franklin in THE DOUBLE HELIX.
It's also worth noting that Watson was essentially a one-trick pony. Watson and Crick did one valuable thing (while not giving due credit to Franklin for her contributions), and neither of them achieved anything else in basic science with lasting value.
Watson's fame was always out of proportion to his actual importance as a scientist. However, he has amply earned his ignominy.
The fundamental fact is that humanity does not know how to measure intelligence in its various forms accurately, while making due allowance for social and cultural constructs embedded in crude testing measures such as IQ tests. At present, our tests function as self-fulfilling prophecies: scoring well on X type test predicts scoring well on future X type tests.
This is why there is zero correlation between scientific achievement and IQ scores over the relatively modest level of 120 or so. So-called genius level IQs do not correlate at all with the ability to make scientific discoveries and technological advances. As this finding gets confirmed again and again, the presumption must be that high IQ scores also have little or no value in identifying and predicting abilities in any area of human intellectual achievement, whether in the arts or the sciences.
26
@csp123
Francis Crick was certainly not a “one trick pony”. Among his contributions: anti-magnetic mine technology for the Royal Navy, the comma-free code, codon degeneracy, the t-RNA wobble hypothesis, the genetic code itself, in addition to valuable insights in developmental genetics, the origins of life on earth, cognitive neuroscience & the neural correlates of consciousness. This great Englishman was father of Molecular Biology, and certainly the greatest biologist since Charles Darwin.
22
We expect well educated, very intelligent people to be worldly, open minded and beyond petty jealousies and bigotry. This is not the case with Dr. Watson and we can be sure that there other scientists like him. Since he does not offer up any scientific studies to support his prejudices we can only assume that in fact they are just prejudices. Two of my most admired people are black, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. both brilliant in their respective fields.
I am not a scientist but the environmental origins of individual differences seems highly reasonable and plausible just look at the trumpinistas.
11
There’s nothing very surprising about this, and it makes news only because Watson’s so high-profile. But experts, especially in fields that move as fast as the sciences do, are experts only in very narrow areas for a short time, and beyond that they’re pretty much just regular people with the same bananas ideas that anyone else has. The problem is really a cult of celebrity that leaves people thinking that someone who made a mark once ought to be globally wise (and listened to) forever.
22
I saw James Watson speak a few years ago, and at least to me it seemed fairly clear that he's no longer mentally "all there," so to speak. He repeated stories, lost his thread of thought frequently, forgot fairly major details of his own life, etc. His remarks on race are inexcusable, but it does seem possible to me that they could be at least partly a result of dementia (or at least that they might have been thoughts he would have had the good sense to keep to himself if he were mentally sound). I can't imagine, based on what I witnessed when I saw him speak, that the people who interviewed him could have left that encounter feeling that they had talked to a person who was sound of mind. If the interviewers suspected dementia, it seems a bit exploitative to me for them to not mention that.
33
@Nora
There are no exceptions to the mission of naming and shaming all "bad" "white men".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
5
James Watson’s observations on the human genetics of race and intelligence are poorly developed and feed misguided and dangerous opinions about race and intelligence. Whereas he was awarded a Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for his insightful scientific body of research, his opinions on human genetics are just that, opinions that are not supported by current scientific knowledge on human genetics. His behavior has certainly worse consequences than deriding Einstein for his inability to play the harmonica, or Linus Pauling misinterpreting the structure of DNA. But in all these circumstances we recognize and honor their insights in their areas of expertise while recognizing their human frailty and limiting their ability to hold forth on topics for which they have scientific ignorance. Scientists should be held to high standards but these standards differ to certain degrees from those by which we measure politicians and professional sports figures.
2
We are left again with the baffling question of why do smart people do stupid things? It may well be that smart and stupid are two concepts that no one yet fully understands.
15
Well said, and a pithy way to demonstrate why Watson is surely mistaken when he makes disturbing pronouncements about something, namely intelligence, that we do not truly understand and cannot even properly define.
5
What does it say for the rest of us if someone so intelligent and well-intentioned can look at the "inherently gloomy prospects of Africa" and chalk it up to genetic inferiority with no attention paid to colonization, exploitation and economic oppression?
30
"I haven't seen any knowledge" is not knowledge. "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” is not research. The branch of research dealing with relative superiority of ethnic groups is junk science with no purpose other than to justify discrimination and no one embarks on such a study without a preconceived notion of an ethnic group that they would like to discriminate. And it doesn't matter anyway because no one has to deal with "black employees" but with each employee individually, black or otherwise.
22
@IGUANA, right; those assertions you mention are along the same lines as the president's "They all tell me," or, "Many people say..."
6
We heard Dr. Watson speak a long time back and were enthralled with his explanation of the discovery of the helix. My engineer husband who was convinced he would hate the talk, loved it. And now he spouts this.....It shows sadly that whether immersed in scientific enquiry or not, one can be sufficiently biased to convince oneself that they are right. Doesn’t matter what observations or facts are thrust on you, your own off kilter thought consumes you. Just look around at the Trump base. Every single one of them simply justify in the most artful manner why Trump is king, the GOP awesome and why the rest of the country are flakes of a different kind. Sadly Watson joins the weird Trumpian crowd.
Perhaps in his waning years he needs to study not the science of genes but the history of the peoples of the world. He might not be so definitive as he explores. Else, it is a most tragic waste of a beautiful mind.
7
Rindermann, Heiner; Becker, David; Coyle, Thomas R. (2016), "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests", Frontiers in Psychology, 7, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399, ISSN 1664-1078
So, why is Watson made into a pariah? Perhaps because he was/is unwise enough to say in very public media merely that which is also embraced by others in media less public? They all may be dead wrong, but James Watson has said nothing inherently racist. And he has a lot of company in the world of well read thinkers who are not afraid to consider inconvenient truths as nonetheless possible truths.
54
@James Sanders
You see the same pattern over and over. When someone reports the findings of psycho metrics to the general public, they're attacked (in some cases literally).
10
Until we have a world in which all groups are treated equally--I'm not holding my breath--we will not know how genetics and environment interact to produce human traits that differ among groups. Denying that such differences exist, however, comes at a cost. We have made a total mess of evaluating education in this country by denying the objective fact that whites outscore blacks on standardized tests by about a standard deviation. For years, civil service exams were used to keep Fire and Police Depts. all white. Look up average ACT and SAT scores by race today. A few years ago, the city of Little Rock elected a majority black school board. The State used five "under performing" schools as an excuse to take over the system that they still run, not to the benefit of the City or school system. The schools they picked as under performing were, of course, virtually 100% black. Ignoring facts will bite you.
11
That does not disprove that the difference is caused by environmental factors. In fact, it is a strong argument for it.
8
@Kara Ben Nemsi
If a school in a given district turns in a particular set of scores year after year, but then starts to experience a marked decline to the point where a significantly lower set of scores becomes the new norm, the environment hasn't changed --but perhaps the demographics have. I would imagine you could find examples of this in the United States, if you were interested enough and were willing enough to take the heat.
11
@Tony Lawless But, the difference comes about not because of color. It reflects social class. I live in a 98+% white community. When I bought my home many years ago, the schools were rated at slightly above average. In the last 5 years, even with the same teachers, etc., the rating has dropped to very low. Since 2008, many white welfare families have moved here and they appear to procreate at a greater rate than working parents.
Our entire community has suffered from this and the problems they brought with them.
8
We measure intelligence today with a western, white bias. Even with that bias, distribution curves of intelligence among races superimpose to the point of being essentially indistinguishable. The politically correct flatly state there is no difference. Racists say the tiniest calculated difference in the mean of those vast distributions applies generally.
His scientific eminence is based on their theft of the helical structure of DNA from Rosalind Franklin's X-ray analysis. They have never given her the credit she deserves.
25
@Mike Carpenter
Stuff and nonsense. Watson left absolutely no doubt in his book as to the importance of Franklin's X-ray analysis. It provided the clinching evidence that he needed regarding the structure of DNA.
Two further points:
1. Franklin did not grasp the significance of her results for mapping the structure of DNA.
2. Who did not give Franklin the credit she deserved? Franklin had died before the Nobel prizes for deciphering DNA were awarded, and the rule was (and is) that Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously, so no conclusions can be drawn about whether she was denied recognition. Sadly, that won't stop the usual gender vigilantes from spinning the story to fit their narrative.
32
@Ian Maitland
I remember sharing the pro-Franklin bias enough to read the biography written about her. After that, I formed a much more balanced view of her achievement. An excellent scientist, no doubt, but probably lacking the spark that drove Watson and Crick to the Nobel Prize.
13
Rosalind Franklin should have shared in the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, she died before her time.
7
The Times reported not too long ago that small mammals in St. Paul, Minnesota are substantially smarter (larger brains) than their rural cousins living nearby. The less intelligent animals in the city were hit by buses, etc., over the generations. St. Paul is probably less than two hundred years old. So, evolution can take place quickly, Stephen Jay Gould not withstanding. It should be obvious that, after 70,000 to 100,000 years of genetic separation, Africans and Europeans are not identical. As biological knowledge advances over the next several years, Liberalism—as presently constituted—will find itself increasingly backed into a corner. The strident tone of this article is a symptom of this advance of knowledge.
45
@Richard
Indeed. Reich makes the same point that as population genetics continues, many will be backed into a corner they don't want to be in -
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
5
@Richard: odd conclusion. By your thinking, the urban poor should be getting smarter faster than the rest of us.
8
@ThePB
That wasn’t a conclusion. That was a fact.
4
Why doesn't the author get offended by racist attitudes and defend White people when the IQ tests come back with Asians on top? Why is it the lone white wolf that always gets shot?
My children attended an Asian-heavy suburban school outside Boston. They were often-times insulted as being inferior by the Chinese students who were their peers (based on DNA characteristics). This kind of racism was ignored by the school.
(Meanwhile one of our children was a Yale Book Award winner and another the U of Chicago Book Award winner... both were in the top 3% of their class. This didn't matter however when the slights were given and expected to be ignored.)
28
IQ 'tests' have always been rather subjective. This is not so much a nature vs. nurture debate as it is a question of the validity of IQ tests across different cultures.
12
@Jack Sprat Many IQ tests consist mainly of grouping different shapes into patterns, thus, removing the cultural bias
10
you slip into this article a claim that medical school hirings are biased, but offer no support to this claim: "Biases in hiring by medical school science departments are well documented." Documented where? this claim is like watson's claim, based on "common knowledge." I'd like to see something substantive that indicates that medical school science depts nowadays are actually not sensitive to racial disparities in their hiring. i am skeptical.
23
I suspect that many people are in for a shock in the years to come. Consider the recent article by David Reich. Although he is tap dancing like crazy, he is aware that our concept of "race" maps onto gene clusters with great accuracy, and it's clear he suspects that the differences between the clusters will not be limited to rate of prostate cancer, osteoporosis, etc. I suspect Robert Plomin thinks the same thing, but knows it would be professional suicide to go near it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
30
Anyone who reads the growing scientific literature on intelligence, genetic and neurological, knows that you are correct. When we ignore or twist scientific findings to agree with our politics, we cripple our ability to confront the problems they present. Watson isn’t helping by the crudeness of his approach.
19
So, we have this once rockstar scientist who has already paid the price (of his career being destroyed) for voicing a very troubling opinion, now doubling down on the very same idea that ruined him. And being shouted down again for it.
Did he write a book reasserting his claims? No, he was interviewed in his dotage and answered a question truthfully, giving the interviewer and PBS a huge gift. Many will watch the documentary not out of interest in DNA or genetics, or out of concern for the integrity of Science, or even a curiosity about Dr. Watson himself, but rather to fuel their own pet assumptions...and so it goes.
I don't think there is a story here.
17
So, he thinks he is right. So do a lot of people think they are right about one thing or another.
Is what he does breaking any laws?
7
What do you expect from an immoral data thief? A dozen scientists could have figured out DNA from Rosalind Franklin's data. (Linus Pauling, for example, who almost had it anyway!) And Watson's a Brit to boot -- they have long been certain of their mental superiority over everyone else. A better scientist always asks whether the results of measurements have actually measured what they're interested in, or whether systematics have interfered. The systematic biases in intelligence tests have been known for a long time. (See the reports from Ellis Island.)
11
I enjoyed your opening sentence! Apparently, though, Watson is actually American. He went over to Britain to pursue his PhD.
1
It's easy to make claims about correlations between two categories when neither one is well defined.
I mean have you noticed that dishonest people are so ugly? Or that soft-spoken people dress well? Or that motherly types tend to be more caring? Or that modern people are noisy? Or that outsiders talk funny?
13
A mishmash without enough detail to make the situation clear, and making statements confusing differences between statistical and individual differences.
7
It seems the answer to this question is simple. If there is a difference in IQ scores (I have no idea if that is true), then one should be able to compare scores from those of the same race, but differing environmental backgrounds to observe the environmental impact on scores (nurture vs nature vs both) and put an end to the controversy, one way or another. Has this been attempted?
6
@Milar
Yes, it has been attempted, and some differences still persist, but you can never be sure you've controlled for all important variables. Sorry can't give ref off hand, but google will get you some.
5
Extremely interesting article primarily for the reactions elicited
I don't have a dog in this fight because I interact with individuals and not groups
From what I know this is a totally wasteful discussion because we understand so little of brain structure and function and even less of how genetics affects or determines it
We know those whose origin is outside of sub Sahara Africa interbred with Neanderthals or Denisovans and that different genetic mix may have some consequences
We also have discovered that male and female brains are wired differently but that's not fully mapped out
The point being that we really know too little now about the brain and the role of genetics in forming the brain to conclude anything
Once it's known how the brain is supposed to function then perhaps we can measure how optimally it operates and do comparative studies because what is being tested for now could prove to be irrelevant to actual brain power
6
I guarantee that these comments well be leveled as evidence of a genetic difference in races at many a Thanksgiving dinner. I'm sure I'll hear about it 40 times from my in-laws.
4
Dr. Watson has made a statistical observation and from such making a plausible conclusion that Africans are inferior to the White race genetically. This is poor science to say the least. All other scientists postulating Nature vs. Nurture in a digital and linear manner is also poor science. In reality, it is very difficult to isolate Nature from Nurture and in many observable cases, they can actually be dependent on each other. In a homogeneous society over a particular geographical region, Nature doesn't change much over a relatively short period; but Nurture can make a big difference in people's intelligence and other attributes. Similarly, when Nurture remains constant, a change in genes can make a big difference in people's intelligence. Then there is societal and economic effects as well as the time variance. In reality, proper experiments to separate all these effects to determine racial intelligence variation would be very difficult. The same is true for gender intelligence variation. Cognitive intelligence can be enhanced through nurture, diet, discipline, and the right kind of intelligence practice and training. Scientists must first put all the variables (nature, nurture, time, societal influence, diet, training, and others) in an appropriate functional equation for cognitive intelligence and then design suitable experiments to sort out coefficients and solutions of the equation. Knowing difficult math/calculus/differential-equations would be imperative.
11
To be a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and to be the author of a seminal text on molecular biology does not qualify that person to contribute to the discussion of the role of nature and nurture in intellectual ability or IQ. IQ is believed to be determined by many genes each contributing a small amount to the adult phenotype. Environment (prenatal, postnatal, education, etc.) is also of key importance. Quantitative genetics (the study of many genes mostly of small effect) is the specialization that has the expertise to contribute to this discussion allied to that of psychologists and other professions that have the tools with which to parcel out the role of educational and other social influences. As far as I know, Dr Watson's knowledge of these fields is either nil or at the level of the intelligent layman. We should not be surprised that a person who has contributed at a high level to molecular genetics has unsubstantiated beliefs about a wide variety of topics, including IQ. Nor should we be surprised that the makers of the current documentary chose to focus on this subject: it guarantees a wide audience for their work and the same kind of upheaval that this topic usually engenders.
7
@Bliz
I suspect Watson's understanding of the science involved -- as well as the difficulties of studying the issue - is well above that of an "intelligent layman." And I think that there's no reason intelligent laymen should not discuss these matters, read about them and develop opinions on them. It's the job of the scientist to accurately portray, without prejudice, exactly what the data show or do not show.
9
I hold memberships in both Mensa and Intertel, which puts me on the far right of the IQ bell curve. I look in the mirror, I see a black man. I am not the only Mensan in my family. I am not the only black person in Mensa. Yet people still believe blacks are less intelligent than whites. LOL! Get over yourselves.
163
@G. W. I'm a black, university-educated professional who was near or at the top of all of my classes growing up. I've cited myself, other successful family members, and friends as examples of the shortcomings of "race"-based theories of intelligence to people that have expressed a belief in them and was once literally told that I (and the others I cited) was an exception to the rule. That intelligent black people are just statistical outliers, and that overall, the theories are valid.
People will believe what they want to believe, and will cling to even the flimsiest junk-science to bolster their bigoted worldviews.
65
@Jay Sands Sadly, I must say you are right. I had the opposite experience, being a Jewish girl in school. Everyone just assumed I was smart. I was, but that's not the point. Stereotypes persist regardless of reality, to the detriment of all society.
27
Not to defend Watson or his uninformed opinions, but one person does not a population make.
28
Yes, this is an interesting academic topic.
But the important issue to me isn't who's smarter -- Asian and Jews are above-average intelligence based on what I've read. Should they not hire whites based on statistics?
This is a dead end and a recipe for social disruption.
The issue is mutual respect -- an absolute essential to a fully functioning society. Are we to dismiss blacks as dumb, whether or not they are? Doing so wastes human potential, such as Obama had and has.
We know that Down's Syndrome causes low IQ. Do we exterminate them as I believe Hitler tried to do? Hopefully not -- and if not, then what? Scorn and ridicule as some Tea Party types have done with the disabled?
No. They are all part of this journey called life and all should be allowed to fulfill their potential. That goes for everyone..
19
@Hangdogit
Yes, mutual respect -- combined with a return to the past when equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law had more sway than do "diversity, equity and inclusion" now -- will go a long way to solving our problems.
6
Why bring this up now? It is old news.
As another reader replied, why not do a story on Rosalind Franklin? Many people are unaware of Watson and Crick’s theft of her work to publish their world-changing article.
Let the old fool totter off into the sunset rather than pillory him again for his ignorant comments. We have better things to talk about.
30
@Frank Reed Why bring it up now? Are you aware of the correlation between NYT and PBS programming? THey serve each other as echo chambers. Watson is a awful man but please tune in to watch the show about him Wednesday at 8.
3
As an African American who has been exposed to successful Black and White people, I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that statistically people of certain racial backgrounds have varying levels of innate intelligence. However there is data out there to suggest that success and happiness are not highly correlated with intelligence. It is discipline and the ability to make good logical decisions.
However when you look at the hostile environment (specifically mean, nasty, meat eating animals) associated with Africa, whose going to last longer: a person who is disciplined and works problems logically or a quick-thinking person that reacts at a moments notice. Survival of the fittest reigns supreme. But the fittest is regionally based.
Dr Watson may be mistaking behavioral characteristics for intellectual capacity. To understand the problem, one would have to conduct experiments. Watson is simply making conclusions based on his observations. He’s a scientist and that’s what scientist do. I don’t know if his comments are racists. Based on everyone’s reactions obviously many think he is.
Unfortunately science has become increasingly more politicized. We as scientist have only us to blame especially when it comes to the deadly combination of shaky statistics, poor experimental design and motives that seek to give a DESIRED answer vs the TRUTH.
When answering difficult questions like climate change or race, we need to run good experiments.
112
"Watson is simply making conclusions based on his observations. He’s a scientist and that’s what scientist do." -- NO!!! That is not what we do! Observation is the basis for hypothesis. Hypotheses are tested by experiment. Only those hypotheses that are consistently validated by a variety of experiments can be the basis for conclusions, and even then conclusions must be considered tentative. That is what scientists do.
17
@
No, that's not it either. Experiments are just one source of observations or data, and there are large phenomena and entire disciplines where controlled experimentation is not possible or not the primary m.o. of science. Think: climate change, astronomy, epidemiology, economics, geology, etc.
In principle we good take, at birth, a random sample of babies from each race (how to define?) and raise them under identical conditions (but which ones?) and then test their intelligence via a diversity of tests.
Let me know when you've gotten funding for this, as well as a bunch of mothers on board!
The unfortunate fact is that standard controlled experiments are only possible for phenomena of certain sorts, in particular one's concerning phenomena at very small spatial and temporal scales.
16
My favorite is Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that a mechanical solution to determining longitude would never be found and that the wounding of a dog at noon in London so that it’s puppy would cry out at the same time on a ship at sea would prove the best solution.
8
When people get really angry when someone else has a different theory, then you know they are coming from a place of religion rather than science.
There are still some countries where they have the death penalty for proposing a theory that disagrees with that country's main religion.
I fear the West is becoming more like that.
75
@Michael
Agreed, this is the T. rex on the horizon. In my six decades as a scientist I have never seen the level of intolerance, censorship, hypocrisy and shaming both in academia (where I reside) and in society at large as we have now. Why lazy thinkers may find it convenient and safe at the moment to blame this on Trump, I see timid but influential, academics and unreliable, highly politicized media (NYT, perchance?) as the main source of this.
It is not much consolation to observe that Canada and the European Union are even further down this road than is the U.S. Watch for high levels of illegal immigration from both places in the next decade or two!
11
But in the end he is a wrong...but also right? This article does nothing to further the understanding of the field for a layperson at all and is really just an emotional retort to a touchy subject. Watson is wrong because he posits that there exist "races" of people that are differentiated through skin tone when no such thing exists for genetic purposes. But the idea that we are way more Nature than Nurture is a well established truth that too many are loathe to admit. It's funny that when it comes to physical prowess, no one disputes the direct generation to generation genetic component but when it comes to intelligence it freaks people out. Does anyone dispute that Native Americans from several specific tribes have an enhanced capacity for running long distances? Or the same to be said for specific clans from Scotland and of course, in modern times, all of the world class marathoners who come from a single tribe(Kalenjin) in Ethiopia? We mess it all up by thinking that "Africans" are really awesome marathon runners when in truth, someone from Somalia(or even another Kenyan genetic line) has no more pre-disposition to elite running than a Bulgarian. But the fear of reducing a dark skinned person to their physical attributes stops a more truthful analysis. We also know that there are a ton of gifted Kenyan writers, artists and scientists
29
@Edward I agree with what you are saying here but wish to correct you that the Kalenjin are from Kenya and not Ethiopia. Also, there are world class runners from other tribes in Kenya just not as many as the Kalenjin. In the case of the Kalenjins, it's not just Nature but Nurture (i..e, environment) that plays a big role in the development of these world class runners.
4
As a follow up: I’ve met incredibly intelligent people who are janitors and I’ve met people with documented mediocre IQ’s with PhD’s and a track record of successfully solving difficult problems. Intelligence and success are NOT necessarily correlated. Behavior is probably a stronger predictor.
24
The article fails to mention the similarity between the racist opinions of James Watson and those of William Shockley, another distinguished scientist who went off the rails in his dotage. The fact that Watson won a Nobel prize for co-discovering DNA doesn't professionally qualify him in any way to weigh-in on the subject of intelligence, either what it actually means or how it may be measured. He is as completely out of his wheelhouse as was Shockley. There is a pattern of persons highly educated in some particular narrow branch of science believing that such knowledge gives them carte blanche to make pronouncements about other areas of science as if they actually had any expertise regarding the subject.
27
@Dav Mar
Is it "racist" to claim that there exist statistical differences between racial groups other than those obvious to the eye?
7
The way he and colleagues treated Rosalind Franklin-why do people expect him not to be a smug holier-than-thou flawed person?
44
It is amazing to me that Watson can't see that any short term variations in data are the result of cultural bias and racism. Clearly from a biological standpoint all peoples have a similar pool of potential. Skin color or hair type have zero to do with intellectual development. Racism does deny peoples access to education, healthcare, and opportunity of all kinds. The math is simple unless one is intellectually lazy and possibly a racist.
15
@Mhevey
"Clearly ... a similar pool of potential." Not clear at all. By "similar" do you mean "identical"? If not, what do you mean?
5
The crux of the problem is that none of us have any idea what we are talking about. Another 500 years might help, but that would require H. Sapiens to survive another 500 years; a doubtful prospect, but not an entirely gloomy one. Apes with big brains may yet prove to be an evolutionary dead end.
19
Lol. Well said, and a pithy way of reframing the whole debate about intelligence.
3
First off, no matter what the statistical differences in IQ by race are it does not translate to a personal level or justify any racial prejudices. That said, scientific data exists showing statistical differences in IQ between races. It is interesting the argument is always framed black vs white. For instance, why does no one seemingly talk about the superiority of Asians vs whites? If the tests were designed by whites and that accounts for the testing significance why do Asians score higher? Why do those of Jewish descent score higher?
No one wants to believe the differences are genetic. Isn't it possible though? Has science really debunked the differences completely? On one level, this is one of those questions that you want to just say "Who cares?" because even if it is true in a broad population it is meaningless on an individual level.
We are talking statistics and frequency distributions and the like. On the other hand, you can do correlation studies of average IQ by country and that countries GDP and find a good correlation. Sure, there are outliers, but does that negate the correlation? Or, does this whole discussion go back to the old book, How To Lie With Statistics?
123
@Michael I don't think that exclamation really holds water. While race has been proven to be a genetic falsehood. But the fact that race and culture has been treated differently throughout the world is an unarguable fact. People with Jewish heritage often share a similar socioeconomic background. Asians family have a culture that places great emphasis on academic achievement. Jumping to genetics as an explanation for variance in IQ scores is some what of a cop out. Without an incredibly deep dive into the culture and socioeconomic background of the test takers and the forces of history that have shaped both those factors. Jumping to genetics as the solution ignores a far more likely solution through over simplicifation of the incredibly complex process that forms a human being. My hunch is that if you drill down far enough all the variance in IQ can be explained via ones nuture.
19
@Michael You ask about Asians vs. whites. There is one researcher I am aware of who looked at just that. His name is Philippe Rushton.
8
@Michael
Despite what the article implies, science has not in fact determined the relative role of genetics and environment in determining differences in mean group intelligence. What we know is that the effects of *either* could be large enough to account for the observed group differences, and that *some* of these differences are a consequence of environment, in that the children of people who immigrate from poor countries have higher IQ's than their parents.
If anyone is interested in the genetic correlates of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, the highest in the world, I suggest the fascinating and influential paper "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence," available in PDF from here:
http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
Those who are interested in the general issue of group intelligence might also want to read the American Psychological Association's report, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns," which was issued as a response to "The Bell Curve":
https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf
It is 23 years old and so a bit out of date, but still contains a wealth of useful information.
18
Let’s remember folks, that IQ is what is measured on IQ tests. That is all. It is by no means the measure of a person’s dignity, worth, rights, freedoms, goodness, capacity for treasures like kindness, joy, and industry; faithfulness in responsibilities, ability to see beauty or have gratitude. Not a measure of the health. Not a measure of how much one loves or is loved. IQ is just the thing measured on IQ tests. Not worth much fuss.
31
@JK There's another problem with IQ tests: It's not clear that they measure anything. Height, weight, body fat, etc. are measurable properties. But "intelligence"? We say of people that they are intelligent, or good, or kind, or bad. But does it follow that there are measurable amounts of intelligence, goodness, kindness, etc?
10
Being no scientist, I am unable to understand how the effects of nature and nurture can ever be really separated to the point that inherent racial intelligence, and not behavior, can be accurately determined.
Nevertheless, there will surely be those who will carry on this research, which even though distasteful to many of us, must be allowed.
My big question is how is this meant to help humanity? It's not enough to know the answers, but what will be done with them.
11
I thought we dispelled the whole notion of race with the recent discovery of — or was it a computer-generated image of — an early human with dark skin, curly hair and blue eyes?
In the end, we are all the same. Race is a construct. Therefore, what Watson posits cannot possibly be true.
4
@myasara "Race" as it is typically used on a government form or in common parlance or in connection with the "one drop" rule, etc. is in large measure a "social construct."
But it is also true that human populations evolving in different parts of the world have become genetically differentiated enough for them to differ in all sorts of visible and less visbile way. Science can and does document and quantify these in all sorts of ways, and will continue to do so. Labels for past or existing subgroups will be linguistic constructs that may or may not be useful, the genetic differentiation itself is not a social construct whatever its degree for particular traits or sets of traits.
12
This article is very misleading, in that it's attempting to scapegoat James Watson over his support of an idea that is not HIS idea alone. Come on, folks, there have been a lot of studies and media articles and discussions on this issue, and it is far from a settled issue.
Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray's book "The Bell Curve" explored this territory in 1994 --
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/the-bell-curve.pdf
There are many YouTube discussions on this topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0KKc6GbeNo
The primary problem with this NYT article and many critiques of the studies on race and IQ, is the desire to dismiss facts because the conclusion is unpalatable. That isn't a coherent argument. You can argue with facts and evidence in many ways, but to simply say, "I dont' like the conclusions of this study, therefore the study is invalid" is not a logical or acceptable argument.
It may well be the case, as some point out, that there are "many types of intelligence", but that argument too misses the point -- what if we do, in fact, want to measure CERTAIN types of intelligence, as opposed to other types?
I have not seen a logical argument about why we are free to dismiss results of a scientific study, if we find its conclusions unpalatable.
Trump et al find the idea of climate change unpalatable and inconvenient to their purposes, and so would like to deny the reality of climate change. See where I"m going with this?
192
@Oakbranch You make a good point that this isn't only Watson's idea.
But as far as I understand, Murray today -- and in 1994, when read closely -- doesn't claim that any apparent racial differences in average outcomes on intelligence tests are necessarily genetic. Rather, they are likely environmental, he says.
The misperception persists robustly, but it is indeed a misperception.
12
AGREED!!!
4
...except that the article specifically states Watson’s theories are unfounded. No “facts” or proven theories to which you refer are cited by Watson. Believers in science, and therefore climate change, are so inclined to agree with multiple sources of factual, proven research regarding human activity contributing to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
11
Watson dared to speak publicly about a theory he holds. In science, we test theories and don't discard them due to they're seemingly conflicting with our sensibilities. Evolution offends some people due to their conflicting religious beliefs. However, we know evolution to be a proven theory that has been tested.
I don't weigh in on the merits of Watson's theory, as I have not seen any research on the subject. However, no one doubts that Watson is a great scientist with significant accomplishments. Did we let politics and personal beliefs stop his work as it may not end up where we felt comfortable? If so, shame on us.
Science must be able to test the theories of its contributors, or we all suffer. Yes, there must be ethics in science, but as long as Watson was employing ethical approaches to his work, he should not have been stopped or ostracized for his theory. We can't only research what is comfortable, or we handicap our researchers and scientific progress. We must question our beliefs or humankind will not be able to move past our incorrect beliefs. If science wants credibility when brought into the political sphere, then science needs to keep the politics out of their processes. Science and politics have often had conflicts, and this seems to be one of those times. No one is forced to believe in minority scientific theories, and therefore the research should continue. We learn, even if the theory is proven wrong.
41
@Two Percenter The problem here is that, if you have a hypothesis that is so controversial and could potentially harm others, you need to be careful, thorough, and know what you are talking about. He has been neither. Just because he made an incredible discovery at one point in his life does not mean that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the genetics governing intelligence as it relates to populations. He has not studied this topic, at all, and these are his opinions, based on nothing. People that have studied this, to the extent that is possible (it turns out that studying intelligence and gender or group differences is incredibly hard, partly because we don't actually have an objective way to measure intelligence or properly separate nature from nurture), have openly said that, to the extent that we know, there are no differences among groups. The experts in the area suggest there are no differences. Why should Watson's opinion matter? Just because he's Watson? He's no expert on this.
80
@NCGeneticist Aren't there some logical disconnects in your arguments?
This topic has not been the focus of his own research, but that is not grounds for saying "he has not studied this topic" or that "his opinions are based on nothing."
You admit that research in this area is difficult and that therefore there are almost no "definitive" studies, and most would agree with you. And for that reason, "the experts is the area" would HARDLY "suggest there are no [inter-group] differences" with a genetic basis. In statistics when the power of the test (or quantity of relevant data), is low, one suspends judgment, one does not accept the null hypothesis. Ask Jean Lavange, president of the American Statistical Association and prof at UNC!
10
He didn’t write a scientific paper on the subject. He simply expressed his opinion. His private thoughts.
Are we so politically correct that he can’t even do that? Why should he be punished? Is this the Soviet Union or China?
Did he advocate for the execution or deportation of a race?
This is a free country and you should be able to state your opinion
9
On-the-record interviews of people in their 90's must constitute a special field of social research. Like "Rosebud" in "Citizen Kane," at a certain age, humans possibly begin to speak mostly, or only, in code.
Since DNA is itself a code, a man famous for studying that code who now speaks mostly in his own code, as well, must seem like a profitable subject to the social researcher.
Mannucci does not quite reach the quality of a Studs Terkel or Svetlana Alexievich, in my opinion, but the effort is interesting. Does Mannucci intend to interview every DNA researcher over a certain age, in order to develop a statistical base for future research ? Or was this a one-off sort of "gotcha!" moment, or something altogether different?
I have seen it brilliantly argued that racial characteristics such as skin color do not even serve well as markers of the DNA relatedness of individuals -- ie, that individuals who share close DNA matches may vary widely in skin colors, shapes of eyes or noses, etc.. That means underlying, as-yet-unidentified markers are far more relevant than what meets the eye superficially.
Where is science on these issues? And, are the scientists doing the work asking the right questions?
2
On the other hand, an elderly couple I knew, both of whom lived to be 101 years old, were mentally sharper than people half their age or younger. It was their bodies that failed them.
She could remember absolutely everything, including meals she had on a trip to Cuba. He retained his seven languages and ability to write poetry. Both remained interested in books, music, and current events to the end.
Stereotype much about old people, do you?
8
I wonder if many conflicts might derive from an imprecise, connotative understanding of the word intelligence paired with the prevailing philosophy of ill-defined, imperative equality. Are we ascribing a scientific denotation to a philosophical and political aspiration that “all men are created equal”? Are we all equally endowed with the same physical benefits? Are we equally endowed with 20/20 vision or spiritual vision? (Is it not possible that farsighted is more perfect for finding game on the savanna or planets in the night sky?)
We have historically accepted “wise “ women and men without the fear of denigrating the unwise.
Are we wrongly accepting a limited understanding of intelligence and equality by ignoring different intelligences even though we acknowledge their existence? Are we even valuing intelligence through a nearsighted, capitalist vision? After all one must admit, however grudgingly, even Glorious Leader has a type of smarts.
6
Whether Dr. Watson is right or wrong is a scientific question. Sure, the answer has social and political ramifications, but it must be answered scientifically. Whether the answer fits your political views (or mine) is irrelevant.
77
@Anne Harper
You're missing the point. There's currently no scientific basis to back up his assertion. It is quite simply his personal opinion.
14
@Anne Harper
You can never conclude from qualitative questions only quantitative ones. Which is another way of saying what you said. No, you didn't miss the point.
4
@Mikeweb Thanks for mansplain. I suggest that because of the divisive political climate, it is impossible for dissenting scientists to speak out.
20
How about an article on Rosalind Franklin? I didn’t even know it was her work that was stolen.
91
@Jennifer
Her work was not stolen. Franklin died in 1958, 4 years before Watson and Crick were awarded the Nobel Prize. "Watson suggested that Franklin would have ideally been awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry ... but the Nobel Committee generally does not make posthumous nominations."
15
One wonders what Rosalind Franklin would think of Watson.
(I amuse myself hearing her say "Yeah? You got any data, Bunky?")
25
Yet, even the NY Times published:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/01/education/01schoools-graphic2.html?ref=education
4
@older and wiser, exactly!
People argue vehemently that IQ means nothing, yet the results of every standardized test students take gives the precise breakdown of scores that would be expected IF the statement that average IQ dramatically varies by race AND measures something important were true.
6
I.Q. correlates positively with SES, good health, and longevity. Must be something going on!
5
You could fill a small suburban library with the books written about scientists whose savant-like intellectual gifts and obsessive drivenness led to brilliant discoveries in one particular field, but whose views toward their fellow human beings exposed their superiority complexes, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Intellectual/scientific giants can be moral Lilliputians. In a way, we should be glad those people - like Watson - have proven themselves incapable of shutting themselves up when they held forth on topics outside their specialties, and their arrogance induced them to air their ugly prejudices. Their garrulousness, which uncovered the worst aspects of their characters, has served to remind us how one-dimensional intellectual giftedness can be.
52
The late anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould rejected the concept of intelligence as a single, objectively measurable characteristic. How would whites perform if African American psychologists designed and administered IQ tests?
17
@Josiah We know the answer to that. They perform better than self-identifying African-Americans and worse than Asians, and this is true in cross-cultural meta analyses applied to the globe. The definition of intelligence rests on collaboration within and cumulative research by the scientific community, which includes many acclaimed African-American scientists. The real problem isn't race vs intelligence but nature vs nurture.
Harmon has never studied science. How does she know Watson's reviews are "fundamentally unsound?" If they were, then there wouldn't be any controversy to begin with.
This article's coyness regarding the absolutely shameful treatment of this country's African-American community is shameful. By not including anything substantial, it leaves the reader with the idea that maybe the far right is correct -- that blacks just can't participate in the lifestyle vividly depicted in the advertisements vividly ornamenting this article -- and the Times just can't say it.
Harmon has written dramatically on scientific subjects, but race and intelligence requires more sensitivity. This article simply grades a list of scientists on how racist they are. If they're guilty, they "quickly apologize." The reader doesn't gain the slightest insight as to
what the granularity is here. All we learn is things don't "bode well," and "there's a risk to thinking."
14
Is Harmon actually a science journalist? A little actual research on her part into this subject would have been useful to her!
4
There are certainly differences in the average IQ of ethnic and racial groups (e.g., about 15 points between blacks and whites.) The more important question is whether or not it is genetically determined. I don’t believe that a genetic link has been shown in any convincing way. That said, even if it is genetic, “average” has nothing to do with the individual. There are brilliant blacks and moronic whites.
34
@Landy At the risk of stating the obvious, this point has been well illustrated by the last and the current occupants of the White House.
13
@Landy
In terms of our personal lives and interactions with others, I think most would agree with you. We have very multi-dimensional criteria for deciding whom we want as friends or partners, who we think will make good business partners or employees, where we want to live, etc.
But we are now stuck with a highly racialized society where "diversity, equity and inclusion" have become the non-negotiable, albeit somewhat vague, mantra demanding proportional representation, however defined, of different racial or ethnic groups in all professions or lines of work. And administrators who don't produce that will be accused of creating or supporting "systemic" or "structural" racism.
To see how that can corrupt universities seeking exceptionally talented professors and researchers in intellectually demanding fields like molecular biology or nuclear physics, consider these ongoing developments at San Diego State University:
Loyalty oaths, diversity mandates, faculty ‘training’ at San Diego State
By John S. Rosenberg, Minding the Campus, 13 November 2018
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/11/13/loyalty-oaths-diversity-mandates-faculty-training-at-san-diego-state/
AND
Identity U.: The purpose of the university is no longer the pursuit of knowledge
By Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, New York, 1 February 2018
(repeated verbatim on p.187 of her book)
https://www.city-journal.org/html/identity-u-15701.html
[Contains much background information on de la Torre. – S.H.]
6
So basically Mary Claire King says that some people need to "know" a black person in order to respect them. Really? Isn't this another form of racists comment?
On a slightly different matter: how IQs are designed? Do they measure the mathematical mind? How about creativity? How does the brain of James Watson compares to the brain of Louis Armstrong?
4
Those who already don't respect black people based on what they think they know would likely need to personally know some to truly change their views. Knowing someone on a personal basis and finding that they don't fit your preconceived narrative of what "people like them" will be like is the first step in breaking down prejudice. People who exist in homogeny will meet one minority and think, well this one is okay. Then they meet another and another and eventually they have no choice but to confront their cognitive dissonance.
1
Amy Harmon, you or someone at NYTimes needs to contact Bill Tucker at Rutgers, probably the most important scholar on scientific racism in the country.
6
what would epigenetics have to say about Watson's ideas? They may have some consinance
2
According to Dr. Lander of MIT, "They (Dr. Watsdon's views) have no place in science, which must welcome everyone". Now "everyone" would include Dr. Watson, would it not? Or does "everyone" only apply to the politically correct?
40
@Alexander Witte
But Dr. Watson is already included. That doesn't excuse him from the rigors of scientific discipline, however. Namely, where is the evidence for his pronouncements?
4
It seems to me that genetics does apply to intelligence -- but only within families.
Just as we inherit hair color and texture, some types of talent, and tendencies towards some diseases, we also inherit intelligence.
Nurture, true, develops talents and encourages learning -- and can also frustrate and hinder them. To deny either nature or nurture makes no sense.
Intelligence in regard to races? I think not.
8
@B.
Actually, yes. Biologically, races are just extended families. Significant interbreeding between continental groups (sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, East Asians) was limited for most of human history.
5
Two-time Nobel laureate Linus Pauling was a big proponent of Vitamin C as a cure for the common cold and cancer (claims that have never been validated by independent, peer-reviewed research), proving that even brilliant scientists get fixated on quackery.
19
@JA This reminds of the spectacular blessing, "May This House Be Safe From Tigers!" When asked about it, the author (who I think was Alexander King) responded, "Well, you haven't seen any tigers around here lately, have you ?"
2
Rosalind Franklin did not make a *photograph" of the DNA molecule. It was a diffraction pattern.
29
The big problem is the use of IQ tests. As someone who has an IQ in the low 80s, I can tell you that administering these things doesn't tell you all that much. Just understanding the questions requires mental aerobatics that many cannot perform, no matter their level of education. I went to a very tough university -- Toronto -- started a company, moved it to the States and sold it to McGraw-Hill. I've written seven books on business and created the largest business management system known. But sit an IQ test?
Watson would have to come up with a whole new way of measuring intelligence to even begin to think about this.
27
@Francis McInerney According to the IQ score chart, the IQ of 80 or lower borderlines mental disability so I am sorry but I don't believe that you "created the largest business management system known" with the IQ score in low 80s.
12
I'm no scientist, but does not Watson's claim of being a “product of the Roosevelt era,’’ provide support for the nurture over nature argument?
5
The attacks on Watson remind me of the attacks on Galileo Galilei and today, on climate change "deniers."
They are expressions of the view that if you don't agree with me, I will cast you out of society.
This is quite unfortunate 0 in my view.
16
I disagree profoundly. When a person who has achieved a truly remarkable success in a certain fields uses his status of fame to promote falsehoods (from scientific fields he/she has little knowledge) then this person is rightly vilified. I greatly admire the life story of Dr. Watson but he has no knowledge about roles of nature and nurture. Now perhaps he suffers dementia and we would be kind to forgive. Perhaps?
11
@James Stewart
Watson is just like Galileo attackers and climate change deniers in that all of the available evidence contradicts what he pronounces. Whenever anyone attempts to measure differences in populations (gender, or race) they find that variations within a population are larger than the variations between populations.
5
@Jzu
His theories may be unpopular in many quarters, and certainly the data bearing on them is limited, but it is inaccurate in the extreme to label them "falsehoods."
We don't know to what degree Watson has studied the scientific literature on this topic. I would expect a fair bit. In any case, this article provides no grounds for assuming he only "has little knowledge" on it.
8
At any other time in history I might find this upcoming documentary to be interesting. We would get to learn about how views once considered at the forefront of science come to be disproven over time.
At this time in history, its appearance could not be worse. It will unfortunately reinforce the opinions of an expanding, emboldened group of racists who now are backed by prominent politicians around the world.
The genie got out of the bottle; stuffing him/it back in is going to be hard enough as it is.
How sad.
3
It seems to me that the politically incorrect nature of claiming that there are racial differences in IQ is what's the problem. Had doctor Watson said there were differences in say, personality between races, there wouldn't be such an outcry.
7
It is an easy thought pattern: There is a genetic difference in skin color; why would there be none in intelligence? The argument can be the same with gender, with physical height, etc.
Say for the sake of argument it is true - it is next to impossible to discern the extent of it and the role of nurture. To determine such would require a homogeneous society where black and white, male and female would live together with zero differential treatment and attitude.
And as one reader pointed out there is strong historic argument that it is untrue. The center of wisdom, research, and human advancements have shifted over the centuries from places as the Maya, China, North Africa, and so on while the white Europeans were making no progress. This happened in a time span where genetic difference probably does not have an impact.
4
It doesn't seem that way to the majority of the scientific community. The statement is not only politically incorrect. It is, by all credible research, inaccurate. It's also damaging to an entire race of people to have a prized scientist pushing incorrect information that they are inherently less intelligent. How would you like to be a black job applicant sitting across the table from a white potential employer who happened to be an admirer of Watson's work?
Your suggestion that certain races exhibit certain personality features as a genetic predisposition is flawed for the same reason. You seem to be confusing genetics with culture and the influence of external stimuli.
2
Watson was part of a scientific team that made a discovery in genetics, leading to the award he received. That doesn't make him in any way, an authority for intelligence or any other matter.
Unfortunately, we do know, racism, bigotry and other forms of stereotyping has no boundaries. Hearing his personal opinions has proven he's another person not worthy of my respect.
4
Scientists are all too human, the process of science, eventually, will correct erroneous claims. Watson is an exemplar of both. He's had his day in the sun, now he is stoking the worst elements in society. Both very sad and very dangerous
3
I suppose this documentary, and its subject, will not be accorded the rapturous reception that a recent documentary on a Supreme Court justice received.
Dr. Watson was interviewed – twice – by Charlie Rose on his PBS show, once before the comments in question were made, and once afterwards. Has Charlie Rose (who knows from trouble) been forced to recant? Has PBS apologized? I feel sorry for Eric Lander of the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, who was indeed forced to apologize for toasting Dr. Watson’s involvement in the Genome Project. “I reject his views as despicable,” Dr. Lander says -- now. It all reads like a confession at a Stalinist show trial.
The ferocity and vitriol are well out of proportion to the supposed crime. Dr. Watson said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” That was in 2007. How’s Africa doing today? A respected scientist should not be forced to humiliate and humble himself based on his views, however out of fashion, or even shocking, they may be. If the theory is questionable, let’s deconstruct the theory, not the man.
29
@PoppaeaSabina We live in times where the freedom to express dissent has been narrowed to nil. Amazingly, the wind against intellectual diversity blows from the left.
15
@PoppaeaSabina
Watson is supposed to represent science. But he brings no scientific skill to his pronouncement. Nations of Africa have not been free to develop without European "influence," so it's not really insightful to ask how Africa is doing, as if it has been free to develop without outside influence.
5
I wonder what, just what if he is right?
6
@Chris Anderson I have a similar question, what if he's wrong?
@Chris Anderson
Good question. What would we expect to observe on the ground if he were right? Persistant failure to thrive in sub-Saharan countries, despite plenty of material and intellectual aid? Check. Persistant failure of a large fraction of the diaspora to reach academic and economic parity with Europeans in more advanced counties, despite billions of dollars spent and hundreds of programs. Check (this newspaper complains about it all the time. Another commenter linked to the graphs.).
If the topic were anything else, the genetic hypothesis would be considered scientifically promising, not heretical.
6
@Chris Anderson
Research has been done on this subject, and Watson is very wrong.
2
It is certainly possible that different groups of people have different intelligence levels, just as different groups have varying abilities when it comes to many other things. Chinese, Jews and others, historically, have been prominent in economic opportunities, Blacks have been prominent in sports and entertainment. Whatever their DNA reveals today might reveal something else in another century or two...DNA can change over time, it is only temporarily ‘written in stone’. Whether for good or bad, though, political correctness will no longer allow us to study these differences, without being labeled ‘racist’.
23
It's already been studied and it's been found to be inaccurate. The "abilities" that push Chinese and Jews toward high economic attainment are high cultural value on education and pressure within the family to achieve, combined with the passage of wealth through generations. For centuries, Black people were subjected to colonization and enslavement, denied educational opportunity and the ability to hold or pass wealth, and endured treatment that would put them on par with livestock. You don't recover from that in two or three generations.
7
Jews, for centuries, were also subjected to denied educational and employment opportunities, plus persecution, few civil rights and never knowing when the next pogrom would force them to flee. One of the main things that eventually allowed them to survive and flourish was their emphasis on education. Some groups emphasize this trait while others do not. Yes, history for sure plays an important role, but, it’s the priorities within any group that allows them to either flourish or not.
4
So what is it all about? IQ? How measured? Contributing to society's welfare and well-being? What have people with the highest IQ scores accomplished versus those with average or below-average scores when it comes to contributions to society that enhance well-being?
3
Certainly, our medical researchers and surgeons, probably possessing decently high IQs, have benefited society.
I am grateful to the dedicated, I believe brilliant, oncologist who helped my cousin achieve, despite stage-4 metastatic breast cancer, 15 more years of living a good, worthwhile life.
When brains are augmented by heart, society is lucky indeed.
It is not a good thing to say intelligence doesn't matter. A love of learning -- and of one's fellow man -- along with accomplishment in a humanity-centered profession, lifts us all up.
14
Deterioration of our STEM affect us in many ways that just social and political polarization, growing racism, and religious bigotry. It affects our ability to create wealth and also worsen our already poor social mobility, pathetic income inequality and so on.
As our ability to generate wealth (mostly achieved by STEM) and ability to groom real leaders decline, our misplaced infatuation with wealth management and degrees like MBA (which started in early 1980s) increases. It help making the situation worse. It's directly connected with America's political and military influence in the world. Our glorious past, brand name universities/degrees, and empty bravado would not help much.
Just read that "South Korea and Sweden are the most innovative countries in the world", as per a recent World Economic Forum publication. Bloomberg, which compiles the index based on data from sources including the World Bank, IMF and OECD. USA is not even among top 10, despite of its huge (biggest in the world) budget in R&D, most expensive degrees, and presence of so many "ivy league" universities. https://goo.gl/E93PxK
4
I don't know whether Watson's views are valid or not - certainly they aren't scientifically proven or unproven by Reich or Plomin as you incorrectly imply. In the NYT, Reich wrote, "You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true."
Reich's problem with Watson is not that Watson believes that there are significant average differences in cognition between population groups but rather that Watson does not base his assertions that, for instance, East Asians' innate cognitive skills are superior on average to Europeans' based on a scientific study. Watson bases those views more on unscientific anecdotes.
In other words, population groups differ in inherited and evolved cognitive development but there has been no scientific studies to establish a hierarchy and to guess on that hierarchy is incorrect.
6
The author of this article clearly hasn’t read Reich’s book she cites or she wouldn’t completely misrepresent his views. Shame on her!
4
Dr. Watson's reported perspective makes sense given the author's comments at the end of the article, when he mentions that Dr. Watson has always believed genes are important (and presumably most important). In Dr. Watson's view, differences between races might always be defined by genetics.
10
Watson is famous and revered for work he did as part of a team that included Crick and Rosalind Franklin, a woman who was a crucial and virtually unrecognized contributor to that team. So I make two points: that Watson, as almost everyone, did better work as a team member than as a sole agent, and that he has a history of bias. His racial theories are his own, thankfully, and may be consistent with his failure give Franklin her due. I suspect that without her Watson and Crick would not be scientific paragons and then his opinion would be as unimportant and forgettable as so much of the nonsense the digital world makes available.
19
Dr. Watson has had the views for some time and he full well knows there's no scientific evidence for holding them.
This is a matter of his belief.
While I support everyone's right to believe what they wish, because he holds them he many years ago removed himself from the HERO status he and Crick had when I first encountered the pair.
Disappointing he still believes what he does.
I would like to think more of him.
10
Should we be comfortable with Dr. Collins's statement that most experts on intelligence "consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences" when we brush off the considerations of Dr. Watson?
Why are the considerations of one scientist of less value than the considerations of another scientist? Why are scientists bemoaning the lack of "credible research?" Who's to blame for that lack? How often do scientists avoid testing of theories because the results could possibly perpetuate "hurtful beliefs?"
50
"Why are the considerations of one scientist of less value than the considerations of another scientist?"
Because they're experts on intelligence, and he's not. I wouldn't consider a neurologist's opinions on geology to be of the same value as a geologist's opinions either. There's no such thing as a "scientist." There are specialists working in (often extremely narrow) particular fields. He needs to stay in his lane.
26
@Rea Tarr. Usually, the considerations of one scientist are of less value than the opinions of "most experts," as the article states. Dr. Watson is outnumbered and outcredentialled on this question, as he is not an expert on intelligence.
8
@MAL
As soon as you're into popularity contests, you've left science.
You seem happy to accept Collin's statement on the issue even though he has no more expertise on the topic than does Watson.
9
In about four hundred years, we may be able to evaluate these issues from the light of cold reason. At present, Watson's views are as toxic to the political environment as those of Copernicus and Galileo were to their time. I do not mean to suggest Watson is right, anymore than to suggest that the heliocentric universe of Copernicus and Galileo is right. It fits rather poorly to modern knowledge of cosmology and astrophysics.
The point is that scientific questions are not settled by contemporary opinion, however much that opinion may support or contradict a theory. Science deals with confirmation or falsification of theory by experimental and observational results. Science can not be based on "alternative facts" to arrive at results more pleasing to our times. Jumping off 14th floor balconies results in a fatal fall to the sidewalk, whether or not we believe in tantric levitation.
74
@Howard Eddy: Copernicus and Galileo did not claim that the *Universe* was heliocentric, only that the *planets of the solar system* were. (The stars are too far away for them to make predictions with the telescopes of that time, and they appeared fixed in the sky with respect to each other, whereas the planets' relative positions among the stars drift (planetos=wanderer, Greek.)
Perturbations in Uranus's orbit (i.e., a very slight difference between the predicted and actual positions of Uranus) were the mechanism through which Neptune was discovered in 1846.
From the perspective of the Theory of Relativity, it does not matter whether object A rotates around B or B rotates around A. When multiple objects are involved, however, some models are more parsimonious than others (see Occam's Razor) . Copernicus's theory offered a simple explanation of observations than Ptolemy's, which relied on "epicycles".
5
Let him work on his theories, but the response of society at large should be -- at worst, the difference you claim is marginal. Culture could be more important and that can be enriched. Nature or nurture -- an ages old debate. In the final analysis, it is not terribly relevant. Why? Because everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law and equal opportunity. Watson is no political scientist so he cannot reasonably opine on whether even his disputed findings have any bearing on the prospects of establishing decent political orders in Africa or anywhere else. Moreover, there are plenty of white nations that have rarely if ever had a decent political order.
18
@Jay65
It may not be "terribly relevant" to our personal lives and how we conduct ourselves as individuals, but it has become tremendously relevant and impactful to society ever since we gave up - about forty years ago - focusing on "equal protection of the law and equal opportunity" and instead demanding "diversity, equity and inclusion" in our workplaces and universities -- and the dismissal or demotion of administrators who do not achieve it via "race preferences.
Regardless of its causes, a 15 pt IQ difference between whites and blacks is going to result in a large "underrepresentation" of high-credentialed blacks in the pools of applicants for STEM positions in universities. So to deal with the political pressure for "better representation" administrators throughout academia to save their jobs have, for decades, been engaging in all sorts of unethical and even illegal actions that fly in the face of "equal opportunity" (as the law and the general public understand it). Same with student admissions. Acadmia in the U.S. has lots its moral compass in the haystack of hyopcritical verbiage coming out of all the (expensive!) "diversity, equity and inclusion" bureaucracies that now run faculty hiring and student admissions.
8
He is a biologist, not a behavioral scientist. A lot of scientists have spent their careers studying human behavior and intelligence and I doubt there are inherent racial differences in people, just social (cultural) and environmental (economic, health) differences which may demonstrate differences in achievement. He lived in the age of phrenology and racial biology.
25
@Ted Pikul The diseases you cite are caused by genetic defects--coding errors--that are inherited. The groups most commonly affected by these diseases are affected because they inherit them--not because they are inherently susceptible. Through history, socially and geographically defined groups have not commingled, making these differences in genetic disease frequencies appear to be "racial weaknesses" when in fact they are simply an artifact of humanity's habit of self-sorting.
2
Science education in USA deteriorated significantly in last few decades. That helped many social and political prejudices, including racial and religious superstitions, to take stronger hold on our society. Infusion of religion (mainly by GOP) in our science education is a major reason.
Now USA has the highest percentage (38%) of College graduates who "strongly believe that God created Human being in its present form" and deny hard science of evolution. That's the worst among all 35 major industrialized countries surveyed. It's also worse in our own recent history since 1920s era of Scopes monkey trial.
Many politically sensitive and socially polarizing issues like climate change, LGBT rights, abortion rights, GMO and many more arise from such poor quality (science) education. That's more unfortunate considering the fact that education and degrees in USA is most expensive in the world, and America also spend most tax payers money in education and scientific research.
109
@bonku Please cite a reference for your statement that "Now USA has the highest percentage (38%) of College graduates who "strongly believe that God created Human being in its present form" and deny hard science of evolution." I find that very hard to believe.
4
@bonku: I guess I may be kinda weird. I have always believed that God created man through evolution. He got this universe started, set up all the systems needed for it to continue & grow for what to us is eternity, & just maybe a short time to Him. Since we measure time by how long our 1 planet takes to go around it’s star (the sun), time is assuredly relative. We are now finding planets around other stars, in other galaxies. Each that has life (in it’s never ending different forms) measures time differently. Maybe all designed around how long it takes it’s planet to go around it’s star (year), and fractions of that for other measurements. None are wrong. Believing God got our world started, then left us to grow on our own (from single cells upward), is not to me strange. He may be watching, but, I believe He is off in another of His galaxies, getting things started there, in a different way. Maybe as a Classic Trek episode showed, not even carbon based. But, still intelligent. We fight over differences in melanin, we should be thinking about more basic things. The Universe may not be totally carbon based, & it is now thought there are more Universes than we can count. If all humans don’t stick together, what will happen when one of these non carbon based lifeforms shows up & considers us an infestation on this planet? Can we (all of us) convince them we ALL are intelligent? I’m beginning to doubt it. I don’t expect God to save us. He gave us what we need, & left us to it.
3
@bonku I read the study and it does NOT contain a breakdown based on education level; nowhere does it say what percentage of college graduates believe that "God created human beings in their present form." Here is a link where anyone can read the Science article (the link you provided has a pay wall in front of the article): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6885439_Public_Acceptance_of_Evolution
In fact, on the researchgate.net page, there is a link to a study of attitudes toward evolution among undergraduate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That study shows the value of higher education in changing even many skeptics' ideas about evolution and natural selection. Not all is lost.
7
Well, we just don't know, do we? Each view presents plausible arguments. Perhaps we should let the researchers work and avoid polemic in the meantime. A lot is at stake.
40
@Lost in Space
“Perhaps we should let researchers work and avoid polemic in the meantime.”
If only Watson had done so. But when scientists hurl themselves into political and social debate, they have to expect to be held to the same standards as everyone else.
8
No. We do know, and Watson is wrong. This is not a matter of needing more research. The research has been done and it decisively disproves Watson's claim.
10
We do know. Watson has nothing to back up his views, and those who argue against him have the fact that he, and other racist scientists, have nothing. There is no “both sides” to this quasi-scientific debate.
8
It seems to disprove the Robert Plomin theory about nature trumping nurture related to individuals, that despite his scientific and genetic education and research, Watson is undyingly a product of his segregated times and profession. And I'd like to point out, to the benefit of all female scientists (my wife included), that this article still presents the false narrative that Watson and Crick were the discoverers of the double helix, offering only a one sentence caveat that their work was based on stolen research from Rosalind Franklin. Why are we still not describing the discovery of the double helix as the work of Crick, Franklin, and Watson? Where is the inset photo of Franklin?
373
Watson (and Crick) made Dr Franklyn’s brief and brilliant professional life extremely difficult, according to many published accounts, culminating in the outright theft of her X-ray diffraction data. Misogyny and racism reveal character flaws based on mistaken beliefs of white male superiority. No article about the structure of DNA should ever be written without giving Dr Franklyn credit.
150
@David
Agreed. Reminds me of the unheralded (until recently) African-American NASA women math techs.
42
@David
Hear, hear. The NYT is contributing to the sociological biases of the academia by not making “Crick, Franklin, and Watson” the standard reference.
62
Although we assume the word "intelligence" is a positive attribute, perhaps if we saw it as a negative attribute his conclusion might be more acceptable.
10
@ndbza -- how can intelligence be seen as a "negative attribute?" I believe that problem is that there are certain biases that can cloud research, conclusions, etc.
9