James Watson, of the Watson-Crick fame, the folks known for discovery the double-helix structure of DNA, must have just joined a country club where the requirements dictate you must be white, old as dirt and racist.
I can’t believe I’m reading this, but he is quoted in the Sunday Times of London as saying Africans are genetically less intelligent than others. Watson’s apparent lack of interest in the genetic research that followed his receipt of the Nobel Prize in 1962 has cost him a lecture spot to promote his new book at the Science Museum of London.
Way to go James.
Hat-tip to RaceWire.
Racism Alive And Well 
“Watson’s apparent lack of interest in the genetic research that followed his receipt of the Nobel Prize…”
…what research ?
the truth hurts doesn’t it?
Doc Watson isn’t saying anything that we don’t already know.
Oh, how about Richard Lewontin’s study that proved there’s actually more genetic variation within a group than between groups. Maybe the fact that every single time someone tries to prove race genetically they fail and how about all the epigenetic findings recently that point to other biological and environmental conditions that may only be confined to a “race” because of racism and economic disparity.
Genetic research didn’t just stop with Watson-Crick.
@WG: glad to see my blog is attracting the very audience I hope to reach…
“intelligence” is not a single thing, reducible to a number, and this is what mr. watson appears not to get. the fact that he was involved with the discovery of the structure of DNA (and a great deal of the work like the x-ray diffraction studies, was done by one of w&c’s grad students, who died of cancer before the discovery hit the big time) does not mean that he cannot be a crusty old turd – linus pauling, another nobel laureat, famously touted the health benefits of vitamin c, but those have never really panned out and can in fact be quite detrimental to your health.
but i digress. on intelligence, if you havent read “the mismeasure of man”, do so. now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15560402
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15560405
“there’s actually more genetic variation within a group”
That doesn’t mean anything. Most of that is just junk DNA that doesn’t express itself meaningfully in human society. What you should have said instead is that the average difference between two random people of different races isn’t that much different than the averages between two people from the same race.
Humans are “genetically similar” to chimps and bananas too.
“intelligence” is not a single thing, reducible to a number”
What IQ stands for is something that hopefully will mean more as psychometrics progresses. It’s not meant to be stable all throughout someone’s life either, nor is it meant to predict outcomes. It’s just one piece of the puzzle, like emotional state or economic background.
It DOES mean something, because often folks are measuring that exactly junk DNA in order to explain difference. To add further insult, the racial groups are still arbitrary, so even those differences and/or similarities are suspect.
But talking about “junk” DNA purely, it has more meaning than you think… I’ll be writing an upcoming article to address this issue and others.
I’m not familiar with your argument for IQ, since most people, including those that hold the IQ test dear, do not regard it as fluid as you do. I agree that it should be regarded as such, but recent articles are pointing it out as a fault in the judgment of racists and their propaganda. I.e, it’s meant to show their measures are inaccurate, even for their racist means.
Watson is white, middle class, elitist and hasnt a black friend to his name. Also let me say this.. people become confused in their old age.
It is astonishing that if you do the math, since the very recent year say 3000BC when Ancient Egypt was built by a black and Arabic looking people, it would take something like
23,000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 people to come together have sex to make us. Now even this schoolboy calculation tells us that almost everyone s family was a mix of white, black, Asian, Indian etc. so Strike 1. ethnic origin is less about History and more about local adaptation to the environment. Shame on Watson, we are more alike than we are apart and he should know this from studies regarding mRNA.. what a raciist buffoon.
Also if brain size was linked to intellect then surely women would be intellectual inferior, and Chinese would be imbeciles.
Sorry but this guy was someone I looked up to but not any more.. next hell be saying blacks achieved nothing and contributed nothing to science, forgetting that 400years of Slavery meant black advancement was curtailed and denied let alone access to Labs.. instead blacks toiled in fields and built the wealth of European nations fuelling the industrial revolution, picking cotton, farming sugar and building the white House, instead of being Doctors and Scientists… and the ignorant think blacks cant help themselves
Enough of this racist idiocy.. next they’ll be telling us Cold Fusion really did take place in 1945
PS Hitler tried and failed to prove Eugenics.. weve been here before.
Besides, wheres the data? whats the analysis? let me see the control group..did they compare black families with rich white Ivy league kids to arrive at such a notion?.. Arnt blacks poorer because of many social exclusion policies and racist issues of the past? Doent the black experience render them hostile to any field test involving IQ ? Shall I continue Dr (twit) Watson?