James Watson, in a recorded interview with The London Times made comments (see quoted excerpts below) about the intelligence and ability of Africans that are not supported by any scientific data whatsoever.
Q. Why did Watson, a famed molecular biologist, celebrated Nobelist for his double helix DNA observations and reported findings, make these scientifically unsupported statements? What theoretical framework(s) can we utilize to critique Watson statements to better comprehend and situate his claims? (see below my Theory of Systemic Whiteness on this blog as a possible theoretical framework)
Q. Why do Watson's scientifically unsupported statements not only about so-called race-based differences in intelligence but also his statements about the evolution of cognition and reason, women's "beauty", heteronormativity, body mass index, libidinal energy and other topics feature on my blog which ponders and attempts to make progress in unpackaging ethical democracy as a lived practice? What does the lived practice of Ethical Democracy have to do with James Watson and his unsupported claims about race, intelligence and ability?
Q Is the ethical pursuit of free speech and secular humanism severely or even mildly compromised when a scientist or a politician or a student or a teacher, in making claims or offering opinions, fail to critically examine their own personal lifeways and their own personal worldview?
excerpt from AP' s Malcolm Ritter -- news report on James Watson's 'apology'
AP excerpt begins:
..............London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture he was to give there Friday. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said his comments "represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.... That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succor to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought."
In the United States, the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."
And Watson's employer said he wasn't speaking for the Cold Spring Harbor research facility, where the board and administration "vehemently disagree with these statements and are bewildered and saddened if he indeed made such comments."
Watson is in Britain to promote his new book, "Avoid Boring People," and a publicist for his British publisher provided this statement Thursday to The Associated Press:
"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.
"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Watson's publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not address whether Watson was suggesting he was misquoted. "You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid," she said.
A spokesman for The Sunday Times said that the interview with Watson was recorded and that the newspaper stood by the story.
Watson's new book also touches on possible racial differences in IQ, though it doesn't go as far as the newspaper interview.
In the book, Watson raises the prospect of discovering genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence.
"...There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," Watson wrote. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Watson is no stranger to making waves with his scientific views. In 2000, in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, he suggested that sex drive is related to skin color. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
Some years earlier he was quoted in a newspaper as saying, "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
"Jim has a penchant for making outrageous comments that are basically poking society in the eye," Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said Thursday.
Collins, who has known Watson for a long time, said his latest comments "really ... carried it this time to a much more hurtful level."
In a brief telephone interview, Collins told The AP that Watson's statements are "the wildest form of speculation in a field where such speculation ought not to be engaged in." Genetic factors for intelligence show no difference from one part of the world to another, he said.
Several longtime friends of Watson insisted he's not a racist.
"It's hard for me to buy the label `racist' for him," said Victor McElheny, the author of a 2003 biography of Watson, whom he's known for 45 years. "This is someone who has encouraged so many people from so many backgrounds."
So why does he say things that can sound racist? "I really don't know the answer to that," McElheny said.
Biologist and Nobel laureate Phil Sharp at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who's known Watson since 1971, said, "I've never considered Jim a racist. However, Jim likes to use statistics and observations to provoke people, and it is possible that he is provoking people by these comments."
Calling Watson "one of the great historical scientific figures of our time," Sharp said, "I don't understand why he takes it upon himself to make these statements."
Mike Botchan, co-chair of the molecular and cell biology department at the University of California, Berkeley, who's known Watson since 1970, said the Nobelist's personal beliefs are less important than the impact of what he says.
"Is he someone who's going to prejudge a person in front of him on the basis of his skin color? I would have to say, no. Is he someone, though, that has these beliefs? I don't know any more. And the important thing is I don't really care," Botchan said.
"I think Jim Watson is now essentially a disgrace to his own legacy. And it's very sad for me to say this, because he's one of the great figures of 20th century biology."
Associated Press writers Thomas Wagner in London and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this story.
end excerpt
