|
7
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by James Watson (winner of the Nobel Prize in 1962 for his discovery of the double helix) has been suspended from his job at New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and has had his book-signing tour canceled in wake of some disturbing comments he allegedly made in regards to race and intelligence. He was quoted by the Sunday Times as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."
He then continued to speak to the not-too-far-fetched notion it is conceivable the different races could have evolved differently as they were on different continents under different environmental conditions. However, he may have taken it a bit too far by adding personal commentary to argue the contrary by saying, "People who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
He has since repeatedly apologized, but stops short of admitting to saying any of these things. Rather, he simply says, "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 that they have."
Add a Comment (18)
Email This
Message Author
isn't so much what he said or that his book tour was cancelled (that is understandable from a PR aspect) but rather he should have been suspended from his work. none of the articles i read on this lend to the belief that the Cold Spring Harbor Lab found any evidence that showed his "skewed" point of view in any way affected any of his work.
from a purely constitutional standpoint, i don't think it was fair for him to be suspended, unless they are currently conducting an investigation to see if his work was compromised. other than that, i don't think he should be suspended. anybody that has ever worked in any kind of office knows that you will eventually run into a co-worker who is close minded and often borderline racist. i find it hard pressed to show his comments are making for a hostile working environment. even if i did, i think 95% of HR rules are garbage anyway. but that is another issue.
His "work" is largely as a figure head, I think. Remember, the man's in his eighties - he won the Nobel forty years ago, for work he did more than half a century ago.
He's made boneheaded comments before - back in 2000, he suggested there was a link between race and sex drive. Maybe it's just time for him to retire.
I do think there's been some very shoddy - not to mention sensationalist - reporting on the whole thing. He's tried several times to clarify what he meant, but nobody seems to care. It sells papers to rant about the evil geneticist and how he hates minorities. Not so much when the real story is that an old man doesn't choose his words very carefully.
It sells papers to rant about the evil geneticist and how he hates minorities. Not so much when the real story is that an old man doesn't choose his words very carefully.
You know..you hit upon the very thing that troubles me about the media--sensationalism. I actually read his comment with a critical eye, and didn't come away thinking he was a racist, but rather (like so many others) he simply doesn't choose the right words to convey his meaning.
BTW Scott--did you know that the St. Bernard proves evolution? I'm certainly a convert now...(typed with HUGE sarcasm).
BTW Scott--did you know that the St. Bernard proves evolution? I'm certainly a convert now...(typed with HUGE sarcasm).
That's an excellent example of sensationalist reporting.
First, it's hardly as if creationism even needed another challenge. It's a total non-starter as a scientific theory.
Second, the particulars of the St Bernard study doesn't show anything relevant to the argument. Even the most slack-jawed among creationists know you can breed traits into animals.
Portraying that study as having anything to say about creationism vs evolution was the result of a reporter thinking, "This is boring, how can I punch it up with a little controversy?"
The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming and those who think otherwise are just ignorant. I mean that in the literal sense - they don't know what evolution is or what the arguments favoring it are.
In a related item, I came across this depressing study done by the Barna Group. Now, I know to take it with a grain of salt, because the Barna Group is a propaganda mechanism for the evangelical movement, and it's virtually certain they skewed the study to show the kinds of numbers they wanted. What I got from it is that slack-jawed credibility is at least curable - 73% of Americans who didn't go to college say they believe Genesis literally. Only 38% of those who went to college do. They're both absurdly high numbers, given the actual evidence, but it is fixable, and the pattern persists on all the education cross-tabs.
Portraying that study as having anything to say about creationism vs evolution was the result of a reporter thinking, "This is boring, how can I punch it up with a little controversy?"
From reading the article, it appears as though the reporter is quoting the Team Leader, a Dr. Chris Klingenberg as stating that his team's study disproves creation. If that's the case, then I think those scientists are being the sensationalists.
My point on this article wasn't to spark yet another evolution vs creation debate--but rather more fuel on the 'bad science' discussions here on Omninerd. Just as Dr. Watson has misspoke his intentions, bad science like this casts a negative pall on science as a whole to the 'unwashed masses'. Science needs to march onward and discover more--like a cure for the common cold of which I am suffering from currently..LOL.. or more seriously heart defects..other birth defects...AIDS, Cancer..etc..etc...etc.. This type of either sensationalist reporting, or just poor conclusions on the part of scientists on their findings does more harm than good.
From reading the article, it appears as though the reporter is quoting the Team Leader, a Dr. Chris Klingenberg as stating that his team's study disproves creation.
Hm. I suspect there's some incorrectly placed quotation marks there.
But even if the researcher did say it, I don't think it really matters. First of all, the study is evidence supporting evolution - it's not "bad science", it's just science. It just doesn't show anything new. And with regard to creationism's nonsense, the research doesn't show anything that's in contention.
The conclusions of the scientists were perfectly valid. The reporter chose to spin the whole thing as evolution vs creationism.
He's made boneheaded comments before - back in 2000, he suggested there was a link between race and sex drive.
That's exactly my point. He never suffered any major repercussions for saying things like this before, so why now? And just as scottb said, race makes no scientific sense.
I understand that he is old, but I would gather that he plays a bigger role than just a figure head. He has to be actively involved on a few projects. Only rockstars and movie stars get paid just to be somewhere. Scientists don't typically get paid just to sit in a room, especially for this length of a time frame.
He never suffered any major repercussions for saying things like this before, so why now?
There was a pretty good sized uproar over it in 2000, but ultimately, I think most people put it down to either misunderstanding his point, an old man rambling, or whatever, and assumed it was just a one-time thing.
Scientists don't typically get paid just to sit in a room, especially for this length of a time frame.
Nobel prize winners do. Sometimes they even come cheap - after all, they're generally getting on in years (other than the Peace prize, the prize typically comes more than 20 years after the work) and the prize itself (currently about $1.5M) assures them financial security. Many prize winners have already retired by the time they receive the award.
Nor are they paid just to "sit in a room" - "figureheads" are stuck on the front of the boat where everyone can see them, after all. Their role is typically to represent the organization to the public. If you've got "James D. Watson, who won the Nobel prize for discovering DNA" representing you in public, then you presumably are an important organization in biological research.
Watson has announced his retirement via email to the Cold Spring Harbor Lab, which he has been employed since 1969.
He said he was happy to retire, but saddend that his retirement would be overshadowed by the recent controversy. He tried to make it clear that he was retiring of his own will and not in response to his previous comments.
Wait. Deja-vu, this time around replacing sex with race (see controversy here)?
On that note however, is it true though that a large number of African-Americans are held back by a certain inability to get over the perceived injustices and discrimination? (e.g. psychological reasons). I am not a native, so my perception might be a little misguided.
is it true though that a large number of African-Americans are held back by a certain inability to get over the perceived injustices and discrimination? (e.g. psychological reasons)
I think that's a reasonable comment--but no so much that they can`t get over the perceived injustices and discrimination, but because their vocal leaders like Al Sharpton, Elijah Cummings (who once said that our nation has 'racist' tendencies). and Jesse Jackson won't LET them get over it. I won't deny that there are pockets of racism and discrimination--and probably quite a bit more in more rural areas south of the Mason Dixon than you find north of it. But, to say that the US, overall, has 'racist tendencies' is inflammatory and derogative.
Dr. Bill Cosby is one of a few African-Americans who isn't afraid to tell it like it is. He's still telling it.
Pockets of racism are not hidden only through out the south, but also in the cities and ghettos and 'hoods. Racism works in a lot of different directions, and the reason it continues to thrive in America today is "poor me" syndrome, "you owe me" syndrome and "us-against-them" syndrome.
The "poor me" and "you owe me" syndromes are self correcting. The real problem is the "us-against-them", IMO, which is self-reinforcing.
RSS
The line between -ism and science by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2007
I've always wondered about this topic in a general sense. What if race X, or more specifically, carriers of Gene X were determined to be genetically inferior in some non-trivial manner to others in a societally impacting way, e.g., intelligence? We all see how comments like this cause an uproar and spark immediate comments by politicians who've likely never studied genetics a day in their life. Yet one look at nature shows us all sorts of "races" within species that have various traits, some of which are inferior/superior when compared to others.
I just always find it interesting how as humans we seem compelled to react to most anything negative we know about ourselves as "racist." Moreover, immediately upon dismissing what we know, we level the field with an "equal" claim. I agree with societal equality, but genetic equality is something completely different. The very fact that different colors of skin exist shows that not all humans are equal genetically. This isn't to say that I agree or disagree with Dr. Watson's specific remarks as I have not conducted or read any such studies and his claims did appear to be overly broad. However, I have no reason upon which to form an opinion. It is interesting though the rage this immediately causes when the masses assume they do know something on the topic.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Is there or should there be a line between a socially charged racial claim and a scientific one? Is our world capable of acknowledging "lesser" or "better" people, should some sort of superiority gene ever be discovered?
RE: The line between -ism and science by scottb :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2007
What if race X, or more specifically, carriers of Gene X were determined to be genetically inferior in some non-trivial manner to others in a societally impacting way, e.g., intelligence?
These are known to occur. Probably the most well known is Down Syndrome.
I think the real problem is that we keep talking about "race" as if we know what it is we're talking about. Race isn't an intrinsic property of a person. It's a socially constructed category. It makes no sense, scientifically, to ask what race a person is - you can ask what race they identify themselves with, what race they'd be most likely identified with by some group, and so on, but not what they are.
Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes race, and even different ideas about the race category itself. For example, in Brazil, race is more about appearance than actual heritage. A person's race can even change over their lives - something that's out of the question in the American version of the concept. In the US, most feel they might mistake someone's race, but their race is fixed.
Before the civil rights movement, many states had statues following the atrocious "one drop rule". Today, our notions of race are more complicated, but many still seem to have an idea similar to the "one drop rule" at the center of it.
There's a secondary problem in that there's some truth in what Watson said. He couldn't have put it much worse, and it's easy to jump to wrong conclusions, but there is a correlation between skin color and intelligence. But correlation does not mean causality. There's a similar correlation between skin color and malnutrition, and an even stronger correlation between malnutrition and intelligence.
It's very difficult to make accurate judgements based on race - we're culturally biased, and they're not as effective indicators as we tend to assume - but it's very useful to do so.
A former car dealer I know told me he used to hate when black people would come into the showroom. They were much less likely to be legitimate sales opportunities. He based this on anecdotal evidence, and there's really no question that he could have been wrong - I'm fairly certain that he exaggerated the difference, at a minimum. He also judged that his opinion on the subject was generally shared by the rest of the sales staff, including the non-whites.
If there is a difference in the likelihood of a sale or the relative size of a sale (something that would be relatively easy to measure concretely), then it's hard to argue that it's racist when a salesman sees two couples enter the showroom, one black, one white, and always goes to the white couple first. He's optimizing his commissions.
But the tricky part comes in when he tries to consider cause and effect. Skin color isn't the cause, but it is an indicator - it correlates with the real cause, which is economic. It's easy to subconsciously conflate the two and lose sight of the real picture. If you've learned to be annoyed when a black man comes into your place of work, it's not a big leap to disliking black people in general. It's not right - it's flat out immoral to do so - but it's easy.
RE: The line between -ism and science by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 24 October 2007
Here's a (possibly dumb) question: what would the racial makeup of America look like if we stopped all immigration, closed up the borders, and began to breed using only the various peoples living here now? What "race" would emerge in several generations? Would we all and up looking like Native Americans in a thousand years? If you took a breeding population from Norway and swapped them out with a breeding population from Sub-Sahara Africa for several generations, would their racial characteristics swap as well? (assuming no inter-breeding occurs.) I suppose ultimately, my question (statement) is this: isn't what we define as "racial characteristics" merely a genetic response to environment?
RE: The line between -ism and science by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 24 October 2007
... isn't what we define as "racial characteristics" merely a genetic response to environment?
Easy now - be careful that you don't go offending those that believe we were all made in God's image. Willfully altering our appearance through evolutionary means would be blasphemy!
RE: The line between -ism and science by scottb :: NR7 :: on 24 October 2007
Assuming you mean, for example, that the Norwegians would become brown-skinned and the Watusi fair-haired, no. Those characteristics wouldn't change (without interbreeding) in just a few generations.
Skin color is an example of natural selection. UV-A light destroys vitamin B folate in the skin. Our ape ancestors probably had light skin under their hair, but as we became increasingly less hairy, there was a survival advantage to be had from darker skin colors. As we migrated out of Africa into less sun-intensive regions, the pressures changed. Lighter skin gained a survival advantage by allowing more efficient production of vitamin D3.
The incidence is pretty low, but blondes occur in virtually every ethnic group - there are parts of Australia where over 90% of the aboriginal population are blonde. There are natural blondes among some groups of Pakistanis and Afghanis. The people of Azerbaijan have (relatively) a lot of natural blondes, too.
Obviously, with extensive interbreeding, the unique characteristics of the groups would disperse quite rapidly into the surrounding population, but without that, it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of generations.
Moreover, modern technology allows us to reduce or eliminate the genetic pressures that influenced skin color - vitamin deficiencies are easily addressed, and so they aren't likely to affect one's breeding chances. Our hypothetical population exchange might not result in any skin or hair color changes at all.