Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 24 October 2007 |
Nature
449,
960
(2007)
| doi:10.1038/449960a
Updated online: 25 October 2007
News in Brief
Watson suspended over comments on race
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Dr James Watson’s views on race and intelligence are offensive, but it is unlikely that he will be the first or the last person to hold such extreme views. In all likelihood, Dr. Watson has always harbored such views (as well as other ones that are well-documented in you article) but has only expressed them as he has aged. Who has not regularly heard of outrageous comments from one’s elderly parents and/or their friends? When confronted about their views however, the responses are invariably “I have lived long enough to be able to say what I likeâ€. One often wonders whether such outrageous comments are due to some pathology of the ageing process such that views that were suppressed at a younger age now find full expression. Perhaps, the center(s) of the brain that normally suppresses expression of offensive/outrageous comments become disinhibited over the years…..something for the neurologist to explore with fMRI. If such a theory is confirmed, it is wise for us (and especially famous scientists and rising stars) to expunge any offensive views and thoughts at an earlier age.
What testing was he referring to? This "testing" needs to be dragged into the open and debunked, on cold rational scientific basis. Otherwise we just leave the door open for all the conspiracy theorists, who will claim that scientific "proof" has been "hushed up" by "the establishment"/do-gooders/politically correct lobby. As a scientific community, we "made" Dr Watson. Our acceptance of his authority on genetic matters, our invitations to keynote speeches, our emphasis of his role over that of say Avery and group (who proved that it was DNA and not protein that carried genetic information) in the 40s or Marshall Nirenburg ( who actually "cracked" the DNA code )and his team at the NIH in the late 50s have given him prominence and standing in the wider community. We can't just wash our hands on this, and censure the man. We have to demolish his arguments, in a way that everyone can see.
maybe, there is some defference. maybe, race is always a very sensetive question of politics and no-no, even if you view it from the sentific angle.
maybe, there is some defference. maybe, race is always a very sensetive question of politics and no-no, even if you view it from the sentific angle.
James Watson's statement can be reduced to three main hypotheses:........................................................................................ 1) That sub-Saharan African nations have significantly lower average IQs than European nations............................................................................................... 2) That national differences in IQ have a significant causal relationship with differences in economic development......................................................................................... 3) That these differences have a substantial genetic component......................................................................................... In fact, a popular and expanding research literature in peer-reviewed biology, psychology, and economics journals support all three conclusions. For example:........................................................................................ http://www.springerlink.com/content/d15x2810855wx085/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.11.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2006.05.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjhp/2006/00000011/00000004/art00006 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6435.00191 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0461 ...................................................................................................... Watson is by no means an outlier among scientists and scholars in his belief that people of African descent average lower native intelligence. ........................................................................................................... A 1987 scientific poll published in the American Psychologist of over 1200 relevant scholars (sociologists, psychologists, and geneticists) found that 46% - a plurality of those polled - believed the evidence pointed to genetics playing a role in observed racial intelligence differences, compared to only 15% who thought genetics did not play a role. ........................................................................................ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_%28study%29 ....................................................................................................... And this poll was conducted before the 1990s which introduced novel cross-cultural, anatomical, and transracial adoption data. A 20 year replication of this poll is slated for sometime in the next year and will likely skew even further to the genetic position. ..................................................................................................... Watson, one of the most esteemed living biologists, was taking his statements from the science journals, not just parroting empty, discredited prejudices. His treatment has been unfair and reactionary. ............................................................................................................ I can't think of a better term for the curious position that Watson's statements are "beyond the point of acceptable debate" ........................................................................................ http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3070583.ece .......................................................................................................... Is this primitive dogmatism truly representative of the spirit of the scientific community?
The editorial of Nature, although critical of James Watson's statements argues that canceling Watson's speaking appointments "is regrettable: science is about nothing if not openness and critical debate." Although I agree that Science is about openness and critical debate, I agree as well that a speaker is invited to present is work and ideas following certain criteria of scientific excellence. The institutions inviting a speaker are responsible for establishing those criteria, fortunately so. The best argument for those institutions to cancel Watson's appointments in my opinion is in the last sentence of that very same editorial: "Crass comments by Nobel laureates undermine our very ability to debate such issues, and thus damage science itself." ......................................................................................................................... To Leon Harris: Better late than never. ......................................................................................................................... To James Clinton: 1) I believe that James Watson himself retracted, and acknowledged that there are no scientific bases for his own claims. 2) The circumstance of a given percentage of scholars believes that intelligence is genetic, and that is the cause for differences is intelligence among races is by no means a proof that this is the case. If it proves anything is only that a given percentage of scholars believe so, not that it is true. 3) I read all the abstracts of the articles you mention and I found little if any evidence for what you claim. All but three references deal with the correlation between IQ and Economic Wealth, a correlation is not a causal link, if IQ is environmentally determined, than economic wealth could be the cause for differences is IQ and not the opposite, some references you mention argue this. The three other articles on establishes a correlation between brain size musculoskeletal traits, use this correlation with IQ differences and Genetics seems a bit far-fetched to me (to say the least). And the only two papers that deal with genetic basis of intelligence seem contradictory to one another, they reach opposite conclusions. The second one, in a more respectable journal, and way clearer in terms of the methodologies used states that: "These results suggest that population group differences are part of the normal variation expected within a universal human cognition.", in other words, no differences among races (whatever that is). I would also like to know why none of the references you mention is in a high-profile scientific journal (please avoid the "politically correct" conspiracy theory), I am convinced that in general high scientific quality articles get published in high profile journals, and low quality papers get published in obscure journals.
"I believe that James Watson himself retracted, and acknowledged that there are no scientific bases for his own claims" ................................................................................................................. This is absolutely false. Watson wrote a newspaper editorial where he apologizes only that people thought he was arguing Africans are "genetically inferior" (whatever that means). He does NOT retract that all the testing shows lower IQs (which it does), or indeed, that he believes those differences are genetic. In fact he argues that we should expect those differences to be genetic and that this is not a racist belief: ................................................................................................................. "To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief...The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity...To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers." ................................................................................................................. http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece ................................................................................................................. "The circumstance of a given percentage of scholars believes that intelligence is genetic, and that is the cause for differences is intelligence among races is by no means a proof that this is the case" ................................................................................................................. You are correct, the evidence itself is what suggests this. And it does. Please read my citations. What the plurality of scholarly opinion DOES show, is that James Watson had his feet planted solidly in the center of mainstream scientific opinion with his statements. Which makes his punishment and condemnation all the more reprehensible . Not that it wouldn't be anyway. ................................................................................................................. "All but three references deal with the correlation between IQ and Economic Wealth, a correlation is not a causal link" ................................................................................................................. Well you need to read more than the abstracts. I never said it was proven, I said it was a researched hypothesis. There are data points that suggest this though, e.g. regression analysis and comparing countries of various IQ scores before their developments. Also measuring the effect of various environmental variables on the g factor (none seem to do much). Most likely development and IQ feed each other to some extent: IQ causes some development and development causes some IQ. ................................................................................................................. "These results suggest that population group differences are part of the normal variation expected within a universal human cognition.", in other words, no differences among races (whatever that is)." ................................................................................................................. Sorry, but it isn't saying that at all; why don't you actually try to read the research. The paper argues that population differences in IQ appear genetic because population differences are most pronounced on the most heritable test items and least pronounced on the least heritable test items. This is exactly the opposite of what an environmental theory of these differences would predict. It also shows the tests are not cross-culturally biased, but this is demonstrated by a number of other papers. ................................................................................................................. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1914335 ................................................................................................................. "I would also like to know why none of the references you mention is in a high-profile scientific journal" ................................................................................................................. At best you are misusing the impact factor here because many of these are highly specified research journals. 'Intelligence' is the flagship journal for human intelligence research. It is also a little ironic that someone that was just complaining that scientific majorities don't count for anything is now rejecting all research that isn't published in Science or Nature. Either you're elitist or you're not. Your blanket rejection of research is rather convenient, unfortunately that's not how science works. ................................................................................................................. Either way Watson's comments were well within the realm of intellectual and factual discourse.
No matter how repugnant some of us may find Dr. Watson's comments, the subject is one that remains scientifically debatable. The highly controversial Richard Lynn's 2006 "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" is the largest review of global cognitive ability data. The book surveys over six hundred published studies from around the world, with a total of over 800,000 tested individuals. The author's meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores of East Asians (105), Europeans (99), Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and Amerindians (87), Pacific Islanders (85), Middle Easterners (including South Asians and North Africans) (84), sub-Saharan Africans (67), and Australian Aborigines (62). Lynn and others have argued that nutrition is the best supported environmental explanation for variation in the lower range of average IQ scores, and a number of other environmental explanations for the observed differences have been advanced as well. Countering these contentions may be best attempted through open debate of Lynn's argument that the studies he surveyed have high reliability in that different studies give similar results, and high validity in that they correlate highly with performance in international studies of achievement in mathematics and science and with national economic development.
Taking Watson’s fall for science’s gain --------------------------------------- I agree with Nature's Editorial (Nature 449, 948; 2007) that Watson’s propensity of poking society has gone “beyond the paleâ€. I also appreciate you emphasized that “science is about nothing if not openness and critical debateâ€. Now I wish Nature to fulfill its wish as stated in this Editorial by allowing alternative views on life (Science in China 42, 644-654; 1999 and Logical Biology 5, 51-55 and 109-116; 2005) and evolution (Pioneer 1, 15-28: 2006) to be freely expressed in a “top†journal and openly debated world wide. I belief this exploration of what the world is rather than what the world should be is the only way that science can be advanced in a healthy way. While it is a pity that some organizations have canceled the planned speech by Watson I believe this is also a form of freedom for expression of disagreements. If Watson wishes to defend his view I believe he still have much greater freedom in doing so than most other scientists. Unfortunately, the greatest scientist in the last century would have a great difficulty to find any scientific evidence to support his outrageous statements (Top Watch 2, 69-71; 2007). It is sad that a greatly decorated scientist would rather choose to end his career in this shameful way. Had he devoted more time to absorb later scientific developments that far exceed the narrow domain of genetic view on life he might have been saved from this irreversible damage to his legacy (Pioneer 2, 36-38: 2007)? However, I do not believe that the self-tarnishing of a scientific icon would undermine our ability to debate scientific issues. To the contrary, the self-removal of a genetic figurehead would pave the road for full-spectrum advancement in understanding the whole meaning of life. Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine Apex, NC 27502 USA SVL@logibio.com ------------------------------------- Related articles: 1. Watson Slips on his own Genetics-Based View and Darwinism (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2007V2N2A15_Watson.pdf); 2. Better Knowledge on Life and Evolution for Correct Understanding of Race Differences (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2007V2N2A16_RaceDifferences.pdf); 3. A Revelation of Repeated Disappointments with James Watson (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N2A5_Disappointment.pdf) ---------------------------------- For more related publications with great details, please visit http://im1.biz
Admitting Different Origins for Human Species, Constructing Harmonious Society for Human Beings ------------------------------------------------ Abstract Understanding the origin and evolution of human beings may have been the single most interesting question for human beings even since they have gained the thinking capability. The proposal of an evolution theory by Darwin seemed lending science an upper hand in arguing for the natural origin and evolution of human beings against the view of creationism. However, the Darwinian view of a common cellular origin for all life forms represents just an unproven subjective hypothesis that is at odds with many objective observations. The single line linear progression mode of human evolution fails to explain some paradoxical findings and unnecessarily creates some political complications such as a stereotype of racism based on a “decolorization†model of human evolution from black Africans to while Europeans. In contrast, a multiple acellular origins hypothesis for life may fit existing observations better and also eliminate any inherent racial bias based on monophyletic ranking in a linear evolution model. Different human species can be different in many aspects but those differences do not necessarily reflect any evolutionary inferiority or superiority. Thus, respectful cooperation rather than hostile competition may be the only way to construct a harmonious human society among different human beings. Full-length free at: http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N2A6_HumanEvolution.pdf
I think all of you are taking an old man's comments too seriously. Everybody knows that Watson is an arrogant person, who thinks he knows everything just because he happened to be in the right place in the right time and discovered the structure of the dna. I met with him several times at CSHL. He is a person who doesn't even listen to people talking to him. In my opinion his retirement is way overdue.
It is a crying shame that James Watson is forced to leave the stage in disgrace. Clearly there is no excuse for racist statements. Nonetheless there are differences between groups of people and sometimes the divide happens to be by race. His example was an ill chosen one and likely not founded. Had he picked running the 100 m dash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_100_metres_men), which is clearly dominated by men genetically originating from Africa, he probably would not have been accused of racism. The rules by which we live are set to accommodate the weaker of our species in that domain. Without a doubt Lewis Hamilton or Michael Schuhmacher could drive around our roads at twice the legal speed limit without endangering themselves or others. However, the rules are made for all and do not accommodate individual strengths. For many years I have been involved in genetics and recently in some of the genome-wide association studies to identify genes that in certain variants confer disease risk for common diseases such as asthma, diabetes and cancer. Based on our results we are drawing a line through all humans and defining individuals with more or less risk of developing a particular disease. For some traits the split happens to run between ethnic groups, such as obviously the capability to run fast. Each of us carries a set of favourable and unfavourable predispositions for different factors. Every generation gives rise to new combinations and it is the differences that drive evolution. The distribution of “good†factors is not fair and there is no equality in it. So it is time to get to grips with the fact that life is not fair and move on. James Watson is one of the most influential and visionary scientists alive today. His contribution to understanding DNA, his farsight and guidance to sequence the genome of our own species has been pivotal. In the future he will be looked upon in the same way we now appreciate Albert Einstein and his contributions to physics. James Watson is the father of genomics and deserves respect for his scientific achievements despite his unfortunate choice of example. Finally, IQ tests are based on Western standards of intelligence which largely is logic. But there are other factors such at intuition, social skills and compassion that contribute to an individuals’ success. These are not measured in IQ tests. Ivo Glynne Gut, CEA/Institut de Génomique – Centre National de Génotypage
The P/E value of scientific discovery It is true history will remember Watson as a co-discover for the double-helix structure of DNA but history will also not forget how he obtained other’s data for making that discovery. It is also true history will record the Human Genome Project (HGP) as the great research project but history will also not forget how much it cost human society. The some-how competition (from Watson’s rivalry Venter)-accelerated HGP consumed tax-payer over $3 billion to finish (not counting some indirect costs associated with the massive involvements of many research institutions and researchers). But the “complete†genome is in fact a half haploid genome that lacks many needed information. Besides, the “book of life†actually is largely cryptic so far because there is even not a “dictionary†and even a complete set of grammar to guide its meaningful and correct reading. So despite the fact HGP has been selected by citation-based criterion for winning a Nobel Prize, it so far has not been appreciated by the Nobel Prize selection committee. It has been beaten up by other “small†discoveries such as the discovery of a “bug†for gastric ulcer. So was the father of genetics or genomes unwise in force a great-cost project into some premature execution, especially considering the rapid drop of sequencing cost from a $3 billion then to just $1 million now or even $1000 in future for sequencing the human genome? Would it be wiser to spend the much limited research money on some other less-costing but still scientifically great small projects? What was the hurry to collect a complete set of raw sequence of human genome when we even do not know the comprehensive grammar of DNA language? In economy we assess the success of a company not only by how much it produces but also how much does it cost for that production. Investors select stocks paying very close attention to the Price/Earning (P/E) ratio of the company. However, in science it seems that no one cares about the cost of obtaining knowledge. As long as someone can formulate a politically correct goal for a research project and find a scientific leader or champion for it, that research project will get the green light to go, no matter how much it will cost. I guess when human beings become really smart they will evaluate scientific achievements more objectively than emotionally. They will not be easily sold out for some great projects that claim on giving them largely unreadable “book of life†or regenerative medicine for “immortalityâ€. Human society will also become truly democratic in selecting which research projects to support and not being overpowered by some scientific fathers or grand-fathers. Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, Apex, NC, USA SVL@logibio.com
It makes no sense to argue about if J.Watson's comment is right. He was so influential that he has to think about the consequence. He was one of the top scientists, and people would tend to think what he says is right. That's the problem. We've been trying hard to eliminate racism or other forms of discrimination. Such statement spoiled the efforts people have been making!
I hope I will not be judged as going too far when I offer my opinion that "political correctness" is a form of dogmatic intolerance, and that those who participate in it are engaging in a kind lynch-mob behavior. It is a new kind of moral disease that has infected our educated elites, from which not even the most intelligent are immune -- including, alas, the editorial staff at Nature. Nor is it limited to such touchy subjects as race, gender, and human intelligence. Global warming is another issue that cannot be discussed objectivly anymore, as witness the casually dismissive way Bjorn Lomborg's latest book, "Cool It," was reviewed in the pages of this magazine. I am not sure what these two sets of issues have in common, apart from the fact that a critical and unbiased treatment of them both would be in the long-term interests of everyone on the planet, including the least among us (especially the least among us). I am waiting for the day when a new cohort will come along with the courage and decency to cry, "Enough!"
It is an extremely appreciable decision taken by CSHL especially for somebody as big as Dr. Watson. This a right way of telling that above everything all, we need to be good human beings. "....an arrogant person, .....in the right place in the right time and discovered the structure of the dna" Emin Ozkan is very right in making the above statement, a "right time and place discovery", otherwise Rosalind might not have given him this chance at all!!!
On the issue of race and intelligence, here are some interesting observations that we don't hear often enough, by someone who unfortunately doesn't have a subscription to Nature: "As Watson said in the context of Africa, much of U.S. education, employment and social policy and practice has been largely premised on universal equality of all populations. More than anything, this is what leads researchers to "superimpose bell curves" these days, to see whether these policies have any more chance of success in the future than they have had so far. I presume you are concerned about the welfare of the country and especially some of the lower-status population groups, and would thus want to get at the truth. In the end, are you doing anyone a favor by expecting them to perform better than they have so far, e.g. by shifting people one level up the education and employment ladder? Isn't it important to find out whether or not they can indeed improve their performance sufficiently to perform well? If not, you've just got Murphy's Law on steroids. E.g.-- most us who find it plausible that there are genetic differences in g deplore the fact that vocational education and other tracking methods have largely disappeared in the U.S. (unlike in Europe). We also fear it is a mistake to measure children's success and progress solely in terms of standardized tests of academic-type skills, as is increasingly the case these days. Such an approach devalues other skills and abilities, which may be distributed different in ethnic terms. So does the requirement of a four-year college degree for almost any bureaucratic job. We should do away with all this nonsense; we should allow experienced nurses to act as GPs, with appropriate compensation; we should not allow lawyers to bill for all the many tasks that paralegals can perform competently, or which notaries with far less formal training accomplish neatly in many European countries. We should be prepared to grant valuable diplomas and certificates to graduates of industrial and mechanical training institutes. I.e.- I agree that the entire issue should not be as important as it has become. But as long as government policy is based exclusively on one reading of the facts the issue will remain on the agenda. If that's too bad, please speak to those who insist that IQ is equally distributed, at the same time that they elevate its importance in education and employment. Both approaches, in my view, do a disservice to the country, and even to the various minority in question." And again: "So when the big news comes, if the American people make some dumb and illiberal choices about what to do about it, why don't you lay a large portion of the blame at the feet of the intellectual classes who were too narrowly ideological and myopic to try and prepare the public (and themselves) for it ethically and intellectually? Here's one possible way such big news might play out OK: our society could decide to actively revalue labor and mechanical skills, and guarantee that anyone who plays by the rules is not "left behind" economically, even if they are left behind academically. A grand bargain: e.g.: no job quotas, but also guaranteed health care for those who work. No bogus welfare, but genuine vocational education. I.e.- what USED to be called liberalism, before that movement was hijacked by identity politics and environmentalist religion. In today's climate such a solution is more likely to come from the political Right in America, especially the Christian or traditional right, and the business elite would like it too. MOST Americans would back it, if packaged correctly. I.e., unleash the talented people to create wealth; don't be embarrassed to tax them, since the system will already advantage them for being born smart. Use the money to put a floor under the working class. Then we can stop arguing over innate abilities, which shouldn't matter all that much. Nobody looks dumb when they're doing a good job, whatever that job is. Give people the jobs they can do now, train them for better jobs they can probably do, and respect them for whatever work they do. The noisy sector within the professoriat makes such a big deal about IQ because it's the one kind of property they've got. They don't really think the rest of us have it equally -- just listen to their contempt when discussing the great unwashed Americans."
I should add that the guy quoted above used to have a subscription to Nature, but he let it lapse.
In defence of Watson’s folly SIR—James Watson has been ripped to shreds in the media (see Wikipedia) and now here (Nature 449, 948;2007). Reading comments on Times Online (Dateline Oct 17) was a profoundly depressing experience, many being illiterate rants. Whilst it could be argued that his views were correct but too sensitive for public airing, the overwhelming criticism was that he was stupid, racist, old and wrong. His critics ignore the large literature on IQ differences, let alone read it. His remarks on black workers were probably a clumsy attempt to make the obvious point1 that if employees are hired or promoted by race over individual merit (ie positive discrimination) then this has many adverse consequences for industry and race relations. For decades it has been quite clear that different groups have reliably different mean IQ scores1, with predictable socioeconomic results even if none of this variation were genetic. National IQ varies widely2 from a low in parts of Africa (eg 72 in S Africa) to a high in Asia (eg 108 in Singapore). For 67 countries IQs and international maths/science assessments correlated 0.92. In other words, national IQ and educational attainment are virtually identical constructs. National wealth correlated 0.67 with educational achievement (but 0.74 with IQ). “In essence, if we contend that national IQ is unrelated to important real-world outcomes, we will have to admit that the learning of mathematics and science is not important†2. Your editorial also lends succour and comfort to racists and creationists. Racists believe that we should value and treat people differently because of inherent genetic differences, so the vehement denial or suppression of such differences concedes their argument. Darwinians believe that human intellect has evolved from simpler primate abilities, so varies in time and place (Darwin’s folly??). There is also a paradox for intellectual development for environmentalists to face—more malleable ontogenesis means more pliant phylogenesis. If environments determine IQ today, then even more so did past environments guide genes, so different groups will have different subsamples of the human genome. A G Gordon 1. Hunt., Carlson J. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, 194-213 (2007). 2. Lynn, R. et al. J Biosoc Sci 39, 861-74 (2007).
In defence of Watson’s folly SIR—James Watson has been ripped to shreds in the media (see Wikipedia) and now here (Nature 449, 948;2007). Reading comments on Times Online (Dateline Oct 17) was a profoundly depressing experience, many being illiterate rants. Whilst it could be argued that his views were correct but too sensitive for public airing, the overwhelming criticism was that he was stupid, racist, old and wrong. His critics ignore the large literature on IQ differences, let alone read it. His remarks on black workers were probably a clumsy attempt to make the obvious point1 that if employees are hired or promoted by race over individual merit (ie positive discrimination) then this has many adverse consequences for industry and race relations. For decades it has been quite clear that different groups have reliably different mean IQ scores1, with predictable socioeconomic results even if none of this variation were genetic. National IQ varies widely2 from a low in parts of Africa (eg 72 in S Africa) to a high in Asia (eg 108 in Singapore). For 67 countries IQs and international maths/science assessments correlated 0.92. In other words, national IQ and educational attainment are virtually identical constructs. National wealth correlated 0.67 with educational achievement (but 0.74 with IQ). “In essence, if we contend that national IQ is unrelated to important real-world outcomes, we will have to admit that the learning of mathematics and science is not important†2. Your editorial also lends succour and comfort to racists and creationists. Racists believe that we should value and treat people differently because of inherent genetic differences, so the vehement denial or suppression of such differences concedes their argument. Darwinians believe that human intellect has evolved from simpler primate abilities, so varies in time and place (Darwin’s folly??). There is also a paradox for intellectual development for environmentalists to face—more malleable ontogenesis means more pliant phylogenesis. If environments determine IQ today, then even more so did past environments guide genes, so different groups will have different subsamples of the human genome. A G Gordon 1. Hunt., Carlson J. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, 194-213 (2007). 2. Lynn, R. et al. J Biosoc Sci 39, 861-74 (2007).
This comment has been removed by the moderator
In defence of Watson’s folly SIR—James Watson has been ripped to shreds in the media (see Wikipedia) and now here (Nature 449, 948;2007). Reading comments on Times Online (Dateline Oct 17) was a profoundly depressing experience, many being illiterate rants. Whilst it could be argued that his views were correct but too sensitive for public airing, the overwhelming criticism was that he was stupid, racist, old and wrong. His critics ignore the large literature on IQ differences, let alone read it. His remarks on black workers were probably a clumsy attempt to make the obvious point1 that if employees are hired or promoted by race over individual merit (ie positive discrimination) then this has many adverse consequences for industry and race relations. For decades it has been quite clear that different groups have reliably different mean IQ scores1, with predictable socioeconomic results even if none of this variation were genetic. National IQ varies widely2 from a low in parts of Africa (eg 72 in S Africa) to a high in Asia (eg 108 in Singapore). For 67 countries IQs and international maths/science assessments correlated 0.92. In other words, national IQ and educational attainment are virtually identical constructs. National wealth correlated 0.67 with educational achievement (but 0.74 with IQ). “In essence, if we contend that national IQ is unrelated to important real-world outcomes, we will have to admit that the learning of mathematics and science is not important†2. Your editorial also lends succour and comfort to racists and creationists. Racists believe that we should value and treat people differently because of inherent genetic differences, so the vehement denial or suppression of such differences concedes their argument. Darwinians believe that human intellect has evolved from simpler primate abilities, so varies in time and place (Darwin’s folly??). There is also a paradox for intellectual development for environmentalists to face—more malleable ontogenesis means more pliant phylogenesis. If environments determine IQ today, then even more so did past environments guide genes, so different groups will have different subsamples of the human genome. A G Gordon 1. Hunt., Carlson J. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, 194-213 (2007). 2. Lynn, R. et al. J Biosoc Sci 39, 861-74 (2007).
Good points Anthony Gordon. I particularly liked your saying that Nature and others are essentially conceding the racist argument that IQ matters in how we value human beings. I hadn't heard it put that way, and I think it is a powerful point that bears re-iterating. There are many timid souls out there who don't speak up because they are afraid of being shamed or bullied by PC bigots who could care less about what is going on in Africa. There is only one way to deal with bullies of course: take them on. You strike some good blows.
Thank you Luke Lea for your comments. As you may gather, my comment was intended for print publication. I am never surprised when my letters are rejected, but the thought police really will be in control if all such explanations of Watson's comments are rejected. Nature must surely allow space for a long letter or even a page of their journal in rebuttal of their editorial if only to give a list of references in peer-reviewed journals that should be compulsory reading for anyone before they express an opinion in public on IQ and its social correlates. Pressure should surely be put on Nature if it is not going to do this. Do we really really want discussion of these issues confined to right-wing websites? I am not sure I agree with Clinton's third hypothesis. Obviously some of the between-group differences in IQ are attributable to genes, but the genetic component may be quite small. No one really knows at present. What is clear is that none of the obvious or usual environmental candidates explain large group differences. Watson said nothing about the IQ differences in Africa being genetic, and even if all national IQ differences were environmental, any country with low mean IQ would still be in just as much trouble.
On the other hand, Anthony Gordon, a nice thing about this on-line forum is that it is open to all Nature subscribers -- a key constituency -- and is relatively uncensored. I hope it continues and that it gains in popularity. To be honest about these issues, at this point anyway, you really need to be invulunerable as regards your career and livlihood. Fortunately there are a number of subscribers to Nature, many of them retired, who fit this description, and who can therefore afford to take a critical and unbiased view without fear of being Watsoned or Summarized. I really do believe the tide is going to turn -- there's too much in the balance, the issues are empirical, and it doesn't take a genius to appreciate the downside of not being open. That said, what our side needs is a satirical talent along the lines of Swift, since ridicule is the most effective weapon of all. The forces of political correctitude are vulnerable, and must know it, hence their preference for hysterical condemnation over dispassionate debate. Their moral foundations are weak, a consequence, in my opinion, of the decay of the liberal arts in our educational institutions. All that must change, and will change, as our cultural elites (the next generation of them anyway) gain a better appreciation of the limitations of both IQ and science in the maintenance of our humane values and liberal traditions.
It is the correct thing to do, when someone , whose opinion can be heard and viewed by a lot of people, states a false statement, by no meaning truth. IQ is a relative examination of inteligence, and that´s something all we know, the differences in IQ depend of economy, social background and culture among others, i wouldnt be suprised if New Guinea aborigens scored less than any average european, is OBVIOUS, due to the social en cultural backgrounds. In our times , science has no time to accept people claiming false arguments, we are here to try to find the "truth" and normally the truth is too far from us. I am still surprised of people like J. Clinton, claiming and giving references that him self interpreted according to his own believes, producing a false argument, like ashamedly Dr. Watson did. We should all work, for an advance in knowledge and not for a detrimental, in the time and in the knowledge that we are aquiring. Dr. Watson, was treated with the correct measure.
If the bizarre theorem of genetically linked IQ exist where is now the "intellegence" gene? Watson should discover this for us if he claims he is "the father of DNA". And if he finds this gene the first he should do is to carry out a gene therapy on himself so he can upgrade his IQ, as whites seems to have less intellegence than east Asians according to anthony gordon and other IQ-beleivers. The so-called IQ is one of the missused and abused terms that exists today. Things it measures does not at all refelect the intellectual capacity of a human being. It is just a contruct of the west that never takes cultural and invironmental differences into consideration.
If the bizarre theorem of genetically linked IQ exist where is now the "intelligence" gene? Watson should discover this for us if he claims he is "the father of DNA". And if he finds this gene the first he should do is to carry out a gene therapy on himself so he can upgrade his IQ, as whites seems to have less intelligence than east Asians according to anthony gordon and other IQ-believers. The so-called IQ is one of the misused and abused terms that exists today. Things it measure does not at all reflect the intellectual capacity of a human being. It is just a construct of the west that never takes cultural and environmental differences into consideration.
James Watson said: “I am 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 reallyâ€. This is a realistic but not a racist remark. Obviously an inborn African, e.g. a Masai herdsman would perform badly in an IQ test written by a European white scientist. Similarly a Caucasian could fail badly in an IQ test provided by a Masai herdsman on how cattle is herded and protected in the African savanna. Therefore James Watson is right in stating that the intelligence of the African people is not the same as that of the Caucasians and that we should take that into account to succeed in our social policies and help programs for Africa.