It looks like James Watson finally got his comeuppance. He could only keep airing his curious views on race and gender for so long.
I really don’t understand. Does he think himself superior and impervious to all this new-fangled political correctness (aka, tolerance) or does he simply not understand the impact of his words? Seeing as how he was smart enough to win a Nobel Prize, I vote for the former. But I still don’t get why he routinely chooses to disregard all societal guidelines for behavior, much less why he has such odd (and frankly, nauseating) beliefs in the first place.
When you say he doens’t understand the impact of his words, are you saying he doesn’t know that he should take more care, being an iconic person, or that he doesn’t understand how his words aren’t as important as he might think? :)
I do think that the scramble to decry racist remarks is almost as unseemly as the original offense.
In this case there appear to be people making themselves look foolish all over. Watson clearly shouldn’t have taken more care over where his conversation drifted; Hunt-Grubbe (a former colleague) should have exercised some common sense in how much of her interview she put into press. Those who have canceled exhibitions should really step back and think about what their actions imply, and whether scientists should be so reactionary with such censorship.
The board at CSH either panicked (given their prior links to eugenics), or are keen to retire the eminent professor given his increased tendency to ramble.
With the exception of the ‘black employees’ comment, pretty much everything is else can be simply defended. It is a nonsense to insist that mental capacities could not possibly have evolved differently in different lineages, in the same way that athletic abilities clearly have. It may not even be twenty years before genes governing intellectual capacity are uncovered (if it is deemed fitting that such research should be carried out)
One hopes that this will die down quickly, and without too much damage to reputation. I guess that there have been many waiting for a slip up, and are keen to apply a dig or two.
The viewpoint that races/lineages have different genetic capabilities requires an essay, not an interview, to examine. Maybe a lecture too – if anybody will have him…
Nicolau – I was trying to say that perhaps he doesn’t understand how spectacularly offensive his statements are/were, or their implications. Maybe it’s a generation gap?
Steve – I understand what you are saying. Yes, the press has a tendency toward hypersensitivity in the press and a predilection for skewering prominent people when given the chance. However, I believe that Watson has gone above and beyond (or below and beyond, as the case may be) that simple measure. Nonsense is making statements with no factual support, such as the ones he made in this interview. It’s not a terribly scientific approach, in my opinion.
Unfortunately newspaper interviews dont often print references, it would be interesting to know quite what he was thinking of.
This PC thing seems too often an excuse to avoid asking uncomfortable questions of ourselves. Is it really better to ignore differences between lineages, or mark them down as sociological (not to suggest that they may not be)? Should it be comforting to think that the low number of black scientists at leading universities is simply because blacks have been disadvantaged – and implicitly that not enough has been done to help them? There shouldn’t be shame in continued evaluation of our knowledge.
I’m pretty sure that these questions will be even more valid with 20 more years research. Maybe it will be better not to ask them, but Watson clearly doesn’t believe that ignorance is suitable for scientists.