Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Black people are less intelligent than whites', claims DNA pioneer (James Watson)
Daily Mail ^ | 10/17/07

Posted on 10/17/2007 1:36:52 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

'Black people are less intelligent than whites', claims DNA pioneer

One of the world's most eminent scientists is at the centre of a row after claiming black people are less intelligent than whites.

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has drawn condemnation for comments made ahead of his arrival in Britain tomorrow for a speaking tour.

Dr Watson, who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, made the controversial remarks in an interview in The Sunday Times.

The 79-year-old geneticist said 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 said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

He includes his views in a new book, published this week, in which he writes that "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically".

"Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so," he says.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is now studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain to promote his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science.

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, told the Independent: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments.

"I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exist at the highest professional levels."

Dr Watson was hailed as achieving one of the greatest single scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s, forming part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA.

He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

He has served for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics.

He has courted controversy in the past, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.

He has suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, proposing a theory that black people have higher libidos.

He also claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University, told the Independent: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain.

"If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: africa; african; africans; bellcurve; crick; dna; eugenics; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; huxley; intelligence; iq; jameswatson; junkscience; nobelprizewinner; race; racerelations; racial; racialsupremacist; racism; racist; racists; watson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-460 next last
To: wardaddy
these prove just how so many conservatives today are very little different over race isues than are the left

I don't think conservatives are the same as the left, but as Americans we fundamentally want to believe that we are in control of our own fate, that the individual (conservatives) or the government (liberals) can create a good life if they work hard enough or pass the right programs. The idea that some people do not have the innate cognative ability to lead a productive life in modern American society is something that no one wants to accept.

241 posted on 10/17/2007 11:13:25 AM PDT by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Thank goodness, James Watson is a self professed Democrat.


242 posted on 10/17/2007 11:16:22 AM PDT by Agent Smith (Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: szweig
And Dr. Watson made a General Statement. All you touchy-feelies can get your panties in a bunch reciting anecdotal evidence purporting to refute his statement but it does not invalidate what he said. Now you might not like it to be true, but if it is then you must accept the factual evidence for what it is. And trying to demonize research because you might be offended by the conclusion is tyrannical. Politics and science MUST NOT MIX!!!

This attempt at intellectual compartmentalization is a rationale for evil. Science and morality and compassion MUST mix, or else you have Dr. Mengele or Dr. Peter Singer or abortion "doctors".

243 posted on 10/17/2007 11:19:07 AM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Accepting the thrust of your argument that it is difficult to fairly compare dogs (who have been selectively bred) and people (who have not), I rather think that your response goes a long way toward proving my point.

Dog breeds are, in many respects, a “controlled experiment” and, as you have rightly pointed out, their traits and appearances differ widely as a result.

People are an uncontrolled experiment — roughly equivalent to mungrel mutts in the “dog-world”, if that makes any sense. So with people we are definitely not dealing with purebred breeds.

Beyond that, my analogy applies absolutely: it is all in the genes, and the answers lie in the ancestors. You will not get a smart pup from a long line of dumb parents. As with dogs, so with people.


244 posted on 10/17/2007 11:21:14 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is not news.

This very same assertion was made and scientifically supported in “The Bell Curve.”

So What? We’re talking huge numbers, and small differences here. Just because the average for one group is higher or lower means almost nothing WRT any individual.


245 posted on 10/17/2007 11:23:55 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
Go figure, roger.

Just look at any major university in the Midwest or Northeast. If these guys didn't have such a thing as tenure, they're be on the street corner with a can of pencils.

246 posted on 10/17/2007 11:47:31 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Al Sharpton


247 posted on 10/17/2007 11:49:39 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Moveon is not us...... Moveon is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
It's always seemed common sense to me that genetics determine the potential and nurture determines how much of that potential is used. But, in no case can nurture exceed the genetic potential.

If we accept the old adage that we are all only using about 1/3 of our brain capacity, this would leave a lot more room for improvement than people usually give others credit for.

I had the mixed privilege of growing up in the 40s-50s as a stereotyped white female who was destined to become "a mommy." When feminism hit the mainstream in the late 60s, it was immediately seized upon by certain men to free them from responsibility, leaving in their wake the females underprepared for a lifetime of earning (women still haven't made up the wage gap). I was already in my 20s, with my education, I thought, behind me.

Only after a divorce did I learn that I am intelligent, and only by trial and error, since employers backlashed against the first, pioneering women who tried to advance at work. But I had to make a living, as do many other women; it wasn't hard to see who was productive and innovative and who wasn't. But the difference in rewards was also clear: mostly men and some of the young, attractive woman got more of them, regardless.

So encultured was the inner script that men are the naturally superior and dominant sex, that I was in my thirties before I began to read an article by an unidentified author and "hear" a female voice instead of a male voice in my head.

When I paid for my own graduate studies in my 40s, while running a business and raising a family, I graduated at the top of my class. Why? I had by that time learned that I could never take any equality for granted and must always work twice as hard to get half as much. And I certainly did not receive the job offers or business helps my male counterparts received.

Why have these experiences been any part of a privilege? Because they have taught me unequivocably that people can judge unfairly, both overestimating and underestimating others based on superficial characteristics or preconceived notions. I don't think I would have gained this insight if I had been a socially-equivalent white man of high intelligence who had been given the benefit of the doubt in all the situations where I was discounted.

It is of small material comfort to have learned these things; and moral superiority is a sin; perhaps I can hope for a reward in heaven. :-)

As regards this discussion, I have learned that Jesus was right, you can be transformed by the renewing of your mind. You can grow and learn throughout your life. It's never over 'til it's over. Therefore, I reject the notion of racial or gender stereotyping as regards intellectual capacity.

248 posted on 10/17/2007 12:00:17 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
intelligence is partly determined by the child?s environment

And ther other part is.....?
249 posted on 10/17/2007 12:01:01 PM PDT by RedMonqey ( The truth is never PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
"And with that statement you demonstrate that you did not thoroughly read the article. Watson's quotes do not mention averages, merely his belief that those of African descent are stupider than those of European descent."

He didn't need to, because to anyone who has even a minor familiarity with the subject knows that is how the data is expressed and what the data shows.

Good grief--the man is a top physical scientist. Do you honestly think that he is ignorant of basic statistics.

And just as an aside-he used neither the words "African" nor the word "European". There are scads of people of caucasoid ancestry that are not "European".

250 posted on 10/17/2007 12:07:33 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
there has never been a stronger emotion collectively shown in my lifetime than white guilt and the unbelievable willingness to basically submit themselves as a group to any notion that whiffs of racial redress has it helped?.....no, it’s only made the original problem worse

Amen to that. Here's an excellent book on that topic by an African-American scholar of note:


251 posted on 10/17/2007 12:08:28 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
I would rather be stuck in the Outback with an illiterate Aborigine than with a Doctor of Philosophy from Finland. Something tells me I?d eat more often and stay alive longer with the former than with the latter.

But can the same illiterate Aborigine be put into a modern university and learn calculus, French literature etc. in the same time span as an university student takes to learn to survive in the outback?
252 posted on 10/17/2007 12:09:07 PM PDT by RedMonqey ( The truth is never PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
I am a firm believer that nurture and nutrition are the other legs under the stool, the third being inborn intelligence.

This is the real answer.
253 posted on 10/17/2007 12:11:28 PM PDT by RedMonqey ( The truth is never PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RedMonqey

> But can the same illiterate Aborigine be put into a modern university and learn calculus, French literature etc. in the same time span as an university student takes to learn to survive in the outback?

I suspect it would take the university student longer than 3 days to learn how to survive in the Outback: it is a hostile and inhospitable environment, and after 3 days left to his/her own devices s/he would probably be dead. French literature and the calculus would be of no use, unfortunately.


254 posted on 10/17/2007 12:14:34 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Natural selection and [Macro]evolution (and Microevolution) are sort of akin to apples and fruit. Natural selection occurs, but Macroevolution did not.

You may well be correct that macroevolution did not occur. I'm an evolution skeptic, in fact. However, natural selection does occur and it occurs whether macroevolutionary theories are true or not. All it would take to create the multiple races we see on earth is natural selection. Evolution wouldn't be required at all.

They had to come from somewhere, didn't they? You could turn to theology and say that God created different races, but if He did so, wouldn't He provide them with the capabilities for surviving in their particular area? If the races are identical and interchangable, why create more than one?

In this post, not going much into the ideas about European men, but while they don't seem stupid on average, then don't seem to be particularly intelligent either; they seem....average.

Average compared to what? If race and IQ aren't in any way connected, your argument is incomprehensible.

Have seen plenty of stupid and intelligent people from various 'races.'

True, but irrelevant. I've seen tall women, too, but if a task required a height of six feet to be performed properly I wouldn't expect nearly as many women to be able to perform it as men.

But, why must the Australian fail? He could stand a fair chance of materially succeeding in his new country.

I didn't say he would fail. An individual Australian might well succeed in Finland. But I wouldn't place any money on the prediction that if Finland was, let's say, 15% Australian, that that 15% would make it into med school in the same proportion as Finns. Are you aware of any place on earth where it is otherwise? Is there a place where blacks are the scientific and intellectual elite, and whites need affirmative action to try to keep up? Is there a place where blacks are 25% of the population and also 25% of the people who get into the top tier university PhD programs based on race blind admissions?

You mention European colonization of Southern Africa. They were supplied and protected by Europe, first the Netherlands, and then the United Kingdom. They were not on their own. They imported their own, already invented, technology and moved on from there. If a Finn moved to the Outback, he would probably be able to pick up aborigine technology, whereas an aborigine in Finland might not as readily pick up cell phone electronics (Nokia is a major part of the Finnish economy), but then again, he might. Neither show a sign of particular intelligence, merely recognition of a technology, and the ability to access it.

And that technology came from where? From back on their home continent where they invented it. The question is, why didn't the native Africans invent steam engines?

255 posted on 10/17/2007 12:25:24 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
...it is all in the genes, and the answers lie in the ancestors.

Hence the old saying, "If you would make a gentleman, start with his ancestors."

256 posted on 10/17/2007 12:29:51 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The danger in what Watson is saying is that it if history is a guide he is providing a justification for genocide and/or sneaky population control methods

Or quotas
257 posted on 10/17/2007 12:30:58 PM PDT by RedMonqey ( The truth is never PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

On the other hand, those of European ancestry conquered much of the world. The entered forboding jungles and empty deserts. They crossed the oceans and the poles, and went to the moon. Many died in the process, but they ultimately succeeded.


258 posted on 10/17/2007 12:34:50 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

CORRECTION: On the other hand, those of European ancestry conquered much of the world. They entered forboding jungles and empty deserts. They crossed the oceans and the poles, and went to the moon. Many died in the process, but they ultimately succeeded.

I hate typos! :-)


259 posted on 10/17/2007 12:36:57 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The danger in what Watson is saying is that it if history is a guide he is providing a justification for genocide and/or sneaky population control methods as had been championed by Margeret Sanger.

Well, maybe. I'm pro-life so I'm opposed to anything of that nature. Of course, egalitarians are largely responsible for the current abortion holocaust.

260 posted on 10/17/2007 12:40:08 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 441-460 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson