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."
> Does that mean brown bears are more advanced than Pacific Islanders or Hannibal Lector?
ummmm... no.
| Don't forget that European countries also were in a state of war with Islam and each other, yet the war didn't prevent them to reach rapid progress. |
It’s a legitimate question. Are our African policies designed to make us feel good or to end starvation and poverty?
Jews and Asians
Caucasians (including himself)
Hispanics
Blacks
Doesn’t a racist usually believe THEMSELVES to be the superior race?
they fish well enough to live off of them....when humans aren’t around to enjoy
Rhodesia
> they fish well enough to live off of them....when humans aren’t around to enjoy
True, but they will do so for themselves, mostly — not as an organized group. You could make a better case of saying that ants or honey bees are a “civilization”.
BTW I’ve spent a fair bit of time around black bears in my time. None of them saw fit to snack on me.
Rhodesia....man, does that seem like ancient history:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1905172/posts
In Europe, the odds were better than one against many, not all the trade routes were controlled by Muslims (just those to the south and east) and Genghis Khan didn’t interrupt the African Jihad.
“The irony is that various enthusiasts will readily believe in the heritability of all kinds of characteristics, in a vacuum of evidence, but will rear up in outrage at the idea of inherited differences in intelligence, for which a large body of evidence exists.”
Furthermore, the faux outrage will be quickly followed by a visit to the designer fertility expert that can selectively sort genes in germ cells to produce the smartest, most beautiful, (and likely worthless) child.
To those who say the graph is made up, or that intelligence is predominantly due to upbringing, nutrition, and not being held down... I strongly recommend that you read at least the first few chapters of Jensen's book BIAS IN MENTAL TESTING. The preponderance of evidence for much of the differences in IQ being genetic has been know for decades - it is accepted reality regardless of how much others try to deny it. Improving nutrition, nurture, etc. can only bring someone up to their genetic potential -- and THAT for some groups is only 85 or 75 or 95.
NOTE that this does not say there are no exceptional individuals or even sub-populations. There ARE such individuals and sub-populations. But on AVERAGE over larger populations the data shows huge differences and much of it due to genetic differences. As a German-American neither I nor any kids I might have could average as high as the eastern Asians (Japanese, etc.) or the Ashkenazi Jews.
Condaleeza Rice
Everybody seems to be missing Watson's premise.
He's talking about the basis of governmental policies. Governments make policies/laws/programs/etc. based, not on an individuals merit, but on groups.
Watson is validating Robert Bork's premise that we a Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
Hammers? Hammers?
There you go dissing my hammers.
Box of rocks, ok. But hammers? No, hammers are measurably more intelligent.
Well, you did say almost, so I guess it is ok.
Only because of the order. If it were black 100, white 85, we would be constantly reminded.
So, in your own humble opinion, what direction does your contribution to the 'average' take?
Okay, genius, should government policy be geared towards the intellectual elites, the retards or an average of the whole population?
I hope I didn't sound bitter in the bad sense, but only in the sense that wine is more pungent than juice.
Funny, I have never thought of the bad experiences as "nurture", but rather as "environment." To me, "nurture" is more about the love and acceptance, encouragement and support of family, teachers, coaches, and community.
My main point is that many of us do not fit the European-American male template of education, self-image, career path or the timing of various rites of passage, yet have different abilities to learn and grow, and shouldn't be counted out or dismissed without proof. I often think of the Aesop's fable of the tortoise and the hare.
You missed the point.
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.