Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Go West, Young Han
Weather Extremes Rise as Planet Gets Hotter and Colder






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

DNA Scientist Apologizes for Race Remarks

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 19, 2007
James Watson
AP photo / Markus Schreiber

Oops:  James Watson, shown here with a model of the DNA “double helix,” has been suspended from his position at New York’s Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory following his controversial comments.

Nobel-winning scientist James Watson, half of the DNA-pioneering team Watson and Crick, is undergoing a firestorm of criticism for recent comments he made in London’s Sunday Times about how 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.” 


Guardian Unlimited:

Prof Watson’s statement did not clarify what his views on the issue of race and intelligence are, but he hinted that he had been misquoted.

“I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said,” the statement said.

The professor had been due to speak at the Science museum in London tomorrow, but its directors called off the event last night after his comments were made public.

A spokesman said Prof Watson had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate”.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Douglas Chalmers, October 21, 2007 at 1:29 am Link to this comment

#108492 by Lefty on 10/20 at 9:38 am: “...In furtherance of my comment below, law is also a human construct, like ethics, morality and religion….”

Oh, I agree about “law” as it is nothing more than the “rules” which people are limited or restricted by (but NOT helped by) to suit some imperative/s of those who rule.

In reality, there is but ONE LAW - and that is the Law of Karma. If our “laws” were formulated to co-operate with That Law, then we truly would be living in a progressive society where all would be both fair and just.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 21, 2007 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

#108490 by Lefty on 10/20 at 9:36 am: “... Ethics is a subset of morality.  Ethics concerns honesty.  Morality concerns behavior of all kinds.  If you are dishonest, a crook for example, you are also immoral.  If you are a cold blooded killer, or a pedophile, you are immoral, but not necessarily unethical…..”

Well, that’s the US administration and especially in Washington in a nutshell, I’m sorry to say, Lefty. Machaivellian “ethics”, uhh!

#“The whole notion of religion is no less the construction of people than the notions of ethics and morality….”

This is where Truth and Reality diverge from the “notions” of men. As much as religion may propound “a lie”, so too can “notions of ethics and morality” be subsumed by self-centered imperatives and consequent falsehoods. And, that is where we are today despite the efforts of the world’s philosophers, too…..

Perhaps soon, the human race will not survive its catastrophe of its own making, whether from climate change, financial greed or from nuclear war. TRUTH will still exist, though - and That is the Truth!!!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 20, 2007 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Lefty…....that makes perfect sense.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, October 20, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Sensitivities aside, If the doctor has scientific proof of what he claims then he should follow the correct venues of having it documented. 

Only a misguided media would sensationalize this work as a means of division.

Maybe his skills would be better served testing the Palestinians to prove that they are the righteous inhabitants of Israel, the hebrews of old.

Test the current Israeli administration to determine if they decend from the Khazars, a warlike people from what is now Russia, who converted to Judaism around 850 A.D. 

I’m sure you will stir up alot of feelings there too.

Report this

By tyler, October 20, 2007 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People like him need to just die and go away.

I don’t think that the fact that he was once apparantly a brilliant man gives him a free pass to say what he wants either.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 20, 2007 at 9:23 am Link to this comment

RE:#108468

Whoops… In my last post I meant to say “immorality” not “morality” in the third paragraph.  Guess I’m still tired.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 20, 2007 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

RE: #108430 by Douglas Chalmers on 10/20

The reason I asked is because my dictionary didn’t give any reference to religion or legalities associated with either word.  It also gave almost identical definitions for each.  As did the online dictionary I checked.  I agree this is the way we commonly use the words.  I guess I was thinking that maybe we’re wrong.

You know how people/groups like to “hijack” words, then give them biased or inferred meanings.  As was/is the case with the word “liberal”.  Conservatives have given it just about every meaning but its true meaning, which is progressive reasoning. (political definition, of course)

Anyway, it got me to thinking that, if in fact they have the same meaning, why has religion hijacked the word “morality” and inferred that it means MORE than “unethical”?  They have attached a ficticious superiority to the word (at least according to my dictionary).

This is why I was asking and I guess I should have said so last night, but I was tired.  I’m curious as to how other references define the two.

Report this

By anonymous, October 20, 2007 at 7:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

they’re voting for Hillary

just sayin’

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 20, 2007 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

#108418 by Outraged on 10/19 at 10:58 pm: “...What’s the difference between “unethical” and “immoral”?  Curious….”

One’s “legal” and the other is “religious”. Neither necessarily have anything to do with compassion, kindness, Freedom or TRUTH!

Report this

By To The Left Of Hillary, October 20, 2007 at 1:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Watson is a thief and a character assassin, and has been greatly distrusted by colleagues, especially by researchers, for many years. What he and useful idiot Wilkins did to Rosalind Franklin (a cousin of mine) has stood as the standard object lesson to young lab rats that not everyone in science is a nice, collegial person working toward a common goal, and willing to give credit where credit is due. It would be wrong to extrapolate many wider lessons from his case, which really runs more along the lines of honi soit qui mal y pense.

Report this

By thomas billis, October 20, 2007 at 12:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dr Watson with his colleagues made arguably one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century.What he has proven is that he is a great scientist and a rotten anthropologist.Who cares?I do not care what my cancer doctor thinks about politics I want him to cure my cancer.He is 79 and rattles on and on about things he knows nothing about.Make like he is your rich crazy uncle somebody who has put you in his will for a large chunk of change.What Watson has done scientifically will be for your children that large chunk of change.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

What’s the difference between “unethical” and “immoral”?  Curious….I welcome all response.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 19, 2007 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

Oh, its all right, really…..  “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic/Causasian” civilization because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is less than required to stop going to war… despite global warming, climate change and globalization…”!!!

Report this

By www.nazilieskill.us, October 19, 2007 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Intelligence” is just a word.  I belong to Mensa and it is full of block headed Republicans.  Everyone is unique.  No one is special.

Report this

By Paracelsus, October 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

I think his apology is only for giving himself some peace. At heart he is an elitist who is probably very comfortable with the views of scholars like Dr. Pianca.
I think we are living with elites who are figuring out how to kill off large segments of the population through secretly poisoning the food, the water and the air. The death camp is too obvious. They will use food additives, vaccines and genetic engineering to implement bloodless ways to kill masses of people. It is a constant amazement to me that the media will scare us with CO2 pollution and global warming but not a word is said about Franken foods or the dumping of warfare gases into the ocean.

I find it amazing that Jesse Jackson can prattle on about the latest racial incidents, but he will not say a word about social workers coercing their charges into submitting children for pesticide toxicity experiments.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, October 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“A spokesman said Prof Watson had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate”

There is no question in my mind that Thurgood Marshall (black of African decent) was some-ole smarter than I (white of European/Jewish decent) There is little evidence to suggest Eleanor Holmes Norton(black of African decent) couldn’t whip Geo Bush (WASP of Connecticut decent)in a debate everyday on any subject.

I’ve seen Desmond Tutu speak… He is eloquent, cultured, and quick witted. Martin Luther King was surely no dummy, and he sure got the best from a bunch of bigoted white congress people, Senators and governors in his day…

So the question becomes How do we judge “intelligence”  The boy with the lowest SAT at White Plains High went on to become a millionaire (trading in junk!) and some of the “smartest” became alcoholics… Not very “smart” if you ask me.

I Don’t buy any of this standardized testing crap personally. Seen too many smart people who couldn’t read!

Report this

By sharon ash, October 19, 2007 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In trying to ascertain if IQ is determined by genetics or influenced by environment, studies were conducted on identical twins separated at birth and raised in very different environments.  What those tests showed were that an identical twin raised in a socially enriched environment scored the same as their identical twin raised in a socially deprived environment. From those studies, it would appear that your IQ, is largely determined by genetics. At least 80% of Blacks score 6 to 7 points lower on the IQ scale than do Whites.  Whites, by about the same margins score lower than do Orientals.  As one of my politically incorrect college professors explained it, “If Blacks want to improve their IQ scores, they should marry Orientals.”

Report this

By rage, October 19, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Prof Watson has regularly courted controversy, reportedly saying that a woman should have the right to abort her child if tests were able to determine that it would be homosexual.

He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, proposing that black people have higher libidos, and claimed beauty could be genetically manufactured.

“People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty,” he said. “I think it would be great.”” http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2193899,00.html

Welcome to the insane asylum that is life in the land under the influence of the fruits of the knowledge of evil and good. For all the good Dr. James Watson has done, this rascal has sadly been little more than a xenophobic eugenicist at heart.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook