You have commented 340 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
2007-10-17
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"


One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that 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 there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "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."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "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 exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed 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.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " 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."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#27  I think this is dangerous territory. Pretty soon these types of bell curves will affect everyone. Oh, you have a such and such gene... no life insurance for you. Oh you have red hair - you are too tempermental for this job.

This stuff is Hitler's dream. Pretty soon people with a particular eyebrow pattern won't be allowed into MCDonalds because they are more prone to heart attacks. you can't have that surgery... you can't have that loan, you have a higher propensity to be an alcoholic, no job for you.

Scary stuff.
Posted by: Unutle McGurque8861   2007-10-17 23:18  

#26  1/ Intelligence IS partly explained by genetic difference.
2/ The average (peak of the bell curve) for black people can be lower than the average for the whole population, but you'll still find above average people who are black.

HOWEVER
Why should social policy differ depending on intelligence? Do we have IQ tests for govt programs?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-10-17 23:06  

#25  What about Condi and Colin and Justice Thomas and all of the many other blacks who are smarter and more successful than the rest of us?? I know plenty of stupid white people. What about your your perpetual grad students? Many score high on IQ tests but are dumber than a box of rocks. He's free to talk about whatever he wants, but we should all fear genetic research that will place us in neat little boxes about what we can and can't do based on our genetic makeup. Oh, don't hire her, she's blonde. Blondes aren't as smart. Pshaw.
Posted by: Unutle McGurque8861   2007-10-17 22:15  

#24  It's culture, not color.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-10-17 21:27  

#23  American blacks tend to be great athletes in comparison to whites. Is that genetics or societal factors? Or both? Did Jimmy the Greek have a valid non PC point or is that myth? I know folks who have fallen on both sides of the debate. I played football at a small college and we even discussed it in the locker room about why so few whites play d-back, running back or receiver in the NFL.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2007-10-17 21:24  

#22  (pokes head in)

I wonder just how much of Watson's (and frankly all the people who believe the same thing but don't say it) beliefs in this matter are because we've made it taboo to discuss cultural or social differences as if they matter themselves.
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman   2007-10-17 21:23  

#21  http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2007/10/executive-brain-function-99-genetic.html
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-10-17 20:59  

#20  You guys are all missing the best part of the article:

"People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
Posted by: Iblis   2007-10-17 19:10  

#19  Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws.

Appears Salman Rushdie and Dr. Watson may have a thing or two in common.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-10-17 19:03  

#18  Short people handle the cold better? I can only wish that were true, Icerigger. Mr. Wife is almost a foot taller, and going on 100 lb. heavier. The blankets tend to be piled up on my side of the bed.

If I recall correctly, almost all the really big mammals died out at the end of the last ice age... and polar bears are bigger than the other kinds.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-17 18:56  

#17  Minds expand as the use of tools support the expansion. Since necessity is the mother of invention, the need for aid in survival would naturally yield inventions and expanded IQs. I can see that sandstorms brought about the burka, but why did scorching desert heat not bring about running water and air conditioning ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-10-17 18:45  

#16  No crap. Blacks have a lower IQ and Asians are better at math. Welcome to non-PC DNA reality. Anyone who has worked with different breeds of animals won't find this surprising.

Change the PC term "race" with the correct word "breed" and well you get the idea.

What I don't understand is why is this a big deal? There are larger differences. Take for instance body shape. Short stocky people handle the cold better. Where is the public rage and debate over that?

Old news to anyone who has taught in public schools.
Posted by: Icerigger   2007-10-17 18:36  

#15  notice that the lands populated by tribal societies, that never got beyond that, are the least technologically improved, the most impoverished, and all-around suckiest societies? Inbreeding has it's consequences. See: Africa, Arabs, et al
Posted by: Frank G   2007-10-17 18:31  

#14  When American blacks moved north in waves after the Second World War they took some of the worst traits of the South's culture with them.

When I was a student in Baltimore there was a real division between the blacks in East Baltimore, who had been there for a long time, and West Baltimore, who came up in WWII. It was pretty easy to tell which side of town a black came from. Is that still true?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 18:19  

#13  I don't think it does. And I agree with rjschwarz, with the added observation that poor nutrition -- think of the image of the little kid in the last stages of malnutrition, with the vulture waiting not ten feet from him -- will lower a person' mental horsepower for life. Probably IQs objectively measured in Africa are lower than equivalent IQs in Europe or North America, because levels of nutrition aren't at the same levels. A more valid comparison would likely be between a stable African country, such as Botswana, and a moderately successful Western country, like maybe Panama.

The same applied, in a different manner, with the Japanese after WWII, by the way. There wasn't an observable IQ difference but it showed up in their height -- they had good nutrition, but it was light on protein. American Nisei averaged six inches taller than native Japanese in 1946, and they didn't have the tendency toward bow-leggedness.

Irish and southern and eastern European immigrants were regarded -- and measured -- at the time as inferior to the Knickerbocker Americans. The idea that the best lawyers are named Cohen came later.

The black-white difference in the USA is cultural, as far as I can tell. One part of it is their African heritage, but keep in mind that there aren't very many immigrant blacks in American jails. By the second generation the boys are being acculturated, girls a little less so. My guess would be that second generation African immigrants get in trouble at close to the rate of their native peers.

When American blacks moved north in waves after the Second World War they took some of the worst traits of the South's culture with them. In their native element there wasn't an awful lot of difference among good ol' boys, regardless of color. Blacks haven't changed at the same rate and in the same directions as the white guys have.
Posted by: Fred   2007-10-17 17:50  

#12  I wonder how this all relates to one in four black males bing in prison here in the US?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2007-10-17 17:21  

#11  Personally I think his claims are nonsense. There are many reasons why Africa is far behind the West. Many of the reasons are the same reasons the third world is far behind the West. A love of dictators and wishful economics.

These two factors lead directly to a pathetic education system taht even the brightest brain would have trouble not atrophying.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-10-17 17:19  

#10  
At least now schoolchildren will have heard of Watson.
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2007-10-17 17:06  

#9  Looking around here (NYT, BBC, Columbia U, Duke U, Hollywood, etc.) and it is not obvious to me that Westerners are very intelligent these days. Perhaps the same logic as NS mentioned applies - soft times develop stupid people - and if they breed, the whole culture devolves. For the most part our elite stupid don't breed.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-10-17 17:06  

#8  More than the European imperialists, native Africans brought this upon themselves by agitating for independence.


More exactly communists and Americans strived to dismantle the colonial empires well before Africa were readyy for self-rule. And be it communists or Americans it wasn't for the good of Africans.
Posted by: JFM   2007-10-17 16:48  

#7  Africa itself is lush and fertile, so I can't figure out why the inhabitants can't make a go of it.

You didn't have to work very hard to eat because it was so lush, and the penalties for being dumb were not fatal as often.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 16:20  

#6  Z: As the indisputable birthplace and cradle of mankind, how is it that—even with a head start of several extra millennia—Africa has been entirely unable to rise above anything but genocidal tribal anarchy?

The ones who could adapt to other climates left. Perhaps to avoid the fighting over resources, perhaps to avoid the tropical diseases. Africa itself is lush and fertile, so I can't figure out why the inhabitants can't make a go of it.

Part of the problem is also European colonialism - not the mythical exploitation, but the cobbling of many nationalities into single states after they left. That was a recipe for civil war and the systematic exploitation of minority nationalities by the majority. At the same time, Africans are to blame for believing the promises of their ethnic kin that they were likely to be superior and less corrupt at governing than their European counterparts. More than the European imperialists, native Africans brought this upon themselves by agitating for independence.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2007-10-17 16:15  

#5  What is old is new again.

Let's not forget another common denominator - socialist based primary education systems.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-10-17 16:07  

#4  Zim-bob-way, Ghana, Nigeria it's very sad. But it has to be because of imperialism.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-17 16:00  

#3  One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

Without entering into any debate concerning genetic intelligence, please allow me to note one simple thing.

As the indisputable birthplace and cradle of mankind, how is it that—even with a head start of several extra millennia—Africa has been entirely unable to rise above anything but genocidal tribal anarchy? Anyone idiotic enough to try and blame European colonization needs to consider how that happened only within the last several centuries. The simple fact remains that sub-Saharan Africa always has been and remains to this very day a complete and total societal shitpot.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-17 15:48  

#2  James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

But, geez, media boys and girls, he's a Nobel Prize winner isn't he? Aren't they above reproach? You know, like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter and Nellie Mandela and...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-10-17 15:01  

#1  Â“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” : Voltaire

Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2007-10-17 14:57  

00:00