When scientists get old and boring…
…they may wish to spice up their public image with something provocative. Well, it seems that the codiscoverer of DNA James Watson has always had the wrong definition of “provocative”, and this time he seems to have really done it and positively inflamed everyone with his comments about people of African descent being less smarter than those of European descent, an argument that is surprisingly old- and discounted. Watson is of course no stranger to controversy. He has already been severely castigated for saying things such as “thin women are unhappy” and that sex drive and skin colour are related. But he seems to have outdone himself this time.
And what is Watson’s scientific basis for saying something like this? Essentially nothing as far as I can see. However, I also believe that it is extremely important to understand some distinctions related to what he is saying.
For example, is it possible that intelligence can be hereditary? Well, the answer to this question can at least be a potential yes and there is absolutely no racism implied in this statement. We all know of people who are intelligent and whose parents and grandparents were also intelligent. But even here, there is a whole set of conflicting factors that complicates any conclusion about congenital intelligence that we may wish to draw. For instance, the yet unresolved nature vs nurture argument; are these people with intelligent ancestory intelligent only because of their genes or because of an age-old atmosphere in their home that nurtured intellectual discussion, scholarship and stimulating thought. This factor itself throws a major wrench into the “genetic intelligence” debate. In addition, there are so many cases of people who came from family with parents who were hardworking and motivated, but not particularly “intelligent”. Isn’t that icon of genius of all time, Albert Einstein, the epitome of such an example?
Let me be clear about something. I don’t doubt that genetics is responsible in part for people’s intellectual abilities. It’s not too hard to believe in this if you believe in evolution. The problem is, first of all, intelligence is of various kinds, and it’s well known that IQ tests only test a person’s ability to do one thing- take IQ tests. But more importantly, there are many varied environmental factors responsible for intelligence that can far overwhelm genetics. Take an average kid of any race and immerse him in an intellectually stimulating and nurturing environment, and he will most likely turn out pretty smart, if not Einstein.
Consider a study in Science magazine (cannot find link right now) which compared the performance of kids in American schools. First of all, they made some assumptions in the comparison. But assuming these assumptions, in the results, Asian kids scored the highest, followed by White Caucasian kids, then Latino kids, and finally African Americans. Does this mean Asian kids are genetically smarter than European/White Caucasian kids? Of course not. Even without thinking too much, one can think of the much more plausible explanation that many parents of Asian kids are well-educated possibly white-collar immigrants from Asia, who are much more likely to already nurture an atmosphere of ambition, hard work and learning in their homes. This may not always apply to Hispanic immigrants (although hard work certainly will) who first of all often come here for blue collar jobs, and also scarcely have the time to nurture such an atmosphere. Socioeconomic conditions and not genetic factors can be easily seen to play a role in these differences, and it’s probably obvious how they can play a difference in the average perceived “levels of intelligence” between African Americans and White Americans in the US, when indicators of economic and social inequality across race are already well-known.
Thus, there is no proof about genetic factors even dominantly affecting “intelligence”. Whether we can even have any reasonable definition of intelligence and whether this definition can be applied across races is a scientific question, and completely out there in the open right now. My gut feeling is, given the complexity of factors stated above, we will never be able to weed out genetic factors if any that confer intelligence, and certainly won’t be able to declare that they will predominate over other factors.
The troubling thing is, Watson is a very smart guy who must have known such simple arguments. But he still thoughtlessly made a very offensive remark that in the absence of any scientific basis became flamingly racist. He was already known for toeing the fringes of “provocative”. Now he has been called a bonafide racist and even more of a bonafide fool.
I am saddened by this. James Watson has been a scientist whom I have generally admired, and I always admired him because of his freewheeling, irreverent approach towards science and established scientific figures which he claimed is necessary for science to progress. In the sometimes rather dour world of science and scientists, Watson’s accounts of his exploits chasing (and getting snubbed by) girls were entertaining, as were his insider and candid accounts of turf wars between scientific giants that exposed the human side of science. He was never known to be a very nice man, but was at least known as an honest seeker of the truth who spoke his mind (Consider the title of his latest book- Avoid Boring People). Many of his books including one on DNA are wonderfully stimulating and informative. Watson’s attitude about being irreverent in science is actually sensible, and we would be half as lucky as he was if we could be able to shake scientific icons, not care for their status, and cut to the chase of the problem. Watson certainly did that during his time in Cambridge when he codiscovered the secret of life with Francis Crick. Crick himself acknowledged that he and Watson were not encumbered by too much poltiness and deference for each other, and this made progress efficient. But interestingly, after the discovery, Crick pursued a stellar career in science and made many important discoveries, one or two of them worth another Nobel. In contrast, Watson mainly fought with others, got himself into administrative positions, and resigned from the stewardship of the Human Genome Project because of his disagreements. Scientists would be hard-pressed to find a single significant pure scientific contribution that he has made after DNA. Also after DNA, Watson’s irreverence veered away from being aimed at making scientific breakthroughs, to simply irking other scientific figures and being insensitive. His comments began to lose their scientific basis, and that’s when he began to get intolerable. Many scientists do appreciate brutally honest people, as Watson earlier was. But these people’s criticism needs to be honest and having a noble purpose of seeking the truth. What scientists don’t appreciate are simply brutal people whose provocations have nothing to do with sound science. These provocations cannot help but sound like muck raking and obnoxious personal attacks.
A contrasting analogy is instructive. There was another irreverent young Turk in twentieth century science who also was as gung-ho as Watson about shaking up the scientific establishment. But Richard Feynman’s criticism and chutzpah arose from a deep desire to make things transparent, and to expect only the highest standards from others as well as himself. Watson perhaps had that spark in him at the very beginning, but he lost it a long time ago. What remained sounds like groundless bigotry and provocation. Sad.
© Ashutosh Jogalekar
Race and intelligence | DesiPundit said
October 18 2007 @ 8:06 pm
[...] responds to James Watson’s provocative comments about race and intelligence. I don’t doubt that genetics is responsible in part for people’s intellectual abilities. It’s [...]
Watson Racist said
October 18 2007 @ 9:06 pm
[...] proves intelligence and education doesn’t necessarily make you worthy of respect. Sakshi and Ashutosh have more to say. Your country needs immigration Filed under Asides, Society Culture Article [...]
Revathi said
October 19 2007 @ 2:37 am
I don’t think the scientist was trying to catch public attention, it will be the just opposite. He is old enough so don’t care too much to give politically correct statements for facts everybody knows.
He just said that because of thousands of years of deprived growth, people from that region are less developed. It is a fact that Africa doesn’t have rich history of asian or european countries. Thousands of years of less intelluctual growth makes the genes of people from that region different from other regions.
Kapiltalist said
October 19 2007 @ 9:13 am
The heritability of IQ is a hotly debated topic. However, I would think that a very significant genetic contribution to ‘intelligence’ cannot be denied. But it is absurd for anyone who is aware of the intricate interplay of genetic and environmental factors that go into the development of traits such as intelligence to ‘take sides’ in the ‘genes versus upbringing’ debate.
It is probably a no-brainer that a child of desperately impoverished Bangladeshi parents, no matter how ‘genetically’ brilliant, is unlikely to ever even get to take an IQ test. Here, environment trumps genes like the Aussies trump everyone else at Cricket (do you think they are genetically superior at playing cricket?
). On the other hand, in an egalitarian utopia where every child gets the perfect and equal opportunity to develop her intelligence, almost the entire difference in the ‘IQ’ of these lucky children would be arrtributable to genetic factors!!! Paradox, isn’t it?
Ashutosh said
October 19 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Revathi: I don’t think he was trying to get attention too. The problem is he made a very loose statement that had no scientific basis. Now he has supposedly apologised and said that he had not intended it in a genetic sense. You cannot do this.
Das Kapitalist: Your first paragraph says it. Genetic contributions to intelligence would never be denied but like you said, Watson made a very generalised simplistic blanket statement when he should have known about the intricate interplay of factors.
Kapiltalist said
October 19 2007 @ 4:01 pm
I am now curious to read what Watson actually said. In the two places where the linked article quotes him, he does not even mention genes anywhere.
And fact of the matter is, I share his prognosis for Africa. Misgovernance, impoverishment, genocides, population explosion, AIDS, - its all horrifying actually.
Ashutosh said
October 19 2007 @ 4:55 pm
I think he would have been on a relatively safer platform if he had not mentioned “intelligence”. In any case, such comments will get you nowhere these days.
rajat said
October 19 2007 @ 5:33 pm
There isn’t a more effective argument to ignore potentially politically incorrect statements than the catch-all phrase ‘there’s no scientific proof for it’. It saves everyone’s blushes, and to hell with whether science will ever answer it simply because science will not be allowed to answer it. After all science is hostage to political correctness like everything else and no one wants science poking into uncomfortable matters like genes v/s intelligence.
What amazes me is how conveniently we agree to the genetic factor in instances of Heart diseases, diabetes, even things like who has a higher likelihood of taking up smoking. Then the celeberated instances of genes factoring into sports like boxing, athletics etc which has a large presence of athletes of African origin. And there are numerous instances more.
But when it comes to even remotely suggesting genes as a factor in intelligence, then all hell breaks loose.
Ashutosh said
October 19 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Well, for one thing, things like heart disease and smoking tendencies can be quantified. I quite agree that it is political correctness that prohibits science from holding forth on things like the genetic basis of intelligence. The great thing about science is of course that the truth is always revealed, if not sooner then later. I agree with you that the issue of race and intelligence is especially volatile because of history and politics.
Patrix said
October 19 2007 @ 7:02 pm
Yup! the exact problem is in operationalizing intelligence which is not necessarily something for only (pure) science to define but rather is a prerogative of sociology and humanities.
@Rajat and Revathi, how would you define intelligence? Is a doctor more ‘intelligent’ than an artist or author, like it is perceived in India? That rotating girl has shown us (correctly or not)that we use different sides of our brains to do the thing we do best.
Suchi said
October 20 2007 @ 2:41 pm
The problem is the idea of intelligence all right.
Not only can you improve your IQ, a lot of what we consider IQ (and even EQ) is tested or guaged using modern/western ideologies. If there were a test of intelligence that was derived from say, a culture rooted in nature, who would score best? Would such an IQ test would rate someone’s applied knowledge of plants and animals? Would such an EQ test evaluate one’s ability to communicate with animals or live in a tribe?
Revathi said
October 21 2007 @ 4:14 am
@suchi ..For me, intelligent people can use more mental/brain thinking ability to do what ever they do better than others. It can be anything but should involve brain.
@Kapiltalist .. regarding example of impoverished person of bangladesh, we all know that all sections of indian society were not exposed to intelleluctal activities for centuries( read castism). So there will be difference in the inborn intelligence of various groups in India.
V said
November 2 2007 @ 2:48 pm
AJ:
“Take an average kid of any race and immerse him in an intellectually stimulating and nurturing environment, and he will most likely turn out pretty smart, if not Einstein.”
but does each race produces the same proportion of average kids ? That’s what Watson says we have no reason to believe in. Quote:“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.”
IOW, evolution doesn’t produce equality
AJ:
“Does this mean Asian kids are genetically smarter than European/White Caucasian kids? Of course not.”
but east asians always come on top. Only a very persistent socio-environmental factor could perhaps explain this.
Ghayth Hosni said
December 13 2007 @ 3:56 pm
notebook pda buy notebook today 5113 as5715z 1a1g08mi nout
choice first med online pharmacy said
December 24 2007 @ 2:07 pm
licensed online pharmacy online pharmacy top xanax online pharmacy no prescription add online pharmacy site choice first med online pharmacy online pharmacy site suggest online pharmacy top adderall online pharmacy lortab online pharmacy