From so simple a beginning…

Usually we are cautioned not to kill the messenger, but in the case of James Watson’s remarks, it seems a little disturbing to me that people are trying to kill the message along with the messenger. The problem with this is that it can very well preempt and halt all scientific research investigating differences in mental ability between people of different races. I don’t think any rational person can dispute that differences in mental ability -defined whatever way you want to- do exist between individuals. To my knowledge, the question of whether differences exist between races is still a scientifically open question. Note that I am not talking about “intelligence” and I even concede that the word is very difficult to define. But that’s not the point. Just like differences between physical characteristics including susceptibility to diseases do exist between races, there is no reason to deny per se that difference between mental abilities, between some mental characteristics do exist between races. My fear is that such knee-jerk public outcry will intimidate scientists and organisations into stifling all such research. As I mentioned in a previous post, science does not care about public reaction and political correctness, but in fact it needs to be shielded from such reaction. If science can find out that some races are indeed less “intelligent” than others (assuming we can define intelligence), we can make sure that it will be out sooner or later. But more importantly we have as much right to stop scientists from seeking out such a truth if it exists as we would have had stopping scientists from investigating fission for fear that it might lead to horrible weapons, or from researching genetic engineering for fear that it might be used for racist or selfish purposes.

Nothing in America sells like racial controversy, and here there is little doubt that white races are largely responsible for this fact. After three hundred years of forcing bondage and slavery which was a great moral travesty, it is hardly surprising that any kind of comments remotely smacking of racial prejudice incite a reaction like no other social issue. The other reason is the even more horrific deeds of the Third Reich, which gave researching any kind of connection between race and abilities a new dimension of hellish impropriety. But I also find such a torrential deluge of outrage stifling rational discussion of the topic. It’s like what happens to the Holocaust deniers. While they are obviously kooks, reaction to their statements is so vicious that it often even trumps the issue of freedom of speech, a freedom that has been granted in democratic countries especially to individuals whose views are unpalatable to the majority. Also, we should not forget that both the slavery of black Americans and the eugenics views of the Nazis were an extreme corruption of science, and not science itself. To immediately and automatically toss any and every statement that smells of racism into the sordid bin of slavery in America and Nazi eugenics is not a reasonable response. A reasonable response would be to dissect any such view, distinguish nuance from overall perception, and try to analyse the issue.

Most importantly, it is completely unreasonable to condemn the whole enterprise of science because of a few bad apples. Reading some of the reactions on the Internet made me think that people are doing just that. One article actually goes so far as to recycle the old argument of equating Darwinism with racism. The article extends this perception to all of science, and contends that strictly and scientifically following the dictates of Darwinism will inevitably lead to racism. I am sorry, but this is nonsense. First of all, Darwinism has no say in how human beings should treat each other, irrespective of their abilities. Secondly, I cannot but help think that the woman was alluding to the Social Darwinists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, misguided idealogues who misinterpreted Darwinism to mean some winner-takes-all kind of social race in which nobody takes care of anyone else, and only the “fittest” survive; again an example of people hijacking science for their own purposes. Thirdly and scientifically, Darwinism talks about beneficial characteristics conferring better fitness to individuals. Strictly speaking, it does not talk about race at all. Also, given how complex our societies are, there is no indication that mathematical ability for example will always trump canny business acumen. So much seems to be context specific in our age and society that there is no way in which Darwinism will ever predict which indicators of “fitness” are really key, let alone which ones will prevail and survive. Clearly to me, the author of that article seems to be condemning science because of the potentially socially uncomfortable and disturbing truths which it can reveal to society. We don’t need to reiterate that such a policy about science, long condemned and in fact deemed fit only for religious and political bigots, is inappropriate. The suppression of scientific truths for fear that they would be unpalatable to society has always been against the spirit of discovery, and should be actively opposed. (Not surprisingly, the creationist think-tank The Discovery Institute has also made the same Darwinism-racism connection, but that is so predictable and inane that I am not even linking to them)

In the end, this seems to be as much about freedom of speech as anything else. I am now convinced that suspending Watson from his post without any inquiry was premature and misguided. It is a legitimate question to ask whether he would have been suspended has his remarks not had the politically incorrect flavour that they did. There are several scientists who believe far-fetched theories and hold dubious opinions that are not as socially inlflammatory. They are usually not fired from their posts, although their academic institutions often distance themselves from them. I already mentioned creationist Michael Behe (whose views by the way are as unpalatable to many scientists as Watson’t views would be to Africans) One of the best examples is Frank Tipler who is a professor of physics at Tulane University. After a distinguished career in cosmology and theoretical physics, Tipler became infamous for “scientifically” proving the existence of God and notably the Christian God, afterlife, reincarnation and other such irrational beliefs. In many cases, Tipler advocated clearly pseudoscientific arguments. Watson also espoused unscientific and half-baked beliefs based on his own interpretation of facts. In case of Tipler, no matter how misguided his beliefs are, nobody suspended him for holding them. Then if Watson was suspended only because of the scandalous social repurcussions of his beliefs, is it completely wrong to regard it as unfair from the point of view of the academic community? If the only difference between Tipler’s and Watson’s beliefs is that they are also politically incorrect and racist-sounding in one case and not the other, why should academic institutions for whom science is the real important thing suspend Watson and not Tipler? If academic institutions care only about the scientific truth, then the scientific fallacy of Watson’s enunciations should be regarded equivalent to that of Tipler’s enunciations. If Watson is being suspended only because his allegations have an additional racial and political flavour, then science clearly is bowing down to politics and social constraints.

I want to make another point here, all too familiar in this age of unreason. While Watson may have been rightly criticised for his comments, there are people of other ilks who make comments far more offensive to many more than the people who Watson’s comments invariably targeted. While he may have rankled the dignity of black people, consider the many political leaders and especially religious leaders, who everyday toss out hundreds of bigoted comments about homosexuals, atheists, liberals, civil libertarians, patriots (by labeling them unpatriotic) and thousands of others. What Watson said is at least potentially testable and within the purview of science. But the ramblings of religious demagogues have absolutely no basis and are no more than products of their own world of fantasy. A specific example comes to my mind. James Watson may be the bad boy of science and he has been rightly castigated many times, but what about the “Reverends” Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who even after going so far as to say that it were atheists, homosexuals and liberals who brought the September 11 attacks on the United States, continue to be idolised and revered throughout their lives? Watson may have offended black people, but Falwell and Robertson have offended an untold number of reasonable and decent people of all races and nationalities, including their own patriotic countrymen, multiple times. Richard Dawkins is spot on when he says that religion is the only aspect of human life that is supposed to be free of all critical scrutiny and from which critics are supposed to quietly tiptoe away. There is clearly a double standard here.

But anyway, back to Watson. One may argue that he himself has damaged science more than others. But even critics of him in respected journals like Nature are arguing that cancellation of his appointments at various places simply undermines the open scrutiny that must be given to science and scientists, in this case if not for anything else for holding Watson up to task. Moreover, the real message for those who have said that he has damaged the field is that it is precisely in their hands- and ours- not to let him damage the field. There are many scientists who are engaged in investigating differences in various abilities between various races, and they need to be protected and encouraged to publish their results. It is important especially not to get swayed by the media, which thrives on encouraging juicy controversy and public overreaction. First of all, these scientists’ research by itself simply cannot be called racist. Science is about open inquiry about the world, not about respecting the norms that humans have imposed on themselves, even if they are for good reasons. Secondly, there is no necessary reason that the results of such investigations will promote discrimination. In fact, we can even make an argument that it will help people of all races achieve their full potential in life and become successful. As biologist Susan Blackmore has said, results from such investigations could help to personalise education systems for different people to fit their own unique set of qualities, compared to the more of less rigid and standardised systems we have today. Clearly, more needs to be thought about such studies and it is completely unacceptable to cause such rancour as to silence them.

Prominent scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson (always known to be a pillar of respect and a wholly reasonable person) are rallying to Watson’s support. They defend him not for what he said, but for his freedom to say it. They are shocked at the cancellation of his appearances and especially about his firing from the world-renowned institute that he helped to create. Philip Ball has suggested that Watson is like a 15 year-old who liked to roil up the neighbourhood, who was taken aback when they actually put him in jail for this.

My suggestion is this; let’s move on from Watson. There’s nothing wrong in criticising him and even not wanting him to be your neighbour. He was never known to be a very nice man. But it is very important that the personality disorders of one distinguished scientist should not cast scorn on the establishment that he stands for, which has valued truth, tolerance and openness above everything else. Now more than ever, scientists of all kinds who are conducting research on race and its ramifications in human activity need our steadfast support. If we let our perception of one man get in the way of science and knowledge, we would have failed ourselves as a species, inclusive of all races.