Is There a Gene for Controversy-seeking?

Nobel laureate James Watson, the eminent scientist credited for his work in elucidating the structure of DNA, is not averse to controversy. His willingness to speak frankly about the application of science to behavioral and social questions seems designed to push people’s buttons. And push them he has, on such subjects as racism, genetic engineering, and eugenics, igniting public fears, offending popular sensibilities, and casting political correctness to the winds.

Writing in the Sunday Times (UK), former Watson protégé Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe notes Watson’s propensity for frank and provocative comment, and re-ignites a minor firestorm surrounding Watson’s thoughts on race.

He says that he is “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”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. 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”.

This has been dealt with at The Great Beyond, the blog of the journal Nature, and in the New York Times, which notes:

The story may not end here. The Independent reports that “Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson’s remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws” and that the government’s Equality and Human Rights Commission “said it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks ‘in full.’ ”

The suppression of debate under laws restricting hate speech is the most frightening aspect of this story. Although Watson’s choice of language may be, to say the least, lacking in sensitivity, and may be uncomfortably close to the words of those who preach racial hatred and discrimination, these issues deserve to be discussed without the ideas being prejudiced by political goals or preconceived notions of justice.

The popular conception of “race” may be of questionable utility, but there is merit in exploring the genetics underlying behavior and ability. But these are highly complex subjects, and are not really amenable to soundbite summaries in the media. While scientists must be free to explore such topics without concern for their political and social implications, it is incumbent on the scientific community to foster an informed debate and protect against mischaracterization and abuse of their data. We don’t want to censor ideas, but neither do we want to inadvertenly lend credence to abhorent ideology.

Is James Watson a provocateur or a bigot? Transhumanist or neo-Nazi eugenicist? Only he knows. Either way, he should be free to speak his mind without fear of imprisonment or litigation.

Similar Posts:

None Found