 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Oct 2007 : 06:33:10
|
Nobel Winner Sorry for Race Remarks
By MALCOLM RITTER,AP
Posted: 2007-10-18 20:29:49
Filed Under: Science News, World News
LONDON (Oct. 18) -- James Watson, the 79-year-old scientific icon made famous by his work in DNA, has set off an international furor with comments to a London newspaper about intelligence levels among blacks.
Odd Andersen, AFP / Getty Images
Dr. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the structure of DNA, poses with the original DNA model in 2005. He told a British newspaper that he was "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."
Watson, who's chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, has a history of provocative statements about social implications of science. But several friends said Thursday he's no racist.
And Watson, who won a Nobel Prize in 1962 for co-discovering the structure of DNA, apologized and says he's "mortified."
A profile of Watson in the Sunday Times Magazine of London quoted him as saying that he's "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."
While he hopes everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true," Watson is quoted as saying. He also said people should not be discriminated against on the basis of color, because "there are many people of color who are very talented."
The comments, reprinted Wednesday in a front-page article in another British newspaper, The Independent, provoked a sharp reaction.
London's Science Museum canceled a sold-out lecture he was to give there Friday. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said his comments "represent racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.... That a man of such academic distinction could make such ignorant comments, which are utterly offensive and incorrect and give succor to the most backward in our society, demonstrates why racism still has to be fought."
In the United States, the Federation of American Scientists said it was outraged that Watson "chose to use his unique stature to promote personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science."
And Watson's employer said he wasn't speaking for the Cold Spring Harbor research facility, where the board and administration "vehemently disagree with these statements and are bewildered and saddened if he indeed made such comments."
Watson is in Britain to promote his new book, "Avoid Boring People," and a publicist for his British publisher provided this statement Thursday to The Associated Press:
"I am mortified about what has happened," Watson said. "More importantly, I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said.
"I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Watson's publicist, Kate Farquhar-Thomson, would not address whether Watson was suggesting he was misquoted. "You have the statement. That's it, I'm afraid," she said.
A spokesman for The Sunday Times said that the interview with Watson was recorded and that the newspaper stood by the story.
Watson's new book also touches on possible racial differences in IQ, though it doesn't go as far as the newspaper interview.
In the book, Watson raises the prospect of discovering genes that significantly affect a person's intelligence.
"...There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically," Watson wrote. "Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
Watson is no stranger to making waves with his scientific views. In 2000, in a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, he suggested that sex drive is related to skin color. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
Some years earlier he was quoted in a newspaper as saying, "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her."
"Jim has a penchant for making outrageous comments that are basically poking society in the eye," Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said Thursday.
Collins, who has known Watson for a long time, said his latest comments "really ... carried it this time to a much more hurtful level."
In a brief telephone interview, Collins told The AP that Watson's statements are "the wildest form of speculation in a field where such speculation ought not to be engaged in." Genetic factors for intelligence show no difference from one part of the world to another, he said.
Several longtime friends of Watson insisted he's not a racist.
"It's hard for me to buy the label `racist' for him," said Victor McElheny, the author of a 2003 biography of Watson, whom he's known for 45 years. "This is someone who has encouraged so many people from so many backgrounds."
So why does he say things that can sound racist? "I really don't know the answer to that," McElheny said.
Biologist and Nobel laureate Phil Sharp at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who's known Watson since 1971, said, "I've never considered Jim a racist. However, Jim likes to use statistics and observations to provoke people, and it is possible that he is provoking people by these comments."
Calling Watson "one of the great historical scientific figures of our time," Sharp said, "I don't understand why he takes it upon himself to make these statements."
Mike Botchan, co-chair of the molecular and cell biology department at the University of California, Berkeley, who's known Watson since 1970, said the Nobelist's personal beliefs are less important than the impact of what he says.
"Is he someone who's going to prejudge a person in front of him on the basis of his skin color? I would have to say, no. Is he someone, though, that has these beliefs? I don't know any more. And the important thing is I don't really care," Botchan said.
"I think Jim Watson is now essentially a disgrace to his own legacy. And it's very sad for me to say this, because he's one of the great figures of 20th century biology."
Associated Press writers Thomas Wagner in London and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this story.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
|
|
|
tapalapa
United Kingdom
202 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2007 : 06:47:21
|
I think the media are yet again stirring this up. I know a scientist who tells me he is often misquoted in the papers.
Tapa |
 |
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 19 Oct 2007 : 09:22:56
|
| this was not a misquote, the man should know better. |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
|
|
toubab1020
12306 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 15:56:56
|
| This one? |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 16:24:24
|
Dear Watson,
Here is a personal question for you. If you are true to your brain as a living element of fact absorber, can you tell us about how UNLETTERED blacks from remote parts of AFRICA cope to master WRITTEN languages? What proportion of LETTERED non-blacks have excelled in the use of other languages? What do you have for the numerous ILLITERATE non-blacks who are unable to convey simple message writing in their mother tongue? How much credit do you give blacks for perfecting the use of your language and ready to challenge your bigotry using this same language you proudly embrace as a golden gift of nature!!!! |
Karamba |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 16:32:03
|
Well i have just read some comments on this issue from Nettali . It covers if i am not mistaken talk about the issues of governance etc by African rulers and the reaction from that sites readership varied from repugnance and to the extra mileage where some said that to the extent that we are being so badly ruled/led and allowing the status quo one can give some credence to this theory. By that foregoing I for one believe that might stand true for the caliber of leadership we seem to be getting all over; taking Mugabe , Mubuto and Yahya into the said equation.Its a shame that a Nobel laureate would advance such theorem but can one help it . We can protest to the highest level but come on man Africans/blacks have displayed such utter disregard for the common good. I have not forgotten Hitler of course but one would have thought such people would have been lessons to us the new generation of humans colour notwithstanding.See the french version though abridged one could read the full text on the Nettali web site :-Racisme :
Un Nobel de médecine affirme que « les Noirs sont moins intelligents que les Blancs »
vendredi 19 octobre 2007, par Nettali /
Afrik - Le généticien américain James Watson, à qui le prix Nobel a été décerné en 1962, ne fait pas dans la demi-mesure. A la une d’un journal britannique, il défend la thèse de l’inégalité des races. Il n’en est hélas pas à son coup d’essai. Actuellement en tournée en Grande-Bretagne pour présenter son dernier ouvrage, il s’apprête à diffuser ses théories frelatées.
|
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 17:50:49
|
i would like to know which scientifically designed tests he used to come up with this theory!
Did he take a proper sample group, with unbiased tests based on scientifically proven methods - i suspect not.
there are so many socio-economic factors involved. I would suggest that it is almost impossible to accurately measure such a concept.
there are thick people in every race.
how do you quantify who has the most?
is he saying that black africans are genetically dimmer?
that is playing god with words and unquantifiable, therefore rubbish.
i once had a big row with a very intelligent middle aged woman about swimming and black people. she was highly educated and borderline mensa-- but she insisted for 3 hours that "their bodiesa re different in physiology and weight ratios and muscle density" - hours later i found internet articles which proved her argument to be garbage. she recanted. but is she thick, naive, racist or a product of a white environment who read too many books about the "natives in the dark continent"?
all sorts of sterotyping are present in this view.
it's like tennis - the williams sisters proved it was finance and opportunity that prevented progress - not muscle density and bone structures.
very few gambians i know swim well, but they live by the sea. that is not because they cannot do it - it is becausse there no pools to learn in and the sea is too rough and is rightly feared for beginners.opportunity and finance.
you put africans into an economically sound environment, give them equal opportunities and then i bet you get the same spread of intelligence as any other race.
culturally, it is different. I studied at a hospital years ago. The asians in this country decided that education is the way forward and now 85% of the dental students and a very high proportion of the medical students are asians. There were no black dental students in the 80's in that hospital - or virtually none - and there are still hardly any in proportion to the numbers of afro-caribbeans here.
The west indians arrived before the asians by a full generations and suffered probably more privations than the asians, but where are the black doctors and dentist now? not around in numbers.
i have dicsussed this with many afro-caribbeans who told me that they were not pushed to be doctors and accountants etc they were not taught that university was the highest goal. things are clearly different now and the change will come in years to come.
I beleive that africans are different again. they work hard and aspire to these professions and will race up the economical and professional ladder if allowed to .
so, this cultural thing seems to be a different aspect, but is not to be confused with the intelligence issue.
is this not all about racial sterotyping and ignorance. there seems to be not an iota of science involved, and yet an eminent scientist made these comments. anybody know the scientific basis for his theory????????????? |
|
|
|
njucks
Gambia
1131 Posts |
Posted - 20 Oct 2007 : 22:53:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by jambo
this was not a misquote, the man should know better.
quite right!, its not a misquote since he has even accepted saying it, and then contradicting himself that there is no scientific evidence and then even apologised? what about policies towards women, muslims , islam, terrorist, drug addicts, prostitutes, rapists ? we have apologists in the bantaba.
first sex drive and race and now this. infact he knew exactly what he was saying, meant it, realised it and trying to play it down.
i think he is being selfish because his own son is disabled with a genetic disease and if Hitler had had his own way, Dr Watson would be classified as inferior as it was a specific Nazi policy to screen the population of ''people with inferior genes'' people producing handicap/disabled people.
technically speaking, Race is only defined by skin colour in daily language but not in science. A south Indian could be as dark as any gambian but they are not in the same Race!. Watson knows this more than anyone.
Jambo I think you should file a complaint with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Race Commision) seriously.
the real danger is that these days politicians and scientists claim to be 'misquoted' and see this as an opportunity to be bring their racism to the fore. look at the elections in Switzerland and the black sheep, mind you its a national election.
my conjecture is that racism is genetic. anyone can quote me. |
|
|
|
Ousman
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2007 : 01:48:50
|
my conjecture is that racism is genetic. anyone can quote me.
Whoa that is a bold statement bro. If humans share 99.99% of the same genetic code, then categorical statements based on conjecture rather than facts is a slippery slope we should desist from. Isn't that what Watson is been condemned for? |
http://Gambian.blogspot.com |
Edited by - Ousman on 21 Oct 2007 01:49:55 |
|
|
|
lurker
509 Posts |
Posted - 21 Oct 2007 : 13:09:02
|
sorry, njucks, but your last statement is clearly untrue. Racism is nurture and not nature.
you do not see two year old babies in nurseries avoiding, or hating or disrespecting other two-year old babies of different colours etc. They have to be taught to hate. they start off pure and unadulterated until the fools get their hands on their developing brains.
the rest of your thread is quite right, of course.
eugenics was tool of the Nazis to try and "blame" people's disliked characteristics on inferior genetic traits. Now we have a nobel prize winner opening his trap without thought or evidence in the same vein. Don't human beings make you despair?! We never seem to learn any lessons. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
