nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DNA double Helix Nobel laureate stripped of honours for opinions on race

steddyeddy

James Watson along with Francis Crick won the Nobel prize for allegedly discovering the structure of double stranded DNA. The famous double helix was in reality obtained with the help of Rosalind Franklin whose pioneering use of x-rays was used to determine the 3D structure of DNA. Unfortunately Rosalind wasn't given the credit she was due and Watson and Crick got all the honours.

Anyway in the last few decades Watson has proven himself to be a bit of a c"nt in more ways than one. His views on race, gender and class have been unscientific and born of Victorian attitudes.

He famously inferred black people to be less intelligent, women in labs to be just lipstick and make up and people who attend private schools to be more intelligent due to their pedigree. Now these views are all demonstrably untrue and born of bigrotry but does he deserve to be punished for them?

The BBC reports that Watson's views have led to Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory to cancel all honorary titles bestowed on him. Is he entitled to his views or should he be punished for them? Personally I think that a lab is well entitled to distance themselves from such views so they're quite right in taking the titles back. What do you think?

Nobel Prize-winning American scientist James Watson has been stripped of his honorary titles after repeating comments about race and intelligence.

In a TV programme, the pioneer in DNA studies made a reference to a view that genes cause a difference on average between blacks and whites on IQ tests.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said the 90-year-old scientist's remarks were "unsubstantiated and reckless".

Dr Watson had made similar claims in 2007 - and subsequently apologised.

He shared the Nobel in 1962 with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick for their 1953 discovery of the DNA's double helix structure.

Dr Watson sold his gold medal in 2014, saying he had been ostracised by the scientific community after his remarks about race.

He is currently in a nursing home recovering from a car accident and is said to have "very minimal" awareness of his surroundings.

The breakthroughs that could save our lives
DNA mapping project 'to transform society'
In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper 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".

While his hope was that everybody was equal, he added, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true".

After those remarks, Dr Watson lost his job as chancellor at the laboratory and was removed from all his administrative duties. He wrote an apology and retained his honorary titles of chancellor emeritus, Oliver R Grace professor emeritus and honorary trustee.

But Cold Spring Harbor said it was now stripping him of those titles after he said his views had not changed in the documentary American Masters: Decoding Watson, aired on US public broadcaster PBS earlier this month.

"Dr Watson's statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science," the laboratory said in a statement, adding that they effectively reverse his apology

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mad muffin

I’m sure Hitler would have admired him greatly.

Godwin yo!

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Personally I think that a lab is well entitled to distance themselves from such views so they're quite right in taking the titles back. What do you think?

I think taking awards like this back from someone who is deemed to have earned it for their work, only diminishes the value of the award. I understand that the awarding body may not wish for itself to be associated with views it finds unpalatable, but then the award isn’t about science, it’s about politics, and espousing popular political opinions. Has anything really changed since the Victorian era then when scientists were well regarded for their views which are now found to be pure bunkum? I thought that’s how science was supposed to work. This is just politics.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think taking awards like this back from someone who is deemed to have earned it for their work, only diminishes the value of the award. I understand that the awarding body may not wish for itself to be associated with views it finds unpalatable, but then the award isn’t about science, it’s about politics, and espousing popular political opinions. Has anything really changed since the Victorian era then when scientists were well regarded for their views which are now found to be pure bunkum? I thought that’s how science was supposed to work. This is just politics.

That's definitely a valid position Jack but at the same time a lab is entitled to strip away honours. They claim it's because his views are unscientific.

judeboy101

We'll, he's right about women in STEM. I hear that when they menstruate they attract bears.

[Deleted User]

steddyeddy wrote:

He famously inferred black people to be less intelligent, women in labs to be just lipstick and make up and people who attend private schools to be more intelligent due to their pedigree. Now these views are all demonstrably untrue and born of bigrotry but does he deserve to be punished for them?

Jez he'd fit right in here on boards.ie. I've seen posters here with the exact same beliefs

Mrmoe

judeboy101 wrote: »

We'll, he's right about women in STEM. I hear that when they menstruate they attract bears.

It's not just the bears it's the sharks as well, too many close calls.

my3cents

He's only loosing his honorary titles not his Nobel prize.

steddyeddy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Jez he'd fit right in here on boards.ie. I've seen posters here with the exact same beliefs

I agree there. On a previous thread a poster referred to children in council estates as ferals.

[Deleted User]

my3cents wrote: »

He's only loosing his honorary titles not his Nobel prize.

I suspect it's not a case of punishing him as much as it is trying to hold on to the integrity of the award by not having it associated with those kinds of views.

He's entitled to his views, no question. They're entitled to disassociate themselves from them, should they reflect poorly on the intent behind the award - nobody wants to be seen to honor racism etc.

Dr Strange

He was always only a lesser figure in the whole scheme of things.

Depending on the various media interpretations he was either a bumbling idiot or a rather conservative colleague.

In any case he only played a secondary role.

The main man was always Sherlock!

steddyeddy

my3cents wrote: »

He's only loosing his honorary titles not his Nobel prize.

Well whether he should have got that is up for debate too.

batgoat

Francis Crick's response to him in relation to his "history" of the discovery of DNA is a bit telling. Clearly he held a fair few views which were downright horrible and he was a bit of a dickhead. In terms of why an institute would remove honorary titles, it's pretty reasonable. He brings the titles into disrepute as a result of his pretty warped views. He doesn't have an absolute right for retaining them.

I must also point out to you, once again, the risks you will run
if you publish such a book. The picture which emerges of yourself is
not only unfavourable but misleadingly so. Moreover I do not'think
you realize what others will see in it. One psychiatrist who saw
your collection of pictures said it could only have been made by a
man who hated women; In a similar way another psychiatrist, who
read,Honest Jim, said that what ,emerged most strongly was your love
for your sister. This was much discussed by your friends while you
were working in Cambridge, but so far they have refrained from writing
about it, I doubt if ,others will show this restraint.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBBKN.pdf

JupiterKid

I was watching a programme on mental health and people with difficulties like schizophrenia, anxiety and depression and Watson was espousing eugenics and screening for these disorders before birth and aborting any fœtus that showed these disorders.

I found that pretty vile.

Anyhow, Rosalind Franklin never got the credit she rightly deserved for her part in discerning the molecular structure of DNA.

Caranica

He also said that life begins only once post birth checks and tests have been passed...

Arghus

There's a home for him here in After Hours if nothing else.

BeerWolf

And yet certain sports are dominated by certain peoples of origin. Not saying I believe it, but why's it so far fetched when it comes to mental capabilities too?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aborting for reasons to do with issues with the foetus isn’t anymore or less immoral than for no reason or for reasons that benefit the health or mental health of the mother. And that’s not an anti abortion position.

Edit:

Although Watson may mean forced abortions which is of course fairly totalitarian.

steddyeddy

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet certain sports are dominated by certain peoples of origin. Not saying I believe it, but why's it so far fetched when it comes to mental capabilities too?

Well great but first you have to back it up with evidence. You then have to narrow it down to one variable. In other words all the test subjects would have to receive identical education and upbringing. Then you could measure inate intelligence.

One eyed Jack

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet certain sports are dominated by certain peoples of origin. Not saying I believe it, but why's it so far fetched when it comes to mental capabilities too?

Because certain mental capabilities tests are designed by certain peoples of origin who dominate the sciences. That’s why it’s far fetched, because it’s obviously selection bias to limit your observations to criteria which supports your hypothesis.

begbysback

You can see now why sainthood is only appointed to the deceased.

Arghus

Another new account.

As if by magic.

sk8erboii

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because certain mental capabilities tests are designed by certain peoples of origin who dominate the sciences. That’s why it’s far fetched, because it’s obviously selection bias to limit your observations to criteria which supports your hypothesis.

Did asians create IQ tests?

One eyed Jack

Pochettino50 wrote: »

What is your belief on the matter?

I think eddy explained my position even better than I can (I’m not a scientist) -

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well great but first you have to back it up with evidence. You then have to narrow it down to one variable. In other words all the test subjects would have to receive identical education and upbringing. Then you could measure inate intelligence.

One eyed Jack

Pochettino50 wrote: »

That's not a belief on the matter, that's a belief on hypothesis testing.

Ok, my belief on the matter is that intelligence is not dictated by race. Very simple.

woddensanta

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet certain sports are dominated by certain peoples of origin. Not saying I believe it, but why's it so far fetched when it comes to mental capabilities too?

There are differences between the races in many ways, muscle mass, muscle composition, bone density, organ functionality, skull shape etc etc etc etc but some are scared to talk about brain performance. There are obviously differences but it's not overly important as it's a small difference in averages, I'd be fairly confident to say on average Asians would be slightly better in some intelligence metrics, no biggy, different evolution paths for a slight period in our shared evolution that would balance out in a relatively tiny amount of time in a shared environment, no doubt people with a African decent have been gifted by evolution with certain athletic advantages, I believe West Africans, especially Jamaicans have stronger hearts and more muscle twitch fibers etc and that's why they dominate certain sporting events.

I don't know why the pc brigade think the racists will hijack this conversation, the white European race don't win the gold in any event, intelligence or athleticism. Still the differences are small but I genuinely find it a very interesting topic and I wish we could have more research and debate on it.

One eyed Jack

Pochettino50 wrote: »

I think what you'll find is many people will criticise those who beileve there are differing innate levels of intelligent without concrete proof.

Meanwhile they have a belief in no difference in innate intelligence without even considering the evidence.

You’re perfectly entitled to believe what you want. However if you want to convince anyone else of your beliefs, then the onus is upon you to present evidence to support your hypothesis. I have considered the evidence both for and against the idea of intelligence based upon race, and concluded that the idea of intelligence based upon race has about as much credibility as assumptions about people’s intelligence based upon whether or not they are religious.

(that’s a load of nonsense too btw)

[Deleted User]

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet certain sports are dominated by certain peoples of origin. Not saying I believe it, but why's it so far fetched when it comes to mental capabilities too?

You may have a decent point; I'm not sure. However, the Irish dominated boxing in late 19th century America because they were the latest bunch of immigrants/at the bottom. The Italians, who arrived in the US after them, replaced their dominance in that sport by the 1920s (although 'More than one thousand Italian professional boxers went by Irish pseudonyms.') .

On the other hand, there was a protocol of recent enough vintage - John L Sullivan in the 1880s, I think - where title holders refused to allow blacks to challenge for the championship so essentially the Irish dominated the sport with the help of such barriers. What we can be certain of is that if the Irish/Italians/African-Americans had not been at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder none of them would have dominated that sport. Similarly, Jews have had a disproportionate influence in finance, tailoring, jewellery, entertainment and so forth for well-known historical reasons, not because they were particularly gifted in maths, tailoring etc. Overall, I'd tend to give these historic socio-economic factors rather than some innate genetically based 'group' ability more of a role in such differences.

Arghus

I see how this one is going to go already.

One eyed Jack

Pochettino50 wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anyone of my beliefs, I said I don't know if ethnicity influences innate intelligence. So i haven't stated a belief.

You are the one who said that innate intelligence is not influenced by ethnicity so the onus is on you to present evidence to support your hypothesis.

Ahh you’re grand thanks. I have no wish to convince you of anything. I’m perfectly happy to let you believe whatever you want in this instance.

hatrickpatrick

Such awared, accolades etc should directly relate to the quality of the relevant work and not to external factors. I'd apply this to everything from media awards to scientific ones.