When DNA meets Dementia
October 17, 2007 by madhurisinha
The 1962 medicine Nobel Prize winner, one of the scientist who solved the molecular structure of DNA,
the 79 years old Dr. Watson of the Watson and Crick and Wilkins fame seems to think that
he has no hopes for the inhabitants of the African continent simply because in reality, they are not as intelligent
as ‘ours‘.( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece?token=null&offset=0).
Well, i dont know what exactly he meant by ‘ours’, is it his continent (North America),
where scientific community is chiefly made up of a mixture of various races, or may be
him alone (in that case he has forgotten how diversified Cold Spring Harbor labs are).
Personally i do not believe that a scientist of his caliber should be so prejudiced about
‘not promoting individuals at a lower level‘.
Does a higher level not need a strong lower level? What has he done to empower the Africans with
good health care and schools?
Doesn’t he know that decades of poverty, illness and wars have stripped the African continent from
individuals who can just amuse themselves with basic science research?
I thought that most winners just stop working after being awarded a Nobel Prize.
I had no idea that their brains stop too.
Madhuri: Watson is known for his controversial views. When he was born, eugenics was a legitimate branch of scientific research.
What really ought to be questioned here is the concept of ‘intelligence’ that underlies his judgement. Intelligence is a highly debated concept with strong socially constructivist elements dominating the theory of intelligence. Many scientists working in their narrow disciplines never look beyond their own little petri-dishes. Howard Gardner undertook a bold interdisciplinary approach to intelligence and it is his works that, although disputed and hotly debated like all else, may be less ‘racist’ in their presentation.
He is speaking at the Cambridge Union on Tuesday evening. For the same reasons as Ahmadinejad and Le Pen should be heard, I think he should be heard too.
His views are hypotheses. Instead of getting het up, those who can should take it on themselves to do empirical work to examine if those are true or simply the products of his prejudice.
“He” is speaking meant Watson is, not Gardner. Sorry..
Shefaly,
Being a scientist he should know that a hypothesis without experimental proof is nothing but a musing.
He had previously commented about women having rights to abort if their fetus if it had homosexual tendencies later on in life.
He is just a bag of prejudices.
Also the fact that he and Wilkins did not pay their dues to Rosalind Franklin, really angers me a lot.
I just hope he can explain himself at the Cambridge Union talk, that is if it is not canceled like his others talks in UK.
Will it be available online?
Thanks
Madhuri: They worked in an era when the behaviours the men engaged in were passé. Interpreting everything by modern day’s standards and norms will of course make it look awful.
What is _truly_ awful that some science PhDs in the UK still think it is ok to ill-treat their female colleagues. Now that these behaviours are not acceptable, clearly this is not taken lightly. And _these_ men need a lobotomy; and as Calvin would say: “Let me bring a saw!”
Interpretation of the past with modern lenses is one of the flaws that history can suffer from. It is readers who need to remember that…
Yes, he is a bigot. What can we do about it? He was, of the duo, also the limelight seeker and he could not tolerate it when a bigger limelight seek (Craig Venter) came along.
If he really knows Cambridge Union he will not say any such stuff there or better, cancel his talk. People are driven to tears by the audiences sometimes if they do not do their homework properly. Which is why they only invite tough nuts (pun not intended) to speak.
I do not think it will be online but I will check.
Shefaly- You are right. Science has become a popularity contest.
I understand that he is from a bygone era, but he chairs committees, that make important decisions for science and people of today.
We tend to expect a lot from individuals who are brilliant and who have achieved something in their life…but actually they can have a lot of ignoble ideas. Their brilliance does not make them immune.
I have written an article on Intelligence on my blog and discussed Gardner’s theory. Intelligence just happens to be multi-faceted but there are some so-called ‘brilliant’ people who cannot see it. It’s like they measure IQ by the standards of the kind of IQ they have.
[...] and fellow blogger Madhuri, who is a biology PhD and a post-doctoral researcher in the US, has also taken exception to this remark by a scientist held in high regard, even as his shortcomings as a person [...]
Hi Nita,
Yes it just goes to prove that qualifications have nothing to do with knowledge.
Also Science is not immune to
‘the right time, right place’ opportunities to stardom.
Yes Intelligence is a very debatable issue.
He should perhaps do research on which part of the DNA can determine if someone is a bigot. He can use himself as the first test case.
Although I think this is just promotional stuff for his book. He does not want people to avoid him. So he says something controversial so that he does not come as a bore. He probably thinks A boor is better than a bore” But then maybe his association with Crick has made him a Crack/kirukku (tamil word). Sorry for the bad puns
Hi Arun,
Yes he shouldn’t stoop to such levels to promote his book.
Also comments like that can harm the science of genetics,
to a non geneticist, his comments can reduce this field to a mere hocus pocus.
But as Shefaly suggests in #6, we should move on keeping in mind that scientists can also be prejudiced on a personal level.
Thanks
[...] it may be easy to dismiss Watson’s remarks last week as the ravings of an elderly man with dementia, this is too easy. What’s needed is a more critical view of the way science, or perhaps more [...]