Comment (51)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiThere’s more to life than discovering DNA
Remarks by Nobel laureate James Watson have proved that there are worse crimes than being boring. Like being a eugenicist, for instance.
With their buzz, gossip, and glamour,
Nobel Prizes are a lot like the Oscars. And if ever there were a Nobel for entertainment, James Watson would surely win it. He shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA, and since then he has seldom been far from the headlines. To mix metaphors, he is both a sharp tongue and a loose cannon.
At the age of 79, Watson has written a book, Avoid Boring People: And Other Lessons from a Life in Science, and embarked upon a publicity tour in Britain. This began with unequivocal proof that he is not a boring person. He had a long lunch with a contributor to the London Sunday Times, who winkled out of him some astonishingly crude racist remarks.
Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe's profile of Watson included this unnerving paragraph:
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".
There was an immediate uproar. The Science Museum in London cancelled a sell-out appearance by Watson, claiming that he had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate". A chastened Watson apologised (at a book launch, suggesting that loose lips cannot sink promotional trips): "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Watson is no stranger to controversy and, apart from the apology, the latest brouhaha has unfolded according to a very tattered script. He is notorious for supporting selective abortions; denigrating a deceased female colleague whose work helped him to win his Nobel, Rosalind Franklin; sexist remarks; contempt for "stupid people"; support for human reproductive cloning; scorn for fat people; and on and on.
For years, his penchant for offense and denigration has made him a kind of scientific Mister Bean whose audiences squirmed between giggling and shrieking. In 2000, he told students at Berkeley that there was a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and libido. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient." Funny, perhaps, but insensitive. Boorish even. Perhaps he won his Nobel too young -- he was only 34 -- before he had learned tact and humility.
Now that he has been accused of outright racism, his colleagues are diving for cover. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where Watson is Chancellor, issued a press release saying that the staff "vehemently disagree with these statements and are bewildered and saddened if he indeed made such comments".
They should have been bewildered and saddened long ago, because Watson's remarks are a direct consequence of a lifelong commitment to genetic determinism. Reducing the essence of what it means to be human to something quantifiable means that we can be distinguished from other life forms only by our DNA. Since we share about 99.4 per cent with chimpanzees (the figures vary), there are a lot of people who believe that we are only 0.6% superior to them. By the same token, humans are distinguished from other humans mainly by their IQs. No doubt what he really meant to say was that no matter what colour they are, people with low IQs are genetically inferior.
Any thorough-going materialist will find it difficult to resist the temptation to classify people into inferior and superior types. One of Watson's bon mots is "People say we are playing God. My answer is: If we don't play God, who will?" He once told a British documentary, for instance, "If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease... so I'd like to get rid of that". He also has plans for the fair sex: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it'd be great."
This is one reason why racism persists -- not despite the progress of modern science but because of it. Like polio, its eradication is announced regularly, only to flare up in the most unexpected places. And as long as human beings are regarded as mere bundles of chemical reactions, it will happen over and over again. Only if we acknowledge that human beings have a transcendental dimension, which is the unquantifiable source of their dignity, is there a firm foundation for fundamental equality and universal brotherhood.
Watson is not a old-fashioned racist and he is probably genuinely sorry for having offended people by his clumsy remarks. However, he is something more dangerous than a racist: a eugenicist. His work with Francis Crick (and Rosalind Franklin) has opened up vast new territories for science and medicine, and for this all of us are in his debt. But his dream of a super-race of "transhumans", people who are genetically engineered to be as smart as he is and faster, leaner and more beautiful than the rest of us is repellent.
It is commonly thought that eugenics died out with the Nazis. It didn't. It's alive and well amongst scientists who believe that human beings are just machines for transmitting DNA. It is this side of Watson's thinking which should have bewildered and saddened his colleagues years ago. The scary thing is that they have only repudiated it now.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
Fr. Gearhart points out that a purely mechanical view of evolution precludes the possibility of free will. We would all be, as Mr. Burgess says, clockwork oranges. That would be difficult for me. Without free will life simply wouldn’t be worth the bother. When I was younger I was haunted by the idea that free will was an illusion. I have come to accept that, like Liza Doolittle, we each have our own spark of divine fire.
I found some of what you wrote confusing. You seem to imply, for instance, that equality is a naive concept.
When you talk about immoral sexual lifestyles I assume, from reading things you’ve written elsewhere, that your talking about homosexuality. Don’t you think, since homosexuality is neither a choice nor a disease, that bringing it up constantly in the context of immorality is just bad manners? Doesn’t the Parable of the Prostitute prohibit casting stones?
Eugenics is an unfortunate result of Darwinism. If random selection can produce us then what can selective breeding do?
The problem is, whose doing the selecting? The only logical solution is that no one should. The Nazis were the worst offenders but here in the United States many thousands of people were sterilized because they were considered inferior.
Crimes were committed on the nurture side of the argument as well. Gypsy children were taken from their parents in Switzerland and placed with Swiss families. In Australia, mixed race children were taken from their families and placed in boarding schools. This was chronicled in the book ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’.
In the end, people who espouse the views that Watson did are telling us more about themselves than, perhaps, they intend to.
It would be a great pity if people got the impression that the value of a human being consists in their genetic endowment, or even if they got the impression that genetic diversity is an absolute value. The value of a human being consists in their transcendent nature, something that everyone shares from the moment of conception. It doesn’t matter whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Jew or Greek, male or female, Republican or Democrat, brilliant or stupid, innocent or guilty, good or evil, you are still valuable in the eyes of God. No one should be “selectively aborted.” In a society that can afford to keep a murderer under lock and key, no one should be put to death for any crime.
To suggest that abortion is “o.k.” but “selective abortion” isn’t is to advance the most contemptible form of special pleading, whether Darwinian or not.
TLDTS. I am not sure that your position is entirely consistent.
In particular, the following statement deserves some consideration - “being heterosexual is not better than being gay”.
Are we judging this subjectively or objectively? You suggest that there is some element of objectivity involved, otherwise you could not state that it is “unethical” to selectively abort a unborn child with a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Clearly, if it was nothing more than a matter of personal taste, then you could not call aborting such a child “unethical”.
Personally, I would agree that the respect we should show for each other and the value we place on each human life should be equal, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.
However, the same applies for the fast and the slow, the healthy and unhealthy (broad though those groupings be).
On this basis, when you say “for the most part, being fast is better than being slow, being smart is better than being dumb” I can only assume that you are referring to the advantage of being fast, smart and healty in a competitive society. This analysis, at its core, is very Darwinian and does not support your contention but, rather, supports the opposing position, ie that heterosexuality is better than being gay - a larger pool of potential mates and the ability to reproduce a naturally related genetic family.
To That Lesbian Down The Street,
I find it interesting that you would post your email address on this site and then follow it by this next sentence: “That said, I’m sure everyone else here is mature enough not to go throwing random crap at me^^;;”
In some way, I guess it shows your confidence in the quality of the people who use this site. And I sincerely hope that you don`t get “random crap” thrown at you. Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that you have perhaps left yourself open to some form of internet abuse, given that this is a public site, open to virtually any person in the world who has internet access. Again, I sincerely hope that doesn`t occur. Perhaps my view of human nature is a little sinister at times.
I`ve been reading your posts with interest, as I`m a great fan of Mercatornet and enjoy forming my own opinions and reading the opinions of others.
I think one sentence that you used in your response post to Joe is absolutely crucial to understanding Michael Cook`s article about the discover of DNA, and that was this one: “Therefore, yes, it’d be very unethical to selectively abort a gay fetus, if such a thing exists.” You`ve hit the nail on the head here. Surely, every fetus has the right to be born, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or even IQ. Therefore, surely, every fetus should be given the opportunity to stamp her or his DNA mark upon the world. It seems only natural to me.
Joe^^
What you’ve suggested would be about as ‘OK’ as selectively aborting all heterosexual children^^;;
See, for the most part, being fast is better than being slow, being smart is better than being dumb, etc etc.
But being heterosexual is -not- better than being gay^^ I’m sure this community is one that still debates that, but debate or not, it’s the truth.
Therefore, yes, it’d be very unethical to selectively abort a gay fetus, if such a thing exists.
(If you want my theory on this in a nutshell, I think there’s a gene that endows a prepubescent with a -chance- at being homosexual. Triggered randomly or by an event, I can’t be sure. This theory, I think, explains a lot of the ‘identical-twin’ studies, as well as the way homosexuality has propogated itself through the evolution of mankind; humans can carry a dormant version of the ‘gay gene(s)’, and pass it on to their offspring. Back on track now.)
Francis^^
Thank you for clearing yourself up^^ I guess I misinterpreted some things.
Yeah, those personality traits you mentioned fall mainly under the ‘nurture’ category, which i why geneticists don’t talk too much about them. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was still some link between kindness and genetic triggers^^
In any case, thank you for taking your time in explaining things to me, and not becoming overtly hostile like some are inclined to do^^;;
Have a nice day, all^-^
Now the comments are starting to get serious, and even a few intelligent observations have been made. I’m glad that a few people are getting hip to the fact that strict evolutionism is an inherently reductionist proposition, denying the transcendent nature of the human person (and, even if without realizing so, denying the reality of free will), because it is founded on a purely material conception of reality. I’m also glad that a few people are aware that there will inevitably be a split between materialists who favor an evolutionist perspective, such as our esteemed Dr., and materialists who favor a naive political correctness, where everyone is equal (except the unborn, of course), and we all have the inherent right to do anything we please, except declare someone’s sexual life style to be immoral.
That said, I would like to point out that even the science of intelligence is still in its infancy. We fail to recognize the reality of the manifold nature of intelligence. The primary reason people of African descent do not do well on IQ tests is not that they are unintelligent, but that their intelligence emphasizes gifts that are not tested on standard IQ tests, and deemphasizes some gifts that are tested. IQ is not a single dimensional quantity. There is a secondary reason African Americans do poorly on IQ tests, of course, and that is the fact that so many are raised in impoverished families.
One can point to differences among the races (and, even that concept is not as simple as we used to think) in every category of intellectual ability. We can also find significant aggregate differences between men and women. It would be more than uncharitable, however, to declare that this means one group is inherently more intelligent than another. It would also be showing ignorance regarding the nature of intelligence to do so. Such a declaration would be like declaring that apples are better than oranges, without providing any further instrumental context.
We should all be grateful to James Watson for widely-publicising the fact that many have long known, but has so far been hushed up: that if you are committed to evolution(ism) then you are absolutely of necessity a racist. Superior/inferior species, and races, are ineluctably an integral part of the package; wanting to believe in evolution(ism), and wanting to deny racism (or that you are a racist) is wanting to have your cake and eat it, your “dime and your donut”. People who have studied the origin and development of evolution(ism), such as Weikart, know that racism, and eugenics, were an inevitable, necessary outcome of Darwinism, and, indeed, that Charles Darwin himself prefigured them; he was, in effect, the grandfather of the Holacaust. Rightly, therefore, does Michael Cook say “ ... racism persists—not despite the progress of modern science but because of it”. As long as science/our society are committed to materialism, human life will continue to be valued lower and lower.
One thing: I thought the whole “IQ” business had been discredited years ago? Perhaps, like eugenics, it’s back with avengeance.
For TLDS: in no way was I trying to be irksome or to make light of your comments. That would have been discourteous. You made an important point. I wanted to make a further point for wider discussion: what are the qualities that ultimately matter? You are quite right to say these lists are not mutually exclusive.
However, when bio/technologists enter the discussion they always seize on the ‘smart, strong, swift and healthy’ attributes. They never, to my knowledge, mention kindness, generosity etc. This, I suppose, is because is because these latter attributes are taught; they are not innate qualities like intelligence and physique.
In this question the Nazis do lurk in the background for all of us. They wanted to create an ‘Ubermensch’ or master-race of blonde, beautiful Aryans. We all know why this idea is wrong. The ‘bricks’ of our personhood are our genes; the ‘mortar’ are the qualities that show our humanity - such as the list I enumerated.
So don’t take my comment as mocking you. It is deeply serious and I would like other commentators to share their reflections.
did you hear that they’ve made a nobel prize for the scarecrow?
apparently he’s “outstanding in his field”
TLDTS - Can I take this one step further and get your thoughts on genetics and homosexuality?
If genetics is “mostly-deciding”, “a powerful force, one that should try to be harnessed as soon as possible” would it be wrong for humanity to harness this force and make future generations “smart, strong, fast, healthy” and less gay?
If intelligence is a quality which it is OK it genetically alter, what about sexual orientation? If a ‘gay gene’ or genes are identified, would it be OK to screen for and selectively abort all unborn gay children?
Laura^^
I’m very happy that you like my posts^^ If you’d like to chit-chat, I’m reachable at ^^ (I’d contact you, except that there’s no viable way to do such on this site^^;;)
That said, I’m sure everyone else here is mature enough not to go throwing random crap at me^^;;
And, just for the purposes of not spamming up the posting area, I’ll do my best to throw some more insight into the discussion.
Francis^^
I know you’re not trying to bug me or anything, but your remark was a bit irking; just sorta copying my words and making light of them.
“What is more important: to be smart, strong, fast and healthy or to be kind, generous, forgiving and faithful?”
Well… when have I ever said that they were mutually exclusive? Both of them are very important, and I wonder why it’s falling on me to decide the very difficult question of which is -more- so.
I’m really interested in getting along, just so you know^^;;
Andrew^^
Very well said, and it doesn’t get said enough: the people the world looks up to need to take extra care of their morality. They’re in such a position to change the viewpoints of others, and it’s unfortunate when they misuse that influence.
Have a nice day, all^^
As a former student in molecular biology, I should say that James Watson is an icon. Hence, he has not only the prestige, but the influence as many, many science students and scientists look up to him. But academic excellence is one thing, and good character is another. He should do good with the latter for him to become a model worth emulating.
Not infrequently I find myself surprised at how much coverage the Nobel Laureates receive, especially years, even decades, after their work or discoveries have passed. James Watson has spoken “ideas” that are surreal it seems from day one after receiving the Nobel. Despite his wanderings into areas where he knows not what he speaks we give the platform to such ramblings. It’s quite easy say “Nobody believes such things”. Yet unfortunately, there are those who take these ramblings as if they were intelligent science when the ideas belong back on the dung hill from whence they came.
Another great article! It just shows what ignorance of the “trancendental dimension” can do. How ultimately pointless, crude and without class we all would become. We would lose even the most basic civility in dealing with others. I don’t want to say that as a pharisee - I feel deeply sorry for people with an impoverished world view. I was like that myself. Thanks for pointing to the truth.
Page 3 of 4 : « First < 1 2 3 4 >