The intersection of genetics and intelligence is an intellectual minefield. Harvard's former president Larry Summers touched off one explosion in 2005 when he tentatively suggested a genetic explanation for the difficulty his university had in recruiting female professors in math and physics. (He did not suggest that men are on average more gifted in these fields than women, but that there is some reason for believing that men are more likely than women to be found at both the upper and lower ends of the spectrum of abilities in these fields -- and Harvard, of course, only appoints people at the extreme upper end.)
Now one of the most eminent scientists of our time has blundered much more clumsily into the same minefield, with predictable results.
Last month, James Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for his description of the structure of DNA, was in London to promote his memoir, Avoid Boring People and Other Lessons From a Life in Science.
In an interview in the Sunday Times newspaper, he was quoted as saying that he was gloomy about Africa's prospects, 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."
He added that he hoped everyone was equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
Watson tried to clarify his remarks in a subsequent interview in the Independent, saying: "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism."
Watson is right that questioning this assumption is not, in itself, racist. But what does raise the suspicion of racism is propagating a negative view of the facts when that view lacks a solid scientific foundation.
That is precisely what Watson has now admitted he did.
Returning to New York, he apologized to those who had drawn from his remarks the implication that Africa is somehow "genetically inferior." This was not, he claimed, what he meant, and more importantly, "there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
The retraction came too late.
London's Science Museum canceled a lecture Watson was to give about his book and his career. Under pressure from the board, Watson resigned his position as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, one of the world's leading research and educational institutions in the biological sciences. Rockefeller University also canceled a lecture by Watson.
Putting aside the specific claims that Watson made in his Sunday Times interview, a genuinely difficult question remains: Should scientists investigate the possibility of a link between race and intelligence? Is the question too sensitive for science to explore? Is the danger of misuse of the results of such research too great?
The dangers are obvious enough. Racist stereotyping harms the prospects of many non-whites.
The concepts of intelligence and of race are less clear-cut than we often assume them to be. Scientists need to handle them carefully if they are to pose meaningful questions about the point at which these two concepts intersect.
Some say that the tools we use to measure intelligence -- IQ tests -- are themselves culturally biased. The late Stephen Gould, author of The Mismeasure of Man, dismissed cross-cultural research using IQ tests as an attempt by white men to show their superiority.
But if that was so, the attempt has backfired, because East Asians tend to score better than people of European descent.
On the other hand, it is clearly possible that differences in IQ scores between people living in impoverished countries and people living in affluent countries are affected by factors like education and nutrition in early childhood. Controlling for these variables is difficult.
Yet to say that we should not carry out research in this area is equivalent to saying that we should reject open-minded investigation of the causes of inequalities in income, education, and health between people of different racial or ethnic groups.
When faced with such major social problems, a preference for ignorance over knowledge is difficult to defend.
In explaining why it was canceling Watson's lecture, the Science Museum said that his remarks had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate."
It then struck a reasonable balance by inviting people who want to learn more about "the science behind genetics and race" to attend other upcoming events at the museum.
The speakers at these events will presumably have better credentials than Watson to discuss topics like race and intelligence.
If so, one can only hope that watching how Watson blew himself up will not discourage them from venturing into the minefield.
Finally, no matter what the facts on race and intelligence turn out to be, they will not justify racial hatred, nor disrespect for people of a different race.
Whether some are of higher or lower intelligence has nothing to do with that.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS