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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS