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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under