Dr Watson's views on race seem very sensible.

[Lord Hillyer]

And now the old man is being hypocritically denounced by the same self-righteous establishment that continues to harm Negroes by pretending that they are the intellectual equals of other races, when the body of historical evidence and statistical data tends to persuade to the contrary.

As a liberal humanist, who generally wishes the best for everyone, I agree with Dr Watson that if a group has proven to be permanently disadvantaged, no favours are done by pretending otherwise for the sake of propelling a false paradigm.

Like Dr Watson, I don't propose institutional discrimination based on race or skin colour alone, but to avoid this issue entirely is analogous to wondering what economic prejudices have caused the special education class to be underperforming relative to the rest of the school.

 

[S.A.M.]

What do you think of Dr Watsons earlier claims?

1. Hispanic people have more libido due to sunshine
2. Fat people have less ambition
3. Mothers should abort gay babies

 

[Orleander]

What do you think of Dr Watsons earlier claims?

1. Hispanic people have more libido due to sunshine
2. Fat people have less ambition
3. Mothers should abort gay babies

I would love to see links to those. He really said that?!

 

[Atom]

No.2 is generally correct.

No.1 probably but more general than No.2.

No.3 both immoral and unlikely. Even if there were a 'gay gene' it would be totally wrong.

 

[milkweed]

I would love to see links to those. He really said that?!

1. and 2.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/11/13/MN111208.DTL

"Watson, who has a reputation as an engaging lecturer, started off describing an experiment by scientists at the University of Arizona, who injected male patients with an extract of melanin. They intended to test whether they could chemically darken the men's skin as a skin cancer protection, only to observe an unusual side effect -- the men developed sustained and unprovoked erections..."

"Then he delved into what he presented as the bad news, good news aspects of being fat, the students said. The bad news, said Watson, is that thin people are more ambitious and therefore make better workers. On the other hand, fat people may be more sexual, Watson told the assembly, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin, one of the hormones derived from pom-C..."

3.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/16/nabort16.html

"...Dr Watson says: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her..."

Regarding intelligence and Watson:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3451

"Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity."

He probably could use a publicist or good speech writer to convey his ideas in a more palatable (read politically correct) way.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would love to see links to those. He really said that?!

from here
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1673952,00.html

Not very long after James Watson finished his Nobel Prize–winning work on the structure of DNA in 1953, he started firing off some eyebrow-raising comments about his fellow man: that fat people don't get hired because they lack ambition; how sunlight (and darker skin) is the source of the "Latin lover" libido; what he found distasteful in the appearance of his female research collaborator, Rosalind Franklin.

He has been involved in eugenics for a long time. It was his prime motivation for starting the Human Genome Project (from which he was kicked out due to his tendency to get on people's nerves).

He genuinely believes all behaviour can be reduced to genes and that genetic research can create the perfect human, by eliminating "undesirable" traits. Its a little known secret that eugenics research was being carried out in Cold Spring Harbor at the time that it was being carried out in Germany during the war.

He has been a serious advocate of germline engineering of humans

Science 9 May 1997:
Vol. 276. no. 5314, p. 892
DOI: 10.1126/science.276.5314.892

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News
Genome Research: Watson Urges 'Put Hitler Behind Us'
Robert Koenig

BERLIN--In a keynote speech to a molecular medicine congress here last weekend, Nobel Prize-winner James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and a founder of the Human Genome Project, stepped carefully into the ethical minefield of German genetic research and the legacy of Nazi eugenics policies. The time has come, he said, to "put Hitler behind us." He urged Germany to focus on the great benefits that applying genome research can offer humankind and to put more resources into genetic research.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/276/5314/892

During the 1990s, after being forced out as director of the National Institutes of Health human genome research center, James Watson began explicitly advocating human germline engineering. His opening rhetorical move is to demystify, or some would say devalue, the existing human genome and the real humans that develop from them.

"I think it's complete nonsense ... saying we're sacred and should not be changed," Watson railed at a 1998 UCLA conference. "Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where that idea comes from because it's utter silliness ... To try to give it any more meaning than it deserves in some quasi-mystical way is for Steven Spielberg or somebody like that. It's just plain aura, up in the sky -- I mean, it's crap."

Watson then sought to pre-empt any scientific self-doubt: "We should be proud of what we're doing and not worry about destroying the genetic patrimony of the world, which is awfully cruel to too many people," he said. "We get a lot of pleasure from helping other people. That's what we're trying to do."

With the imperfect human genome cast as the cruel enemy and the scientist as the savior, one might assume that Watson is merely referring to curing genetic disorders. His recent public revelation of having a child of his own with a serious neurological disorder resulted in much of the media reporting that Watson's genetic engineering advocacy was motivated by this tragic personal experience. However much that may be the case, though, Watson doesn't stop at treating disease.

"And the other thing, because no one has the guts to say it," Watson informed the 1998 conferees, "if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it? What's wrong with it? Who is telling us not to it?"

And his ideas about the ethics are a little unconventional

Discussion of this agenda is something Watson is not interested in conducting, whether it's with a journalist or with Congress. "I'm afraid of asking people what they think," he admitted in 1998. "Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want ... . Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side."

Once again, treating genetic illness is as much a ploy as it is a therapeutic achievement: If Watson and friends keep our DNA trains running on time, the argument goes, then we'll let them proceed with germline genetic enhancements.

Not that Watson has ever put much stock in "ethics." At last month's NIH symposium honoring Watson, he was hailed for having proposed that 3 percent of the human genome project budget be devoted to exploring the ethical, legal and social implications of the research. No one, however, bothered to mention legal scholar Lori Andrews' witnessing of Watson explaining his real agenda in setting up a bioethics component of the genome project.

"I wanted a group that would talk and talk and never get anything done," Andrews quotes Watson as telling a meeting. "And if they did do something, I wanted them to get it wrong. I wanted as its head Shirley Temple Black."

Since re-engineering humans according to Watson's program arguably not only affects all future generations but at least theoretically raises the prospects of altering the species itself, some would claim that this is a choice for the global village of humanity to make, not individuals or even nations. Needless to say, this idea is repellant to Watson.

"I think it would be a complete disaster to try and get an international agreement," he asserted. "You end up with the lowest possible denominator. Agreement among all the different religious groups would be impossible. About all they'd agree upon is that they should allow us to breathe air. ... I think our hope is to stay away from regulation and laws whenever possible."

http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=245

 

[S.A.M.]

Not to mention what they have already done in the past at CSHL, where Watson is the major fund raiser for research.

What is today known as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory was once at the center of the American eugenics movement, when it was home to the Eugenics Record Office from 1910 to 1939, at first under the tutelage of the infamous eugenicists Charles Benedict Davenport and Harry Laughlin.

The Eugenics Record Office gathered "pedigrees" of families, noting traits such as allergies, feeble-mindedness, civic leadership and immoral behavior. The University of Virginia Health System's eugenics historical collection gives this description of Davenport and Laughlin's perspective: "Both men were members of the American Breeders Association. Their view of eugenics, as applied to human populations, drew from the agricultural model of breeding the strongest and most capable members of a species while making certain that the weakest members do no reproduce."

Laughlin drafted model legislation in 1914 that was adopted by nearly 20 states that led to the forced sterilization of thousands of men and women thought to be mentally or physically unfit. The Laughlin model law even influenced the framing of the Nazis' 1933 sterilization laws.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=james_watson_and_eugenics&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

[cat77]

social X racial issues

I wanted to see the results grouped by social classes rather than races. I am sure it would be a much greater correlation between IQ and social/economical level than race. Maybe this will show that a poor black performs as bad as a poor white in an IQ test (and actually, does it really tests how intelligent somebody is??).

Sadly, in many countries (US included), blacks have been aside the society for centuries, and the "inferiority stigma" is still there (and actually in the US I think they help to perpetuate this "stigma", but I won't get into this discussion).

But so far, what proof this gentleman has given that his theory is true? Where are the data? Clearly, bias is playing a huge role on his results... I think he is giving proof that he is going out of his mind, maybe retirement should be a consideration.

Period.

 

[S.A.M.]

But so far, what proof this gentleman has given that his theory is true? Where are the data? Clearly, bias is playing a huge role on his results... I think he is giving proof that he is going out of his mind, maybe retirement should be a consideration.

Period.

Quite

Brain Atrophy In Elderly Leads To Unintended Racism, Depression And Problem Gambling

ScienceDaily (Sep. 23, 2007) — As we age, our brains slowly shrink in volume and weight. This includes significant atrophy within the frontal lobes, the seat of executive functioning. Executive functions include planning, controlling, and inhibiting thought and behavior. In the aging population, an inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts and behavior causes several social behaviors and cognitions to go awry.
Regarding prejudice, von Hippel and colleagues found that older white adults showed greater stereotyping toward African Americans than younger white adults did, despite being more motivated to control their prejudices. Von Hippel suggests that "because prejudice toward African Americans conflicts with prevailing egalitarian beliefs, older adults attempt to inhibit their racist feelings, but fail."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921100332.htm

 

[Baron Max]

But so far, what proof this gentleman has given that his theory is true? Where are the data?

Scientific data was collected and studied for years and years, and consistently showed whites doing better in all kind of intelligence tests ....until the liberal doo-gooders shut it down because the results didn't match their liberal viewpoints!

Now it's so UN-politically correct, that no university or researcher is willing to take on the task. They'd all prefer to "believe" in equality ...sorta' like a religious belief, ya' know?

Clearly, bias is playing a huge role on his results...

And on what scientific data to you base your assertion of bias? Or are you just another liberal doo-gooder who'd prefer not to know the truth of your beliefs?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Scientific data was collected and studied for years and years, and consistently showed whites doing better in all kind of intelligence tests ....until the liberal doo-gooders shut it down because the results didn't match their liberal viewpoints!

Tests designed, conducted and administered by?

 

[Baron Max]

Tests designed, conducted and administered by?

All kinds of researchers and educators in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think they all showed that blacks were less intelligent than whites. But then the liberal doo-gooders shut it down ....and now scientists are shot at sunrise if they even mention doing such research!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

All kinds of researchers and educators in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think they all showed that blacks were less intelligent than whites. But then the liberal doo-gooders shut it down ....and now scientists are shot at sunrise if they even mention doing such research!

Baron Max

Was that the same time that the US and Europe and other countries were also involved in mass sterilisation and eugenics? The same time that the civil rights movement was going on?

 

[Baron Max]

Was that the same time that the US and Europe and other countries were also involved in mass sterilisation and eugenics? The same time that the civil rights movement was going on?

Hmm, yeah, I guess. And it was at that same time that we discovered the polio vaccine, the treatment for malaria, the cure for measles, ....and a whole slew of new scientific advances in medicine and science. So, ...what's your point, Sam???

Baron Max

 

[Zephyr]

3. Mothers should abort gay babies

Not only immoral but stupid. If there really is a 'gay gene', it would disappear rapidly in areas where gays are not pressured into marrying and having biological children. The homophobes who hold that theory hardly need to push abortions. :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm, yeah, I guess. And it was at that same time that we discovered the polio vaccine, the treatment for malaria, the cure for measles, ....and a whole slew of new scientific advances in medicine and science. So, ...what's your point, Sam???

Baron Max

Thought as much. Makes sense now why they did not emphasise the variation within group

 

[Baron Max]

Thought as much. Makes sense now why they did not emphasise the variation within group

Why do you say that, Sam? I mean, on what UNbias info do you base that assertion?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do you say that, Sam? I mean, on what UNbias info do you base that assertion?

Baron Max

The fact that the variance within group is higher than between groups and was not emphasised

 

[Baron Max]

The fact that the variance withing group is higher than between groups and was not empasised

Where do you get that info, Sam? Just saying it doesn't make it true!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Where do you get that info, Sam? Just saying it doesn't make it true!

Baron Max

look at the OP