“You what, son? You can’t say that!”
“You what, son? You can’t say that!”
The recent controversial comments made by American geneticist and DNA pioneer, Dr James Watson, have led to accusations of racism, the cancellation of his UK book tour, and most recently, his resignation as Chancellor of Cold Springs Harbour Laboratory in New York.
On 25 October, the laboratory announced he would be retiring after nearly 40 years at the research institute.
Previously, the Science Museum in London cancelled a sold-out talk Watson was due to give, stating that his comments had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate”. Watson was forced to cancel the tour to promote his new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, and returned to America.
The controversial comments leading up to these events were made in an interview Watson gave for The Sunday Times. In it he said he was “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”.
He said that he hopes everyone is equal, but that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
Speaking to Felix, Professor Ian Owens, Head of the Division of Biology in Imperial’s Faculty of Natural Sciences, said that comments of the kind made by Watson were unsupported by scientific evidence.
He explained that the concept of race is complex. Traditionally, scientists have viewed it as an artificial construct without a genetic basis, used as a convenient label to crudely categorise populations. More recent data has suggested that some genetic lineages can be identified, and that these perhaps vary according to geography, but it remains unclear what relation, if any, this has to skin colour.
According to Professor Owens, intelligence is similarly problematic. Environmental factors are known to play a significant role. Furthermore, there is no one type of intelligence, making objective measuring difficult, if not impossible. If genes determining intelligence can be identified, they are likely to be many, with complex relations, and as yet research is extremely limited. Therefore, to link these two areas in this fashion is scientifically unjustified. Watson has since apologised for his comments.
For those interested in finding out more about the area, Professor Owens recommends Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as an excellent starting point.
The Scientist, or the Science? Controversy and prejudice in academia
Whenever a scientist or prominent academic makes any comment on a sensitive subject there is always a flurry of discussion and comment. In media circles, the perceived weight of a scientist’s view immediately opens up their statement to intense scrutiny. Harvard president Lawrence Summers, and his infamous 2005 speech on the differences between male and female abilities, is a classic example of ill-advised personal opinion, and the negative impact that it can have on a well-respected institute.
Whatever Dr Watson said (he has since suggested that he was misquoted), the casual manner in which he addressed a subject which remains controversial, even on a scientific level, should show any academic the importance of choosing their words carefully. The subject of race is especially difficult, even genetically speaking: a fact which should have been apparent to a biological scientist of such reputation.
The divide between professional and personal opinion is an impossible problem. When does a scientific hypothesis become influenced by personal views? Should ideas be kept private, or exposed so that people can put your work into context? The difficulties encountered by a scientist entering into any kind of political, or unscientific, debate renders many subjects taboo.
Historically, the personal opinions of scientists are responsible for some horrific events, the most obvious of which is the Holocaust; Nazi scientists, who set out to prove there was a scientific basis for Aryan philosophies, carried out some of the worst atrocities, and contributed to the “validity” of the Reich.
Science remains a powerful political tool, and the blurring of lines between science and opinion can lead to unforeseen and far-reaching consequences.
Whether fair or not, scientists must always be aware that any opinion or statement that is aired will be used to put their work in context, and will influence their reception in many important ways.
Comments