Not So Elementary, Dear Watson

A few weeks ago, Nobel Prize Laureate and co-discoverer of DNA Dr. James Watson blew through town, reflecting on how he's stayed away from stupid people, then delving into his now-customary slurry of sexist patois. Apparently he waited until he got across the pond to London to pull out the big guns:

The 79-year-old geneticist 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 he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

If you can dig through the “That’s racist!” aspect of the whole thing (and believe us, Seattlest's first reaction was "What the #*%&*$ACGT?!?!"), what Watson should be accused of foremost is being a horrible scientist.

What's really at play here is how we view the role of genetics in biology and behavior. We want to find genetic causes for physical or psychological outcomes that are objectively unpleasant: developmental disabilities (e.g. mental retardation), diseases (Parkinson’s or Huntington’s, breast cancer), or alcoholism and drug addiction. The genetic precursor gives us hope and allows us the strange comfort that it’s somehow not our "fault" as individuals: it was our genes, we just inherited those! We did not wish this on ourselves, we collectively sigh, and hope it might be something that can someday be fixed with drugs or genetic therapy.

But what about the murkier territory of differences between people that are socially or politically charged, such as the “gay gene”? At what point do we suddenly stop wanting to attribute genetic causes for behavior? The genetic explanation for human phenomena is a double-edged Occam’s razor: it provides potential reasons why something is the way it is, which could be a positive thing (being gay is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of biology) or a seemingly ugly thing (people of different races have evolved to have different mental capacities). And then you can't help but delve into the territory of what might be the “cure”?

Before you accuse Seattlest of giving in to his logic, Watson’s comments speak volumes to us about his standing as a scientist at this point. In their golden years, many scientists start wandering off the map: resolute atheists find God, staunch biologists start getting woo-woo with Vitamin C theories, and most just finally feel relieved of their duties to stick to the facts, and start saying whatever the fuck they want. Watson certainly did that.

But the truth of the matter is, the debate about genetic influences on intelligence is still raging (and not in a way that some will try to convince you that the climate change "debate" is raging). It remains largely unknown whether genetic factors contribute to the documented differences in performance on intelligence tests across a variety of races and ethnic groups. While intuitively (we're no geneticists), Seattlest lands in the socio-economic/environmental camp when it comes to explaining the fact that certain races perform poorer than others, we’re well aware of the debate, and how painful the sting of that razor could be if someday the evidence landed in favor of a few strands of DNA. But Watson has already passed judgment, and then extended his theory into the domain of saying, essentially, odds are black employees will perform more poorly and you should ignore them if they do. That’s where bad science gets you.

Update: Cold Springs Harbor has apparently suspended Dr. Watson from his post there. Now we understand better why he seemed so amazingly conciliatory in his response (thanks to BigGreenFrank for linking to it in the comments). And now people are calling for boycotts and canceled talks? How sad. We grant that his comments (if he was indeed accurately quoted) were inflammatory, but our culture has moved beyond taking an opportunity for discussing such things to immediate disciplinary action. We think it would be far better for Watson to be able to defend his comments in a public forum than be shamed into silence.