egafd.com

jj wrote:

> But may I also remind you and his accusers of the fundamental
> precept that
> a man is innocent until proved guilty?
> 4WIW, I think the guy's an idiot- but that shouldn't deny him
> the right
> to a fair trial.

I don't think the guy's an idiot - he has a Nobel prize in the sciences, for goodness sake.

Thing is: if you make comments that are underpinned with your authority as a scientist then you better be able to back them up with concrete scientific evidence, especially when you make claims that are politically delicate. Otherwise you bring the discipline into disrepute.

Now, there are a number of studies that show e.g. correlations between race and IQ-style intelligence, and if I recall these correctly, Blacks do particularly badly and East-Asians particularly well in this respect. Problem is: on their own this data gives a statistical connection only. A causal connection, linking this to particular genes is not known (yet) - and in any race you find dumbos as well as smartypants, and thus the statistical link may be caused by different socio-economic contexts. For example, following the last census in the UK (recently there was a Channel 4 programme about it) you'll find Indians doing much better at school than Pakistanis, and it is not very likely that that was due to genetic differences.

For a geneticist that should mean: shut up about the issue! The existing data is more sociological than biological, so it's up to sociologist to debate the matter for now. If, as a geneticist, you do find a genetic link then that's a different matter.

looks like he's backtracking now after having his science discredited

I don't think Professor Watson's Nobel Prize is particularly relevant here- he elucidated the structure of DNA as a student of Professor Francis Crick during the 1950s at Cambridge. Perhaps if his prize was in genetic analysis of IQ differences things would be different.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know how much of the genome contributes to "intelligence". We DO know that there are about 5 genes that control skin colour on 3 different chromosomes. The likelihood that there is a true genetic correlation between the two is highly remote.

So is the freedom of speech argument, that's so often parroted relevant here? No. We're always so keen to talk about human rights and the rights of an individual, but you can't trample over the rights of others to get your own. For the Science Museum to be seen to endorse Professor Watson's views would be disastrous. How many racist bigots would have had their views endorsed by one of the premier scientific institutions in the world had this gone ahead?

I for one applaud the Science Museum for cancelling the talk, and Cold Spring Harbor for suspending Watson to show this kind of rash, damaging, unsubstantiated ranting is not acceptable.

diplodocus wrote:

> looks like he's backtracking now after having his science
> discredited


As very few people seem to have noticed, he wasn't even expressing his own opinion or his science.

He was simply referring to testing which has been carried out, and verified, many, many times, by others.

The same testing has shown that Asians tend to be smarter than us. It's nothing that I become outraged about; it's just a fact so let's get on with it.

A good cross-comparison of evidence [which is what hadn't been done in
the first place !!]
Nice, one, my Tasmanian colleague, for clarifying the issues a little:- )

IQ tests? Totally subjective, IMO- should have been abandoned years ago.

mart wrote:
> No, I'm not asserting that Wiki is 100% accurate.
Mrs JJ has posted several emendments thereupon.

> Honesty doesn't seem to pay on this forum.
I'm not doubting your personal honesty; I have no data except my past
experience of your posts- and to be honest the odd one has been biased
in favour of your particular bonnet-bee at the time. As have some of mine.
Wiki is more subject to the personal agendas of its compilers than other
large databases- that's all.