Recently, James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure, has come under fire for saying, in an interview with the Sunday Times for his new book Avoid Boring People and Other Lessons from a Life in Science, that 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.” It was a bad move considering that he was speaking to a member of the press, not to mention offensive and impolitic. But all the same, I intend to defend Watson. I ask, why must Watson be PC?
Firstly, why now? Watson is no stranger to controversy, having been deemed a misogynist for his comments on Rosalind Franklin, whose unpublished work with x-ray crystal diffraction made Watson and Crick’s famous discovery possible. He’s argued that thin people are inherently dissatisfied and therefore more ambitious, that there is a correlation between skin pigmentation and libido, and that women who are told they will give birth to a homosexual child should be able to abort the child. Watson has expressed numerous opinions that have been called insane. But scientific progress needs insane ideas. Insane ideas have a funny way of developing into theories that explain previously inexplicable phenomena.
However, more at the heart of the matter is this: how concerned should someone whose job is to seek the truth be with sparing people from offense? Unless I missed the memo, willing something to not exist on the grounds of it being distasteful is not terribly effective.
The point I’m getting at is that science is separate from politics, and should be kept separate. What came of the Soviet Union branding genetics as a “bourgeois pseudoscience” since it undermined egalitarian ideals and therefore existed solely to suppress the proletariat? Uncle Joe discovered that another good method of suppressing the proletariat is to starve them. What came of Deutsche Physik reviling relativity because Einstein was a Jew? The Germans ignored the science that ended World War Two. If, and I cannot emphasize it enough, if evidence surfaces supporting Watson’s claim, which could happen (different environments select for different traits. Ask a biologist if you don’t believe me), should we bury it under an avalanche of political correctness? If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Do Watson’s embarrassing antiquated opinions render over sixty years of scientific experience null and void?
I do not agree with the comment that got Watson into this mess, though I understand why he said it. Though I think it was idiotic to say it, I will fight to the death for peoples’ right to make idiots of themselves in search of the truth.
Leave a Reply