James Watson Steps Down

Ted Williams, seeing as you do not understand science maybe you should not debate it. There is plentiful evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, much of which has been seen wince Watson, Crick, and Francis' (yes, she needs to be included) discovery of DNA. When populations are separated, generally geographically, mutations in DNA continue. If these changes are advantageous to the individual in their environment they have a greater chance of reproducing and passing them on. So, no, there is no time line for when changes are made and an organism can only adapt to the current environment.

Until more people are well educated in science and truly understand evolution it would do them well to stop asserting incorrect assumptions. The word fitness does not mean the same thing in laymen's terms that it does in evolutionary science. Learning the difference between the two is a great starting point in your learnings on evolution.

Watson is and has been a phenomenal scientist over the course of his career. It's a shame that politics have forced him out of a field that needs him so badly.

Lillian...You make this statement "God created man from dust." But yet you call Dr. Watson narrow minded. Interesting.

As I see it. We, in this country have the right to say and print most everything with impunity. But this does not mean anything even slightly bad about Africa, Africans or Afro-Americans. Political correctness will not allow any deviation from the straight and narrow. Political correctness will take your job, your career, your reputation and anything else they wish to take.

There are no genetic studies proving the intelligence of one group over another.

You people need to read. Start with this: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. It is a good introduction into the history of human societies. That will introduce you to a more useful/grounded debate.

To change the subject and raise what I believe is a very important issue which is highlighted by this statement from Dr. Watson: "Cancer, then an intellectual black box, now, in part because of research at the Laboratory, is almost full lit. Though important facts remain undiscovered, there is no reason why they should not soon be found." In other words, the "cure" for cancer is just around the corner, primarily because we now know so much about the genetic and biomolecular nature of cancer. If this is true (this kind of remark has been made countless times in the past), then we should have the cure already. The medical/biological research community has spent over a hundred years and trillions of dollars on cancer research, the publications of which would probably reach to the moon and back. But most "cures" are in reality simply treatments based on chemical, radiological or surgical assaults on the body that either leave the patient with severe problems and/or forestall the inevitable a few months/years. The fallacy which the great Dr. Watson and most in academia embrace is that an understanding of the nature of cancer and cancerous cell biology/biochemistry will lead them to a cure. I would say that this is a very remote possibility. For example, if Fleming had not had been a fairly careless lab technician and that bit of mold had not landed in the Petri dish of bacteria, we would not have antibiotics! It is simply preposterous to believe that man could deduce the structure of any antibiotic from scratch, even considering all that we know now about the biology/chemistry of bacteria. Most discovery, contrary to what most believe, actually proceeds from observation and experiment (and mistakes) and not from theory. What we really need to find a cure for cancer is less theory and more brute force: simply trying whatever compounds we can find, natural and synthetic, for anti-tumor effects. Not very glamorous but people with cancer don't need glamor or theory or publications. They need a solution. We need more of a "Thomas Edison" approach to cancer research than a "Thomas Watson" approach. Theory has a place but it needs to take a back seat to experimentation and observation and trial and error!

if his studies are correct then I would have flunked 7th grade.It was a black friend who saved my sorry white no math butt.Yes,there are DIFFERENCES in the DNA of various races,that's obvious,but...Just my 2 cents worth

BillyBob,

Knowing more about genetics, molecular biology, immunology, and the mechanisms of cancer are what allow us to test all of these things. By knowing certain markers for anti-cancer effectiveness we can screen thousands of substances for those marker and test with more focused methods. There are too many drugs, supplements, plants, and other things to just throw at patients. Can you justify performing clinical trials on dying cancer patients using a substance that has no proven efficacy? Countless thousands would die through your method of "research."

And please do not get indignant about not yet having a cute. Hundreds of thousands of people are managing their cancers as a chronic disease and are not dead because of strides research, be it clinical, information, or translational, have made. Ask a cancer survivor whether they would rather be dead or have endured many surgeries, the affects of chemotherapy, and removal of body parts. There are a scant few who would rather be dead.

Everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. So what if group A is smarter in math than group B. That does not mean that everyone in group A is smarter than everyone in group B. Neither does it mean that the smartest person in group A is better at math than the smartest person in group B. Also, the difference between the two groups is probably only one half a percent difference. Big deal, who can't overcome one half a percent if they wanted to. And Math, just like IQ tests, are limited in what they test. Maybe the people in group B are three fifths a percent smarter than group A in language skills. The scientist should have not said anything because race is a hot topic. Also, I will wager the difference he detected was extremely small, leaves out important aspects of intelligence, and had a sample of people who do not represent each one of us, regardless of our skin color. Let's hope that the human race succeeds because it sees the great value of our diversity and not fail because we are easily distracted and enraged about insignificant details.

This is a good discussion. Not all agree but it is insightful and conversed with intelligence.

The lurking horns of a dilemna:
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

Actually he should have included "seeds" and east-west land mass, i.e, Europe/Asia vs. north-south, i.e., Africa and S. America in his title which actually were Diamond's determinative factors.

Even if one accepts all or most of his conclusions, they are confronted with the fact that the two east/west continents progressed SLOWER than the n/s continents.

Thus, we are back to the problem that Africa (its inhabitants - not the land mass) has progressed less than the east/west continents. If Diamond's analysis is correct (and he is anything but a racist) that leaves us confronting a scientific finding which is totally politically incorrect and dare not be espoused.

Oh, and intelligence is rarely if ever is synonoymous with morality but it sure do help to be smart.

What James Watson said was totally racist. This may have been his parting contribution to slow down the eventual death of the concept of "White Supremacy." Like so many others who possess all sorts of degrees, when it comes to acknowledging the accomplishments of people of color, these so called genuises become blabbering idiots when confronted with the obvious. Africans inferior to who? The oldest stone carving on the planet along the Nile River at Giza, "the Sphinx," isn't the face of Jerry Lewis you know. That monarch is an African. Even with his nose and lips gone, any one can see that. Inferior to who? An African people called Moors went into Europe in the 7th Century A.D.and occupied all of Spain, Portugal and parts of Italy and France for nearly 800 years. They brought with them all the sciences of ancient Africa and from the Halls the the Univeristy of Sankore at "Timbutu." It was only after their occupation that Europe began oceanonic travel (remember, they thought the world was flat), paved and lighted streets, universities, arts and other cultural advancements that they atributed to the "Renaissance." Why do you think Columbus was but a handfull of people in Europe who knew the world was round? Inferior to who? The Greeks traveled by the thousands from the 4th century B.C. to the 1st century B.C. to Africa to be educated by the Blacks and they stated it in their written works. Everything mentioned above can be proven. The James Watsons of the world know it but continue to hold on to the last vestages of white supremacy created to make white people feel good upon finding out about the great wall of China, the massive pyramids of Teotihucan, the stone City of Monomatopa and other technologies around the world when there was no Europe, no France, no Germany, etc. It is unfortunate that one has to break it down like this but it is necessary bcause you get tired of reading insensitive material most of which are in our schools highlighing the achievements of Europe and the Western World while writing that Africans, Indians, Aborigines, etc just sat on a rock for millions of years waiting for the white man to deliver them from their savagery. People, get a life and read history and prove me wrong!

Africans inferior to who?
Inferior to who?

s/b Africans inferior to WHOM?
Inferior to WHOM?

Sorry, I can't help it.

Dr. Watson is NOT a bigot, and he should never have given in to the sort of Political Correctness that lead to his resignation.

There are indeed differences in racial makeup which we can all see: darker or lighter skin, greater or lesser height, color of hair, strength of teeth, shape and color of eyes - the list goes on and on. Why then should we be surprised when it is pointed out that testing (even if flawed) and both experience and simple observation shows that there are differences in intellectual achievement between groups that have evolved in completely different environments?

Someone mentioned in a previous post the Europeans left their "barren lands" to come to Africa and conquer that "paradise". Ignoring for the moment the constant internecine warfare on the African continent, doesn't this comment by itself say something about the differences in intellectual achievement? One people evolved in a paradise and another in a much less favored land; why should we be surprised (or offended) when it is pointed out that those from the lesser endowed land, who had to work so much harder for their survival, would end up with more and better implements for coping with radical environments than those from the favored land? And if the answer to that seems obvious, as it must, why would we argue so fiercely that they intellectual achievements are not the greater? Just as Africans evolved a dark skin to cope with the harsh African sun, so those from the north evolved a higher intellect to deal with the challenges of an environment that rapidly changed from one extreme to the other?

It is no longer Politically Correct to mention some things in our country; there are subjects we are not supposed to mention, much less openly discuss. We have reached a sorry state when the learned opinion of someone who has spent his entire life in the study of biology, on a level that almost none of us (myself included) can comprehend, can be chased into hiding for noting in a public forum that he has seen a pattern in the development of intellect that favors those whose struggle to survive is more rigorous.

I will no doubt be castigated, or worse, by the majority of posters here. My hope is that at least one will look at the concepts so briefly presented here, and come away with both the desire and drive to prove me wrong. THAT person will have to do research to accomplish that, and in the process may just learn that there really are differences in the ENTIRE spectrum of human evolution. If that happens, any scorn heaped on me for this post have been worth it.

Guess the truth hurts. What a shame modern society's too PC for honesty. Best of luck to this learned man.

The funny thing is,until we get rid of this curse of political correctness,we shall never know the answer to this question.Most people are actually afraid of the answer,whatever it may be. Some say it is not something we need to know.I'd like to know.

Another way to look at it:

If Caucasians create intelligence tests with a hidden agenda of maintaining their own superiority, why do they continue to publish results that indicate that Asians do better on these tests?

This very topic, why did certain cultures live in a stone age while other european cultures had writing, reading, oraganized government, food production and machinery, is very aptly covered in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and it's not just about african nations. I highly reccommend it.

but to the person who said whites get everything they have due to some black person's work....not even close. The majority of white americans were not even here during the civil war and before, there was an explosion of immigration at the turn of the century long after the civil war was over, as was with my family. MOST whites came to this country poor immigrants and worked their way up to where they are, like it or not, studies have shown this.

Thank you Dr. Watson for once letting the world know the scientific truth.

Just as the right-wing denies the scientific evidence of evolution and global warming, the left-wing denies the scientific evidence of racial differences. Two peas in a pod. Selecting only those parts of scientific fact that support one's ideology is stupid and wrong whether done by the right wing or left wing. Both should see the facts and accept reality.

Here's some facts (taken from census bureau and Uniform Crime Reports):
Whites make up 73.9% of the total population in the United States. Blacks make up 12.4%. Of the 73.9% of whites, 3.24% (.92% of which were considered violent crimes) of them were arrested for something in 2006. Of the 12.4% of blacks, 7.78% (2.7% of which were considered violent crimes) of them were arrested for something in 2006. Now, everyone has an opinion when it comes to race, but when these kinds of numbers are in our face, how can we sit there and say this guy didn't have a point. Crime = stupidity

Question...
After reading the varied posts herein, has anyone-- ANYONE(!) changed their mindset from that which he or she may have had prior to reading the posts?

I for one, would love to hear from that person.