Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times 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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.pr
Doubt Atheism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
If you take a black males and raise them in the same setting as your average white male--same schools, neighborhood, and same parental encouragement--I'm pretty sure the numbers would show that the two groups are not that different in terms of intelligence. The day that this is proven NOT to be true, I will accept that "blacks" are intellectually inferior to "whites"...until then, you can stick your little theory where the sun doesn't shine :)
--HueMan
Its also pathetic that you mention Mali as being the site of the first university.
More propaganda?
I found nothing about any universities in Mali on wikipedia, and a search for 'first university' brought up Cairo,Egypt - an Arab nation.
You are the worst researcher in history, and you have single handedly tripple my respect for the racist scientist featured in this article. Why? He does not pretend the world is flat for the sake of his own popularity!
The answer to this question is ALSO proof that he is right... comas can only last so long before death strikes....
"Scott Barry Robson" "22" from "kent"
"Scott Barry Robson" "22" from "kent"
Or perhaps nobody of importance is grading us. Comments like this prove with certainty that anti-racists are grasping at straws. Face it, you have no intelligent counter-argument.
Also, just because you spell checked everything, doesnt mean you dont type like an African. Here is how humans would have typed your post:
"I noticed that most people on this blog who believe Africans are less intelligent have misspelled words in their comments, so I take it they are self-hating Africans."
Word CHOICE is equally important. No, I'm not an English teacher, I'm just white.
"When I was young, I tested very high in intelligence, but it hasn't had any appreciable effect on my success as a person. I was a terrible student, neurotic and addictable, and an inconsiderate friend. I suspect intelligence tests are merely a test of how many books a person has read up to that time of life; I was an early and constant reader. Some Africans may test less well because their language has no popular literature at all, (perhaps no written language) and they have no schools to speak of in their native culture. I would bet anything that their native capacity for learning is perfectly adequate, and it is simply the early education that makes all the difference."
Your theory may allow you to sleep at night by convincing you that civilization itself is not really being reversed to that of the third world, but it really ONLY applies to African natives - if it works at all.
Look at developed nations the world over that have substantial black populations. Crime, disease, and social services are always centered around their communities. Whitey still generates enough tax dollars to foot the bill, so like a film with with a big budget, the show goes on.
Now look at predominantly black nations. Such nations are regarded as the poorest, most corrupt nations on earth. (Not just africa, but places like Haiti as well)
Even 'black' cities within the United States such as New Orleans or Detroit have these same characteristics - Corruption, Poverty, and Crime.
Although they receive tons of aid from the west, their problems remain. If you are white in such a nation, statistically you will be raped or murdered at some point, and the police will be too incompetant to investigate your death (that is, if they arent actually amused by it) (See South Africa)
In developed nations, the liberal media is tripping over itself to suppress their racial identity when they rape, murder, riot, or loot for absolutely no political reason.
They underachieve in all levels of education (even when they attend predominantly white schools) and represent the vast majority of felons, despite their low population.
Blacks in England seem to be an exception since they are mostly legal immigrants who met the criteria for citizenship, proving their ability to respect the law. (good for them)
Blacks in other western European nations are typically refugees from former African colonies. In Spain for instance, their neighborhoods are LITERALLY indescribable from those depicted in feed the children commercials.
The entire black race is a burden to the advancement of western civilization, (Lucky Asians) and modern science is finally able to prove it. Cold blooded as my words may read, they should really be considered if you believe yourself to be a free thinking individual. "You're Racist!" has never, and will never be a logical counter-argument.
'Nations of Africa' instead of 'Africa' (To avoid confusion)
'Indiscernible' instead of 'Indescribable' (stupid autocorrect)
Their most recent advance is in political mesmerism. They've hypnotised us into abandoning our own manufacturing base in favor of theirs! Their society is more controlled, more rigid, much less crime, more orderly. The ethnic Chinese non-communist city Singapore is the most civilized city on earth, and one of the wealthiest. So, the pecking order goes Chinese, White, Black. So sad.
My entire argument is simply that culture makes the difference, not DNA. You don't really have a scientific basis for claiming a genetic difference. Even Jim Watson admitted grudgingly in his recent interview with Charlie Rose that he hasn't found the intelligence gene yet. But, it's an age-old argument, nature vs nurture, with clearly defined sides with real scientific evidence, rather than the uninformed opinions of zealots.
When it comes down to it, scientists think that cave men had the same inherent intelligence we do. Think of what they accomplished with so little! They had to remember everything about their environment to live, and survive every winter. A chalcolithic man was found frozen into a glacier in Switzerland. He was wearing insulated clothes. He had shoeshoes, a pack frame, stone knives, food, herbal medicine, a yew bow...he was outfitted like LL Bean.
I understand, though, that your belief in white superiority approaches a religion, and there will be no convincing you. I think nurture, you think nature. We understand one another. I just think it is a sad way to live. You must be frightened and exasperated every day, imagining that the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review, who is our President, is genetically dumber than George Bush.
The James Watson interview.
Besides, when our genes are diluted enough, and whites lack the influence to promote their former idiotic liberal ideas of human rights and equality the world over, nothing will stop the Han Chinese from sweeping up the mess and colonizing the world.
If you haven't noticed by now, very few Asians are motivated by a sincere sense of sympathy or compassion (with the exception of Indians perhaps). These pillars of democracy only extend as far as is necessary for business transactions with the west.
Can I prove it? No. Is it absolutely reasonable considering both the shift in western racial demographics, and China's burgeoning population? Yes!
Then consider the the white-racist plan of 'separate but equal' - which is the worst case scenario. If you really believe genocide or slavery are the 'secret' motives of racists, you are an idiot.
Whether race and culture is inseparable or not, they have yet to BE separated for very long without some sort of reversion. Progress within the black community occurs in direct proportion to the level of constantly applied white influence upon their communities, or their own white ancestry itself.
If you gave Baby Einstein to a Zulu tribe to raise, do you really think he wouldn't be the smartest Zulu alive?
"Even Jim Watson admitted grudgingly in his recent interview with Charlie Rose that he hasn't found the intelligence gene yet."
And we haven't found the missing link yet either. I guess evolution is a lie too.
The point is, the imperfectness of genetic science is hardly a sufficient rebuttal to the realities described above. I'm familiar with 'reasonable doubt', and it is much MUCH different than your all too common microscopic, wishful, doubt.
"When it comes down to it, scientists think that cave men had the same inherent intelligence we do. "
100,000 years or so ago right? That isnt very long at all, and only serves to prove how many hundreds of millennia LESS evolved blacks are. (Or are you saying blacks are cavemen?) Either way, you may want to back off this argument for your own good. Heres why.
This is a 32,000 year old save painting from France
http://www.newyorker.com/images/200
This is African art from within the last century.
http://www.dreamstime.com/african-art-t
Seriously..
"A chalcolithic man was found frozen into a glacier in Switzerland. He was wearing insulated clothes. He had shoeshoes, a pack frame, stone knives, food, herbal medicine, a yew bow...he was outfitted like LL Bean."
So whites were forced to utilize brains vs brawn for tens of thousands of millenia and blacks have not.. thus blacks = smart? Your not very good at refuting racism my friend.
"I understand, though, that your belief in white superiority approaches a religion, and there will be no convincing you. I think nurture, you think nature. We understand one another. I just think it is a sad way to live.You must be frightened and exasperated every day"
There is no reason in religion, which makes any comparison impossible. Its very easy to make fun of the bible, for racists and non racists alike - its inconsistencies are numerous and comical.
You nor anyone else can even come close to ridiculing anything I say to that degree, and I would LOVE for you to prove that racism is stupid. Its not fun watching civilization perish. However, nobody on the other side posesses the intelligence to do so. It always boils down to name calling, shot-in-the-dark attacks on mental stability (such as at the end of your last post (you missed by the way)), or appeals to emotion. I thought the left were 'free thinkers'. I guess this simply means they will smoke anything that burns. Politically it means nothing.
You were right, bringing in the Iceman undermined my own argument...he was only 6000 years old or so. Even Neanderthals were around 150,000 years ago.
I still think you would have a more serene life if you could be more sanguine about blacks. This whole chicken little thing you have going is a form of paranoia. that is a common syndrome in very bright people.
Clearly, there are millions of very moral and very bright blacks, so they are not aliens, nor are they all savages. You've probably never had any exposure to the black academic community. You might want to visit Martha's Vineyard in the summer, hang out in Oak Bluffs.
In the 1960's my West Virginia grandfather could still barely read. He raised cattle, hay, vegetables and worms on crummy, rocky ledges. He had married three wives, one after the other, as they wore out; sired twelve children. Four died in childhood. He used a horse to plow his fields, crapped in an outhouse and had no electricity. His lifestyle was the equivalent of the Masai people. Elsewhere in America people sneered at hillbillies, used them as brute animals in their mines and factories, and lived in penthouses. Granddad wasn't inferior, either. He was the last generation of a rural, well-adapted breed of landsman.