Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Dr James Watson resigned
- Thread starter ImaStupidBaby
- Start date
Well...what are you gonna do, throw this old idiot in jail? There aren't any excuses. I compare this to something Brittney Spears or *that other idiot blonde -sorry, not good with names* would say. It's meaningless crap that doesn't even deserve the time it's taking me to write this.
I will just say one thing in his defense. He did realize why people are pissed at him.
It just sucks because its another black eye for his otherwise amazing career. And I wouldn't say he stole his work from Franklin. DNA is a very complex molecule, and he and Crick only had a few pieces of information to work with and they just solved it by building model after model after model.
It just sucks because its another black eye for his otherwise amazing career. And I wouldn't say he stole his work from Franklin. DNA is a very complex molecule, and he and Crick only had a few pieces of information to work with and they just solved it by building model after model after model.
Great scientists aren't immune to stupid thoughts. Kary Mullis won the nobel prize for developing PCR which is an invaluable tool in biological research and forensics and he's a complete nut. His claims of meeting aliens, belief in astrology, disbelief in AIDS and love of LSD don't endear him to the scientific community. The great things people accomplish don't shield them from criticism in other areas. So Watson's achievement and/or age don't give him immunity to say ignorant things.
That said, "The Double Helix" is a fascinating (and short) read for anyone with evena passing interest in science. My take on Watson is that he was a scientist who was more clever than brilliant and was lucky to discover the structure of DNA before Linus Pauling. But I suppose two nobel prizes were enough for Pauling.
As for Franklin, she would have shared in the nobel prize had she lived, which is why there is more controversy than maybe there should be about the way Watson used her research.
That said, "The Double Helix" is a fascinating (and short) read for anyone with evena passing interest in science. My take on Watson is that he was a scientist who was more clever than brilliant and was lucky to discover the structure of DNA before Linus Pauling. But I suppose two nobel prizes were enough for Pauling.
As for Franklin, she would have shared in the nobel prize had she lived, which is why there is more controversy than maybe there should be about the way Watson used her research.
OK, but to be fair the comments were made by a lot of people, so I responded to them.
anyway, I agree the the best resolution is irrelevance for him re: his current statements, and I would not advocate jail for words, don't worry.
Not really comparable but I thought of that woman astronaut who wore the diaper, in the lover's quarrel....really smart people do really stupid things sometimes. Phil Spector is a very smart guy who does weird, crazy things like kill people for fun.
Because what he said wasn't based on evidence - a point he himself has now stated.
...and Watson has a history of saying these sorts of idiotic things unsupported by evidence:
In the past he has suggested a biochemical link between exposure to sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers,'' Watson said. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
Watson once suggested Japan should be bombed for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project.
Guy's just a racist, plain and simple. Race has been proven to be a social construct anyway. I think culture and upbringing have far more to do with intelligence than race does.
D
Even if any of those statements were proven scientific fact (which I don't think any of them are), I doubt society would accept it. A lot of times people only hear what they want to hear, regardless of proof.
Would his statements still be racist if they were true? Is it racist to say that African Americans are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia?
Would his statements still be racist if they were true? Is it racist to say that African Americans are more susceptible to sickle cell anemia?
What does sickle cell trait or anemia have to do with Watson's comments? Anybody can get a blood sample and a microscope, and see a sickle cell. The kinds of things that Watson talked about cannot be measured that way, and they also have a very significant cultural component.
Sonic Death, if what he said was true, wouldn't all black people be dumb? Genetics dont lie now do they? I'm the first to back up scientists about a lot of things, but this is downright idiotic, and people backing up such opinion makes it even more idiotic, to say the least.
He said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true". How is this a scientific comment? Did he talk to the majority of black people employers to get their opinion? Or is this a wide generalization by some half assed idiot who thinks he's God because half his brain's working?
I mean, to seriously judge an entire race like this would basically mean living in a lab like a rat cut away from the whole world and... wait...
I rest my case.
He said that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true". How is this a scientific comment? Did he talk to the majority of black people employers to get their opinion? Or is this a wide generalization by some half assed idiot who thinks he's God because half his brain's working?
I mean, to seriously judge an entire race like this would basically mean living in a lab like a rat cut away from the whole world and... wait...
I rest my case.
i recall having read of his support of eugenics. sure enough, here's a find from a google search of "watson eugenics":
Link Removed
Link Removed
D
I agree, the things Watson spoke about can't be measured the way that he proposed, but my point was that if these things were measurable (DNA evidence or whatever) I doubt society would accept it, regardless of scientific fact, because it's not what they would want to hear.
People didn't want to hear that the world wasn't flat either.
Because...?
And that hasn't since been accepted? Seems like another bad example.
[Pet Peeve]
There was never a time in recorded history where scientists (or even laymen) believed the earth was flat. It's one of those undying science myths like "humans only use 10% of their brain" or "water drains in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres."
[/Pet Peeve]
As for a correlation between ethnicity and intelligence, I can't even imagine a way to control/eliminate all the other variables involved in such a study so I can't imagine it to be feasible, let alone relevant.
Not to mention that intelligent is not a purely genetic thing. Environment plays a huge factor in intelligence.
As for the sickle cell anemia thing, well it is true that African Americans are more likely to have it. But theres a good reason for it. Sickle cell anemia is related to resistance to malaria, so its one of those things that used to provide a benefit, but not doesn't so much. Hemochromotosis is similar. Its a blood disorder where you don't get rid of iron very quickly. Its not uncommon in places like Ireland or Macedonia, places where it can be hard to get dietary iron. So in places where dietary iron is scarce, hemochromotsis provides a huge benefit because you don't need as much iron. It becomes a problem in say, an American diet where theres a lot of consumption of red meat.
+1
We can't effectively evaluate intelligence within closely similar population. Standardized intelligence testing has been used for years even though its ability to give a true picture of an individual's intelligence is far from accurate or reliable.
As far as Africa is concerned, how do researchers even begin? The continent of Africa is huge and contains a very diverse population. In very poor regions of the world, I think physiologically, the difference in intelligence is probably negligible at most, and is more likely a difference in the rate of intellectual development due to physical and cultural impediments. Those impediments (lack of education, limited social interaction outside of their community, and limited exposure to advanced technology, etc.) would slow the rate of the learning process for many affected individuals, but it does not indicate a lesser intelligence, nor does it indicate a limited capacity to learn.
Edit: I cannot fathom how race can be a factor for determining intelligence, positive or negative.
How about since humans have only been around for say 100,000 years...not a very long time on evolutionary scale. The only genomic difference between a European and an African are a few genes determining a few things. Otherwise a black chick and a white dude would only be able to have hybrids, not fertile offspring.
Latest posts
-
-
Curious what the percentage of bass players use rounds vs flats is.
- Latest: The B Keeper
-
-
-
