In the Name of Science

It’s been a bad week for James D. Watson. After comments made by the renowned biologist implying that blacks might be genetically inferior to whites surfaced in the Times of London, Watson has faced a public uproar, comparisons to segregationist leaders, and dismissal from prominent scientific positions. There is talk of Watson losing his position as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory—an institution he helped shape, ironically enough, from a relic of the eugenics movement to the cutting-edge research institution that is today—and many have suggested that his scientific reputation will be permanently tainted by his inflammatory statements.

Watson’s assertion in the Times that “All our social policies are based on the fact that theirs [blacks’] intelligence is the same as ours—whereas the testing says not really” is clearly out of line. Interracial differences in intelligence have little basis in scientific fact and Watson’s flippant statement solely serves to exacerbate racial tension.

For that matter, this is not the first time that Watson’s somewhat radical views have made headlines: In 2003 he received flak for arguing that women should be allowed to abort fetuses if genetic testing reveals they have a predisposition for homosexuality.

But while Watson would be a poor choice to lead a conference on political correctness and sensitivity, he remains one of the great biologists of the 20th century. He won his Nobel Prize for playing an integral role in the discovery of DNA, not for his views on race relations; we find the suggestion advanced by some that his scientific successes should somehow be invalidated as a result—by renaming Watson-Crick nucleotide base pairing or otherwise—absurd.

No matter how objectionable James Watson’s personal views are, they have little effect on the profound benefits his research has created for humanity. For that matter, it does not appear that Watson actually stands by his racist remarks. Shortly after the scandal broke, Watson told The Associated Press “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

The true danger of Watson’s insensitive remarks and his apparent predilection for promulgating distasteful views is that as a result of his stature as a scientist, people will mistake his fringe views as representative of the majority of scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nevertheless, his contributions to biology should not be erased or forgotten as a result.