The Nature editorial on James Watson

At the Gene Expression blog there is mention of the editorial about James Watson which appears in the prestigious weekly science journal Nature, but the only thing said about it is that it's "ponderously written."

Let's examine it more closely. If one were to just look at certain text near the end of the editorial, one might say that Nature is agreeing with James Watson:

Many human geneticists are engaged in the sensitive task of unraveling differences between the world's population groups.... Others are investigating the equally sensitive genetics of 'desirable' traits, such as cognitive ability.

Asking such questions has always been controversial, given the potential for abuse of the outcomes demonstrated by the history of eugenics. Scientists explore the world as it is, rather than as they would like it to be.

The above quote seems to be saying that (1) yes, scientists have discovered and will discover more genetic contributions to cognitive ability; and (2) yes, these genes are not distributed equally in the world's different "population groups." It's unfortunate that each "population group" doesn't have the exact same distribution of cognitive ability and other desirable traits, but don't shoot the messenger. "Scientists explore the world as it is, rather than as they would like it to be." We have to have faith that humans won't abuse this knowledge by brutally slaughtering people with less desirable genes in an immoral attempt to improve the human gene pool.

If the above paragraph really is the point of the editorial, then the point was made in a pretty cowardly way. The bulk of the article is an attack on James Watson. Watson can legitimately be criticized for being somewhat mean spirited in his choice of anecdote about about black employees, but the science behind his conclusion is correct and he shouldn't be used as a whipping boy because he's gruff in his old age.

Did the editorial writer purposely misinterpret Watson's apology? The editorial says:

He acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence.

But in fact, this is what James Watson really said:

To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief. [copied from CNN article]

Literally reading the above, Watson said that the physical continent of Africa itself is not genetically inferior, and indeed he's right, it's quite a nice land mass. And continents don't have genes, so it's really impossible for one continent to be genetically inferior to another. (People have previously left comments on my blog pointing this out to me. As usual, people commenting on blogs have more of a clue than the mainstream media.)

The Nature editorial also wanders into the realm of semantical bogusness. The part of quote above that I edited out reads: "all the while acknowledging that 'race' is an emotive and unscientific word." So we substitute the supposedly more scientific word of "population group" and that changes everything? It's commonly understood that when people talk about race, the mean the world's major population groups. Zoologists would consider humans a polytypic species, with the major races each being subspecies. Is zoology somehow "unscientific"? Humans are very full of themselves to think that they can't be subclassified just like any other animal species.

So if Nature is actually trying to say something here, shame on the editorial board for being so cowardly about it.

Comments

[Posting Postdoc]

I wonder why such an unscientific word (or modern euphemisms) is used in selection processes for schools and companies. If a. no clears groups can be identified and b. even if they could be identified, they would have no bearing on predicted performance, there is no reason to just consider individual, measurable predictors. No more "Well, SAT 1000 i really great - for a member of group A - admit!"

[scientist]

I read the Nature editorial, but I was not disappointed. It was the expected. Nature and its rival Science are PC institutions.

It was shown earlier in during Lomborg's "The Skeptical Envirnomentalist" debate early this decade. The editorial boards of these journals, with the popular Scientific American, rushed to declare all information in the book as unscientific. After all, Danish Academy went through legal processes on these claims and it was found to be the opposite. But, no apologies from Nature or Science.

I have been lucky to have myself published twice my work in Nature. The work of the publisher has been surprisingly sloppy, with above average errors on such things like - having a legend for figure misplaced for another one. They were of course corrected, but the technical errors were from Nature publisher itself.

Most of the pages of Nature and Science are not science, but news. You recognize this immediately when you glance the tables of content.

That being the case, it is not meaningful to look for absolute truth from editorials of Nature or Science.

They are just doing their job, which is, given their whole content, journalism.

He acknowledged that there is no evidence for what he claimed about racial differences in intelligence.

But in fact, this is what James Watson really said:

To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.

Not much of a difference in length. Are the editors suddenly economizing on ink? Why didn't Nature just print his reply verbatim? Either they were being lazy(as the press often is), or they didn't want to because it wasn't exactly an apology or retraction. Maybe the editors of nature considered Watsons reply too complex for their readers or something. Knowing the types of liberals that work in the media, probably all of the above. Just look at the whole TNR and Scott Beauchamp thing if you want a really good example of how these people operate.

[Peter]

I have to agree with the point raised at Gene Expression, Watson's comment about black employees pretty much makes it impossible for him to continue to lead any organization that has black employees.

[Cameron]

It doesn't make any sense why Watson bothered with the apology. Once you make a political move like the one he made, it's almost impossible to rescind it.

On the other hand, it's doubtful Watson actually wanted to take back what he said - the real motivations were preservation of whatever he had left of his life. He wrote a large portion of his book on it. There is no doubt that he is still a proponent of the race-IQ connection.

[Scott]

It doesn't make any sense why Watson bothered with the apology. Once you make a political move like the one he made, it's almost impossible to rescind it.

It wasn't so much an apology as an act of contrition, which is what people are actually doing when they apologize for the reactions of others. Basically he was saying:

"I didn't realize that people would react this way, but I should have known. I'm sorry that I wasn't more considerate."

It is a show of good faith, and an opportunity to de-escalate.

The original statement was a positive claim about facts: that we have no good reason to believe that brains evolved identically both inside and outside Africa. The later statement was a claim about normative evaluations of fact: that claims of "inferiority" are outside the realm of positive science.

What many in the media accounts are calling a "retraction" is actually a clarification and an act of contrition.

[Mr. Mercy Vetsel]

Scott wrote:

The later statement was a claim about normative evaluations of fact: that claims of "inferiority" are outside the realm of positive science.

Yes, exactly. And even within the realm of positive science, less intelligent doesn't mean inferior. Watson, of all people, seems acutely aware of the trade-offs inherent in many population group gene densities.

So why all the fuss? The average IQ gap between siblings is about 10 points compared to the 15 point difference between the mean scores for blacks and whites in the U.S. If saying that your brother is the "smart one" akin to claiming genetic inferiority for ones self?

Why aren't white people, gentiles and heterosexuals wailing and gnashing their teeth over their own "genetic inferiority?" If high IQ is such a superior trait, why has Wilt Chamberlain slept with about 10,000 more women than bill Gates?

I actually have to blame the media for this. I don't believe Watson use the word superior or inferior except in his clarification when he said he was not saying that.

Time and time again, a scientist says "there is a difference in intelligence between group X and Y" and some Stalinist in the media rights it up as a claim of "inferiority".

I personally think the long term trend that has made raw intelligence more economically valuable will peak within the next 10 to 20 years and be supplanted by the longer term trend towards other attributes. The new trend is already evidenced by the long trend towards increased incomes for entertainers and managers.

-Mercy