Watson speech spiked

From BBC News:

Museum cancels race row scientist

The Science Museum has cancelled a talk it was due to host by a geneticist, after he claimed black people were less intelligent than white people.

Dr James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, was due to speak at the venue on Friday.

But the museum has cancelled the event, saying Dr Watson’s views go “beyond the point of acceptable debate.”

Of course, the subject Watson was going to speak about was not race and intelligence, which he had apparently never addressed in all his 79 years before his London Times interview the other day, but probably whatever is the subject of his new book. So, even though he would not be talking about his view that there are racial differences in intelligence, the bare fact that he has such a view meant that his planned host could not host him. As a result of speaking a few words on a certain subject he had gone from honored and distinguished guest to persona non grata. And the institution thus rejecting one of the world’s most renowned scientists is the Science Museum.

This museum is finished. It might as well close itself down and go out of business, because it’s just committed hara kiri.

At the very least it should change its name to “Museum Devoted to the Proposition that All Characteristics of All Living Things are Determined by Natural Selection, except for the Interior of the Homo Sapiens Skull.”

- end of initial entry -

LA writes:

While we’re talking about institutions that have just committed hara kiri, what about Commentary?

Jeff in England writes:

Inside the museums, political incorrectness goes up on trial.

Howard Sutherland writes:

Some more thoughts, about the travails of the overly honest Doctor Watson.

In Jim Watson’s case, the liberal ritual of denunciation and shunning has just begun. The first step was the Labour government’s token minority minister’s expressions of shock and horror, followed by the not-so-veiled threats of once-great Britain’s “Equality and Human Rights Commission,” every word of whose title contradicts its actual mission. The second is the cancellation of Watson’s speech at London’s Science Museum. (that I regret; it was a great museum, one of the ones I most enjoyed visiting when I lived in London—and London doesn’t lack for great museums.) But these are only the prelude and they are offshore, so to speak.

The American self-righteousness hurdy-gurdy will get into full swing when the waves from this British PC tsunami get to our shores. The Science Museum’s turning him away may be the catalyst. Here is what I predict, based on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s New York location:

1. The usual outraged denunciations and demands for an apology from the NAACP and other black pressure groups, joined by the ADL, La Raza and still more ethnic pressure groups, followed by the usual shrill demands for Watson’s resignation as the lab’s Chancellor. Watson has no ethnic pressure group of his own to turn to, of course.

2. Pressure from those same groups on New York politicians to demand that Watson recant, apologize and resign.

3. After some faux soul-searching, the politicians do as the agitators demand. All the prominent ones here are Democrats—not that I would expect Republicans to stand up for Watson either.

4. The first three items are almost a given. This one is a more open question. What will the lab’s Board of Trustees, which until now has been unified in admiration of their Nobel laureate, do? Will they stand by their man, or throw him under the liberals’ bus? I suspect they will start by issuing muted pro forma expressions of support—remember that Watson has said several controversial things during his tenure—tempered by expressions of regret for any offense given. When it dawns on them that Watson has unleashed a liberal’s Perfect Storm of self-righteous vitriol, I predict they will quietly abandon him, assuaging their consciences that getting this over with quickly is the best thing so the lab can “move on.” (That’s based, among other things, on knowing several trustees pretty well.)

This is different from previous Watson controversies. Most liberals probably agreed with him about “preventive eugenics” via DNA testing and selective abortion, even as they affected to be shocked that he thinks it would have been better to have aborted his own schizophrenic son. Saying the average intelligence of Africans is lower than that of Europeans, implying that their potential civilizational competence is less, is utterly beyond the liberal pale.

5. Watson will go quietly into retirement, probably after a pro forma apology for hurting people’s feelings. His latest book will die on the shelves, and his remarkable achievements will be overshadowed by one ideological transgression. Because he has never been their friend before (he’s from a staunchly Democratic family), conservatives will not take up his case.

I would like to be wrong about all this, but I doubt I will be.

And that’s the bloody crossroads where science and politics meet.

Jeremy G. writes:

Watson’s book has jumped overnight in the Amazon rankings to #238 as of today. I haven’t read the book, but apparently Watson includes his statements about black IQ in his book.

Jeremy continues:

His book is at #172 on Amazon as of right now. Gotta thank the enraged left. They are selling this book.

Ben W. writes:

Since James Watson is one of the seminal figures in the history of science (Crick & Watson are to biology what Newton and Einstein are to physics—fundamentally important), the question should be “What if this intelligent and historically important man is right?”

The odds are 50-50 that he may be right in his assessment of race and intelligence. Shouldn’t people stop and ask themselves, is he right? Not does he have the right to issue such an opinion, but since it has been already issued, can he be actually right? And if he is right (empirically), what are the consequences for our civilization, our countries and our societies.

LA replies:

The problem with Ben’s idea is that this is not a position that Watson is arguing for in a serious way. He’s been world famous for 55 years, has written numerous books and given innumerable talks, and this is the first time he’s ever broached the subject of race and intelligence. And he did it casually, in the midst of a long, rambling newspaper interview. Unless Watson decides seriously to defend his views on race and intelligence, which I doubt he will do, appealing to his authority as a famous scientist is not a very strong argument for our side.

Matt C. writes:

I have been reading about Watson’s comments on your site for the past couple of days. I wonder—has anybody noticed the uncanny similarities between the persecution Mr. Watson faces for his comments and the persecution Galileo faced for his conjecture that the sun was the center of our solar system? The parallels are striking. How ironic it is that the liberals of today are playing the exact role that the Catholic Church played in the Galileo affair.

LA replies:

While it is true that the establishment is expelling a view it regards as a challenge to its belief system, as happened with the Catholic Church and Galileo’s theories, I don’t agree with the personal comparison of Watson to Galileo, for the same reason I gave in my reply to Ben W. This is not a serious position Watson has taken; it’s not a result of his own scientific work, it’s not something he’s arguing for. It’s just an opinion he expressed in passing in an interview. Let’s see if he goes beyond the Lawrence Summers / Pope Benedict unserious type argument and stands by his guns. Then this affair would get interesting.

Matt C. replies:

While you make a fair point, I would like to point out that the comparison I made was between the persecution faced by both of these men, not the men themselves.

In each case:

a) There exists a certain belief that is held as an axiomatic truth, and, indeed, an organizing rule of society, b) A man who merely suggests the possibility that this “truth” may in fact be false faces persecution, yet c) The persecution is not based in any way on the truth or falsity of the statements made.

This is not a statement on the seriousness of Dr. Watson’s positions, but more of a statement on the seriousness of the challenges faced by any person who makes statements similar to Dr. Watson’s.

LA replies:

Yes, you’re right.

Ben W. writes:

Watson’s statement says, “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours.” So he is focussing not only on the issue of race and intelligence but on social policy, which is state and government driven. He’s addressing the presupposition that drives our policy-making.

As well he attacks the notion of universalism presupposed in a monolythic theory of evolution.

Notice he says that there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. In this sense evolution is not an engine underlying biological, anthropological and social universality.

This view injures the universalistic core of liberalism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 18, 2007 12:04 AM | Send