Deep Thoughts, With DD: Watson and Eugenics

[rue]

Yeah, yeah, the Watson news is OLD, OLD, OLD, but the debate over the implications of his "contribution" have seemingly opened Pandora's Box regarding science and ethics. 

For those of you who missed it (probably not many of you who frequent this forum), Nobel Laureate and world renowned scientist Dr. James Watson expressed his pessimism regarding the future of frequently maligned Africa because of his belief that the population is genetically inferior as per their genetic makeup.  I don't think I misinterpret him by translating that to mean that it is his belief that Africans are falling behind the rest of the world not directly because of a lack of resources (natural and monetary), justice, safety or opportunity, or the overwhelming prevalence of HIV, but because of a root cause that by and by, the human beings who inhabit the continent have DNA which does not produce brains with the mental capabilities of the rest of the world. 

He goes on to make an even further reaching claim that people who work with black coworkers frequently see the same difference. 

I routinely listen to a ton of talk radio during any given week and there have been plenty of biologists, sociologists and ethicists alike who have chimed in on the debate.  A great many of the hard science ilk (biologists, geneticists) have said that the only thing Watson is guilty of is pointing out the pink elephant in the room.  They believe that a scientist should never be condemned for pointing out something he believes in as per his evidence, which fits the bill in Watson's case.  And further, plenty of the geneticists say that amongst themselves, what Dr. Watson has said has been held true for years.


Which leads us to the Deep Thoughts question, a kind of current events take on Nature vs. Nurture:   

Do you believe human beings are limited, propelled or unaffected greatly by their genetic makeup when it comes to their ability to form thought?   Don't limit your answer to the ability to do complex math or physics.  Can "inferior"  DNA (1) make a person more likely to commit crime?  Does it affect what level of success she can achieve? 

(1) if there is such a thing as "inferior DNA".  I think there's an argument here to be made about the subjective quality of inferior and superior---if anyone would like to take up that avenue, please do

[zipfruder]

"inferior DNA",  but its very nature, is supposed to eliminate itself, given time, and it should really constitute a trivial portion of the whole human population.

[ScrotcH]

"One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance, I was going to take my nephew to Disneyland, but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse. "Oh no," I said, "Disneyland burned down." He cried and cried, but I think that deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke. I started to drive over to the real Disneyland, but it was getting pretty late."

[Ruckus]

I believe we are truly products of our environment and evolve and/or adapt. I therefore believe he has a real case to be made but only with a distinct tonality towards local tradition and custom and possibly accepted Isolation.

[Zeradul]

I routinely listen to a ton of talk radio during any given week and there have been plenty of biologists, sociologists and ethicists alike who have chimed in on the debate.  A great many of the hard science ilk (biologists, geneticists) have said that the only thing Watson is guilty of is pointing out the pink elephant in the room.

What biologists and geneticists have agreed with this scientific observation?  Also, what talk radio do you listen to?  I've had trouble finding good mainstream talk radio.

Also, I'm interested in what he actually said, because he is claiming this:

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London.

"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," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/18/nobel.apology/index.html

I wrote this and then decided not to post it because DD might accuse me of trying to change the discussion.  But it is important to know the background of the issue, and since none of us are geneticists, we should at least make a serious effort to understand what the facts do and do not show.  So Watson said he was mis-interpreted, so lets start with the geneticists and biologists who have agreed with his assertion, and the evidence they believe supports it?  Anyone have any names on who agreed?  Or a listing of the evidence that supports the idea?

In the meantime I'll respond to the bolded portion of DD's question in my next post.

[Zeradul]

I believe that genetics have a relatively minor impact on our mental ability.  Our DNA species wide is SO DAMN similar that I don't think that it can have that big of an impact.  It does have some impact, but there are SO many other factors contributing to it:

Health and diet of the pregnant mother
Diet as a youth
Current diet
Safe and mostly stress free childhood
Good education and educators
Cultural and family attitude towards education
Presence of mentally stimulating activities as a youth
Presence of peers and frequent opportunities to socialize

I think all those things have as much of an impact on one's mental abilities as genetics.  Yes, the savants and geniuses are going to have an exceptional set of genetics going in, even to have a chance, but they are the exception, as most people are closer to average.

Can "inferior"  DNA (1) make a person more likely to commit crime?

DNA by definition, doesn't make any decisions for any human, the exception being someone with a genetic disorder who isn't capable of adult thought.  Thought is something completely separate from the purposes of DNA.  Crime or lawlessness is a learned behavior based on their own decision making process.

(1) if there is such a thing as "inferior DNA".  I think there's an argument here to be made about the subjective quality of inferior and superior---if anyone would like to take up that avenue, please do

Like zip said, Inferior DNA is only ever defined by whether it is successful in surviving it's current environment.  The weaker, slower, dumber, sicker, or diseased are eliminated by natural selection.  But natural selection isn't always flawless, except when it comes to the inability to reproduce.

Africans have only been genetically separated from the rest of us for a blink of the evolutionary eye.  If we are any genetically different, we're talking extremely minor differences.  That brings us to what, if any, evidence there is to support Watson's supposed statements.  Those pieces of evidence would have to be individually examined for validity.