Have you been following the enormous, and enormously nasty, controversy over what the great geneticist and Nobel laureate James Watson said about race and IQ? Here's the story. Basically he got into a world of trouble because he said our social policies are built around the idea that all people have equal intellectual capabilities, but science shows that's not really true in Africa. Today comes news that he has been forced into retirement because of the bonfire of the vanities that ensued after his remarks.
I'm bothered by all this for several reasons. Few people seem to be asking if Watson is correct about the science; it's assumed that he cannot possibly be right. I am no scientist. I hope he's wrong, but my wanting something to be wrong doesn't make it wrong. We should all be bothered by the dogpiling of a distinguished scientist in this case. Watson defender Steve Sailer says:
People don't hate you for being wrong. (At worst, they just ignore you; at best, as with the late Stephen Jay Gould, they worship you and pay you millions.) People hate you for saying what they fear is the truth.
One presumes that a scientist of Watson's stature doesn't make stuff up. Is there science to back up his claim? If so, why shouldn't he be allowed to say so without losing his job? This is the Larry Summers stake-burning all over again. Anyone can see from simple observation that genetics plays some role in human intelligence, as does environment. Is it really outre' to imagine that genetic characteristics inhere among people who evolved over vast stretches of time in a single place, and that evolutionary pressures caused genes that favored certain qualities needed by the people who lived Here to express themselves more fully than the same genes in people who lived There?
If on the one hand I'm troubled by a scientist being silenced and driven out of public life for holding a politically incorrect opinion about research data, I'm also bothered a very great deal by how genetic research may be used in the future that's coming into being. Say Watson is right: what do we do with that information? I keep returning to the history of the American eugenicists because I fear we are quickly headed for a revival of same. Michael Gerson digs up some extremely unsavory -- indeed, immoral -- past comments by Watson, showing exactly what he'd do with genetic information. From Gerson's column:
In 2003, Watson spoke in favor of genetic selection to eliminate ugly women: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great." In 2000, he suggested that people with darker skin have stronger libidos. In 1997, Watson contended that parents should be allowed to abort fetuses they found to be gay: "If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her." In the same interview, he said, "We already accept that most couples don't want a Down child. You would have to be crazy to say you wanted one, because that child has no future."When it comes to the parents of disabled children, Watson has somehow confused "loving" and "courageous" with "crazy" -- the sign of a heart clearly inferior to the gentle hearts of children with Down syndrome. And most of us have met women who don't look like models and gay people who prefer being alive to the preferences of their parents.
"If you really are stupid," Watson once contended, "I would call that a disease." What is the name for the disease of a missing conscience?
Watson shows what happens to a scientist cut off from morality: they can easily become monsters. As it happens, genetically speaking, all men are not created equal. I have neither the brains of a James Watson, the artistic genius of a Yo-Yo Ma, or the athletic prowess of a Barry Bonds. And neither do you. But I believe, as a matter of religious and moral conviction, that all men are created morally equal. That's not something that can be proven in a laboratory. It is only something that can be preached, taught and believed -- or not. If Africans are, as James Watson believes, on the whole genetically inferior to others when it comes to intelligence, then that is true whether or not we choose to believe it, in the same sense that the equation "2+2=4" is true, even if no one believes it. The same is not true of moral equality. In fact, history demonstrates that it's human nature to treat people outside one's own tribe as unequal to one's own -- often with extremely nasty results.
Gerson observes, as does Patrick Deneen, that liberals get themselves into a serious bind with their valorization of scientific supremacy, particularly when it comes to genetic controversies having to do with the meaning of human life. Liberals get on their high horses about the benighted conservative Christians who want to deny diseased people the possibility of a cure, all because they (the Christians) have this stupid hang-up about the sanctity of human life. As Watson demonstrates, though, once you accept that there is no transcendent meaning to human life, and that it can be destroyed because those in power -- the parents, the scientists, the government, et al. -- decide that its genetic code is inferior, that opens the doors to any number of fresh hells.
What will you say, liberals, when those with the financial resources to genetically manipulate their unborn children to be superstar athletes with Nobel-quality brains, start doing so? What about the vast majority of people who can't afford that? What happens to their children? Will they be a new genetic slave class? Why doesn't this question ever seem to occur to you as you take breaths between denouncing religious conservatives for being troglodytes standing in the way of science?
In his fascinating study "Forbidden Knowledge," the late Roger Shattuck examines various kinds of knowledge considered taboo, including scientific knowledge. He concludes that the separation between pure science and applied science is impossible to maintain, given human nature. The best we can hope for, he says, is that scientists would adhere to a code of morality that would cause them to refuse to do the kind of research that could lead to moral catastrophe. As the Bible tells us, the pursuit of forbidden knowledge is the original sin, the original catastrophe from which all others follow. There is deep wisdom in that. We have not found a way yet to prevent man from seeking out all knowledge, nor for applying it.
Why doesn't this enormously important issue figure into American politics beyond the level of "bad Christians hate science"? Is it the childish American infatuation with optimism, and belief in our own essential goodness? It's not just a question for the left, either; what happens to the right's embrace of meritocracy when the overclass acquires control of the means of guided genetic reproduction, and games the system such that the working and the middle classes can't hope to compete?
We should be talking about this a lot more than we do.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You make a good point, meh! It seems to me--without statistical support at this point--that a tendency to react to problems by looking for someone to blame is probably innate to some degree. There are quite a few studies suggestive of the idea that conservative and liberal personality types are partially genetic. Which would mean that neither one was "wrong" in an absolute sense. They'd simply be more or less useful in a given situation. And I suspect they'll also find that certain types of environments promote expression of those traits.
As for the existence of God, I neither assert nor deny at the moment. My earlier reference was ironic. (Though I wonder if a tendency to experience religious faith will also turn out to be a set of heritable physical characteristics. That would really mess up the theologians!)
"It seems to me--without statistical support at this point--that a tendency to react to problems by looking for someone to blame is probably innate to some degree."
Well, there is a difference between looking for a scapegoat (looking for someone to blame), and harping on a dysfunctional person (blaming and shaming) which you were initially writing about - just don't want to conflate the two things.
"Though I wonder if a tendency to experience religious faith will also turn out to be a set of heritable physical characteristics. That would really mess up the theologians!)"
Reminds me of what my husband said back when some sports commentator was in hot water for saying African-Americans are better athletes than Caucasians because the slavemasters of their ancestors bred them for speed and strength. "Sure," said my husband. "And the Egyptians bred their Jewish slaves for godliness, which is why we're still so godly." Maybe they really did!
"One presumes that a scientist of Watson's stature doesn't make stuff up. Is there science to back up his claim?"
Rod, you linked to Steve Sailer's Vdare article. Dig into Steve's blog site, there's lots of good stuff in there. And don't let my ex-Catholic atheism put you off from this recommendation, Steve is a Catholic. //isteve.blogspot.com/
African-Americans are better athletes than Caucasians because the slavemasters of their ancestors bred them for speed and strength.
This is total bunk. We know because:
1) Not enough years of American slavery have passed to get a large genetic change between African-Americans and Africans. The only real genetic difference is that African-Americans have about 20% white blood in them now on average.
2) African tribes in Africa who have never been slaves have superior athletic abilities compared to whites as well.
For example: running. If we look at the 1500m, 5000m, 10000m, & marathon and compare African Kalenjin tribe and all whites, there is simply no comparison. Whites are slow. Note populations & number of winners from 1995-2001 below (by these dates, all races were competing; before the 1990s, many remote talents had not been discovered yet):
Tribe: Population-# winners 1500m-5000m-10000m-Marathon
-----------------------------------
Kalenjin: 3.5mil-24-25-31-41
European: 159mil-6-4-8-7
So, it's obvious the Kalenjin have superior genetics for running. And soon, we will know the actual genes that deliver this performance.
The genetic data is pouring in from two directions: first, the macro. We can do massive statisical analysis of large populations and compare to disease, health, IQ, athletics, etc. Second, the micro. We have broken the genetic code and can compare genetic differences against performance. It is only a matter of time before we isolate these alleles, even with liberal persecution of scientists daring to do the research.
What makes it really bad for all of us is that liberals are good at both stopping funding for this research AND preventing anyone from talking about it without losing their jobs (even top Nobel guys like Watson). And since science cannot be stopped, only delayed, it's going to hit us all at once like a brick, and nobody will be ready for it. Free speech on this subject is simply not allowed in our schools or media, and the common dude knows nothing about it.
But not forever. We will look back at the Watson thing and shake our heads, like at the Galileo mess, and wonder how a culture could ever be so dumb as to think they can hide the truth. The hubris of man.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.