Slashdot Mirror
James Watson's Nobel Prize Goes On Auction This Week
HughPickens.com writes: Nicholas St. Fleur reports at The Atlantic that James Watson, the famed molecular biologist and co-discoverer of DNA, is putting his Nobel Prize up for auction on Thursday. He's the first Nobel laureate in history to do so. In 2007, Watson, best known for his work deciphering the DNA double helix alongside Francis Crick in 1953, made an incendiary remark regarding the intelligence of black people that lost him the admiration of the scientific community. It made him, in his own words, an "unperson." That year, The Sunday Times quoted Watson as saying that he felt "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really." Watson has a history of making racist and sexist declarations, according to Time. At a science conference in 2012, Watson said of women in science, "I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they're probably less effective." To many scientists his gravest offense was not crediting Rosalind Franklin with helping him deduce the structure of DNA.
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Watson is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. The gold medal is expected to bring in between $2.5 million and $3.5 million when it goes to auction. Watson says that he will use the money to purchase art and make donations to institutions that have supported him, such as the University of Chicago. He adds that the auction will also offer him the chance to "re-enter public life." "I've had a unique life that's allowed me to do things. I was set back. It was stupid on my part," says Watson. "All you can do is nothing, except hope that people actually know what you are."
Intelligence tests aren't really accurate, so using them in this context is pointless.
There has been enough work on this to show decisively that one's racial heritage or gender has at most a tiny effect (if any) on intelligence, and one's upbringing has a far greater effect.
Watson might have been technically correct, but he blurred the lines between correlation and causation, which is a really disappointing thing on its own.
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact, and the ostracization of Watson is just political correctness. Scientists should be free to speak their minds, and he was actually making a valid point. Differences in nutrition and environment make a difference, but do not come close to explaining the full gap. East Asians have, on average, higher IQs than Caucasians, and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest of any ethnic group. Higher IQs are correlated with a long history of urbanization and economic specialization, where higher IQs provide a selective advantage.
Citations:
Heritability of IQ
Race and Intelligence
i don't know about women & their intelligence
On average, women tend to have higher IQs, but lower variance. So they tend to be under represented at both the high and low end "tails" of the bell curve.
The article says "He said he is selling his prized medallion because he has no income outside of academia, even though for years he had served on many corporate boards. It also says that he will use the money to re-enter public life.
How odd. He still has an office at Cold Spring Harbor and he comes in to work fairly often. He still attends functions, fundraisers, and lectures there. He also has a very nice house on the lab's grounds that overlooks the Long Island sound. I can't imagine the laboratory is ungrateful with his retirement package. So he's still in public life and he's living a very nice life. I don't understand the article.
soylentnews.org
It's not so much "Taboo" as it is frequently brought up by idiots who have no substantial evidence and a strong history of using made up bullshit to push injustice.
There's very little evidential reason to consider anything said by "racial realists" as anything other than the babbling of childish nincompoops. There is scientific evidence that genetic variation within "races" is greater than the variation between the median genetic profiles of "races".
Suffice it to say, given how much debunked "science" there is in the history of racist fuckery, not expecting any good science from them now isn't unreasonable.
Your "facts" aren't really facts.
First, all those other continents you mention have also received billions of dollars in aid, and *do* have natural resources that rival Africa's. So acting like we've only helped Africa and not South America or Asia is ... dumb.
Second, our "massive" amounts of help really aren't that massive on a per capita basis.
Third, Asia isn't "significantly" better off if you exclude Japan and Russia - China is 89th in GDP per capita, below Algeria, Botswana, and Libya; India is 126th, behind Egypt, Namibia, The Republic of Congo and Nigeria; Afghanistan is way down there at 162, tied with Sierra Leone.
And, fourth, along the sames lines, while yes, there are failed states in Africa, there are successes, too, so if you can't see anything to suggest it will get better off soon, you simply aren't looking.
Anyway, check your biases and look at the stats.
Fourth
I lived in what is now the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" for three years, so I have at least personal anecdotal knowledge.
1) Relatively recent colonial history means that there was no native bureaucracy able to run the countries when the colonial powers left.
2) Dictators took over, and most dictators don't really want to make the country better, instead they just want power and money.
3) History of tribal politics means that when someone takes power they give rewards to their tribe at the cost of the other tribes.
4) Lack of national-level control means that it's difficult to exploit the natural resources.
5) Lack of government responsibility means that when countries do exploit the national resources very little of the money ends up in the hands of the workers (or the country).
6) Lack of government funding for educational facilities means that there is a continuing shortage of qualified local skilled labour. (It was quite common for teachers to charge students a fee to write finals, since the teachers got very little salary.)