Author
|
Topic: James Watson fired (Read 7038 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
James Watson fired
« on: 2007-10-20 20:14:51 » |
 |
vector: Evol-Psych list
Quote:
I guess that is what he deserves for poking a sacred cow?
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #1 on: 2007-10-20 22:37:19 » |
|
Damn! Its hard to fight the politically correct truthiness here. Africans happen to share high melanin concentrations, however also share one of the most economically impoverished and war ravaged third world continents on the planet. How can one begin to solve these challenges, to impart a transhumanist vision of hope for this sector of humanity, and a promise of improvement, if even mentioning the parameters of the problem gets one thrown under the bus by those living in or enabling the denial of such realities?
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #2 on: 2007-10-20 22:43:29 » |
|
With the exception of a few geneticly wonderous individuals, every day intelligence across a population has a lot more to do with standard of living issues which nurture such things across a population, not just a genetically gifted few. Outside the gifted few, intelligence is more an issue of building the wealth of a nation and its infrastructure. Indeed the genetically gifted few also benefit immeasurably on the opportunity to rely on such an intelligently supportive infrastructure.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #3 on: 2007-10-20 22:58:52 » |
|
Since he's been fired anyway, I'd like to make an open invitation to James Watson to explain himself in the Church of the Virus on this thread. I understand his first instinct to protect his career, but perhaps he has already seen how short sighted that instinct was. I'm not certain what he really meant by his initial statement, but I'm guessing his insight wasn't as shallowly inspired as others have chosen to interpret it. David Lucifer our first host provided the hint of an opening to discuss it here, and I as a somewhat regarded Virian in the Church of the Virus would like to offer a more intellectually honest environment within our discussion community than the close-minded truthiness of popular media can afford.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #4 on: 2007-10-22 15:35:10 » |
|
Quote from: Mo on 2007-10-20 22:37:19
...Africans happen to share high melanin concentrations... |
Thank heavens for someone who is an attentive reader, namely Mo. Seems that most everyone else, even trained scientists, are behaving as if Watson had said that "black" people are less intelligent. A favourable environment is, as recent research has shown, crucial for the developement of "intelligence". Africans do not have as many of these favourable circumstances as some other continents. Making this observation is racist?
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #5 on: 2007-10-22 17:30:25 » |
|
Incidentally, I'd have to check myself on this, but aren't Africans (sharing the cradle of humanity as opposed to living in its global diaspora) a more genetically diverse group anyway? I recall reading something about that somewhere. If they are in fact so genetically diverse as a continent, whatever one could say about them collectively would have less to do with their genetics than simply sharing the same continental space. I might be out on a limb here, but I'm willing to offer such a speculation up in the face of the countervailing truthiness any day. Please check me on it, as I refuse to rely so unreservedly on "gut intelligence". I seem to recall some neocortical activity on the issue in the past.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.88
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #6 on: 2007-10-22 18:59:59 » |
|
These so called "IQ Tests" have EVERYTHING to do with what has been written SINCE birth on our "Blank Slates" (thank you Steven Pinker) and virtually NOTHING to do with the quality of the "tabula" AT birth.
Since nobody ever gets anywhere near ultimate potential, where it is set
is not a really big concern to me. I live comfortably in the middle of
Charles Murray's "Bell Curve", where the tones from the ringing of the
bell are rich in timbre and diversity and come from all directions. I
find my time is better spent eliminating those "quirks of fate" that
limit my mind. Fate is a boogey man that keeps showing us our failures
so we can't look forward. I don't believe in him anymore.
If mental superiority is characterized by reason, empathy and vision as
opposed to beliefs, then it is not a spurious claim to see mental
equality, NOT superiority, in the masses. This is statistically bound to
Murray's bell curve. The only problem is that the big bulge in the
middle of the curve has been retarded wholly downward not by genetic
factors, but cultural ones, such as belief in ghosts and "metaphysical"
things for two shining examples. Genetic factors come in to play only at
the extreme ends of the curve--the "brim of the hat".
I give not a damn what nature gives. It gives plenty and we take too
much for the wrong reasons. I'm god, and ruler of my virtual world, and
I sayeth the worth of a man SHOULD be the same. Nature's basically
nothing but a thermodynamic ratchet. I find beauty in that simplicity.
We need to learn how to use it for everyone's enhancement and not just
the fringes of the curve.
A poem I penned way back in my younger, more creative days:
Race, it seems, is not the case
as once we thought it was.
Instead, we find, it's just the grind
of living taking place.
So let us put at last to rest
the notion of one race ahead.
Let's declare that wicked witch
as really most sincerely dead.
Sex, it seems, is not the case
as once we thought it was.
Instead, we find, it's just the grind
of living taking place.
So let us put at last to rest
the notion of one sex ahead.
Let's declare that wicked witch
as really most sincerely dead.
"Whoa", they cried, don't yet discard
endowment, sex and race.
We need their hope to take the place
Should culture fail to make its' case.
Walter Watts
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #7 on: 2007-10-23 06:32:00 » |
|
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece
Quote:The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "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". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true". |
Now that I see the context more fully I can see where it bothers people. However, merely pointing out the parameters of a problem does not necessarily establish its causes and origin. Why not consider all possibilities? Should we ban scientific study of genetics and intelligence because the conclusions MIGHT disturb us? It seems to me that the better approach would be to affirmatively study (or fund thereof) research into all possible causes of intelligence instead of getting so disturbed by one particular factor.
Here's what REALLY disturbs me (later quote in the same article)
Quote:| Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint." |
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #8 on: 2007-10-23 06:47:56 » |
|
Here's the real irony. If indeed there are some genetic factors in intelligence, or rather differences in intelligence, then discovering them would in fact be the surest step in spreading the wealth of such intelligence either through genetic engineering/therapy, or some similar beneficial methods. And yet some would rather criminalize the question to begin with. How is that helpful for anything?
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.88
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #9 on: 2007-10-23 14:43:54 » |
|
Quote from: Mo on 2007-10-23 06:47:56
Here's the real irony. If indeed there are some genetic factors in intelligence, or rather differences in intelligence, then discovering them would in fact be the surest step in spreading the wealth of such intelligence either through genetic engineering/therapy, or some similar beneficial methods. And yet some would rather criminalize the question to begin with. How is that helpful for anything?
|
Hey old friend.
I'm in no way definitively asserting that there are NOT some genetic factors that result in differences in intelligence.
I'm just not convinced we have any IQ tests that can differentiate the fine distinctions between the genetic factors and the environmental factors.
I know there seems to be a preponderance of scientific evidence suggesting that, for instance, blacks have some genetic advantages in some areas of physical performance. ie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Endurance ability and East African Heritage:
J Appl Physiol 1999 Mar;86(3):915-23
African runners exhibit greater fatigue resistance, lower lactate
accumulation, and higher oxidative enzyme activity.
Weston AR, Karamizrak O, Smith A, Noakes TD, Myburgh KH.
Nine African and eight Caucasian 10-km runners resident at sea level
volunteered. Maximal O2 consumption and peak treadmill velocity (PTV)
were measured by using a progressive test, and fatigue resistance
[time to fatigue (TTF)] was measured by using a newly developed high-
intensity running test: 5 min at 72, 80, and 88% of individual PTV
followed by 92% PTV to exhaustion. Skeletal muscle enzyme activities
were determined in 12 runners and 12 sedentary control subjects. In a
comparison of African and Caucasian runners, mean 10-km race time,
maximal O2 consumption, and PTV were similar. In African runners, TTF
was 21% longer (P < 0.01), plasma lactate accumulation after 5 min at
88% PTV was 38% lower (P < 0.05), and citrate synthase activity was
50% higher (27.9 +/- 7.5 vs. 18.6 +/- 2.1 micromol. g wet wt-1. min-
1, P = 0.02). Africans accumulated lactate at a slower rate with
increasing exercise intensity (P < 0.05). Among the entire group of
runners, a higher citrate synthase activity was associated with a
longer TTF (r = 0.70, P < 0.05), a lower plasma lactate accumulation
(r = -0.73, P = 0.01), and a lower respiratory exchange ratio (r = -
0.63, P < 0.05). We conclude that the African and Caucasian runners
in the present study differed with respect to oxidative enzyme
activity, rate of lactate accumulation, and their ability to sustain
high-intensity endurance exercise.
The full article can be found at:
<http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/3/915>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can find studies showing these and related kinds of genetic differences ad nauseum.
OK. Big deal.
Mo. You and I are white as ghosts and obviously of northern European descent.
So, from an athletic standpoint, you and I might be, well, fucked.
That "truth" doesn't bother me.
However, should scientists find the same kinds of proof of purely genetic deficiency, no matter how slight, in higher nervous system function, you can bet it will be squelched by an a priori "criminalization of the question" as you put it.
Should it be a verboten subject?
Hell no. Fuck 'em if they can't stand the truth.
Will it be a verboten subject?
You can bet your inferior fast-twitch muscles it will be.
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #10 on: 2007-10-23 17:01:44 » |
|
I am of the opinion that generally speaking the differences within "racial groups" tend to be much greater than those measured between members of different "racial" groups. Particularly so far as vague factors like "intelligence" are concerned. Which is why I (and all the sociologists I have spoken with) argue that "racism," including the collection of racially differentiating information (as in, e.g. the US census) is a game for statistically challenged idiots. That said, I know of multiple instances where differences bestowed through genetic heritage are compelling, unequivocal and match "racial" differences.
One is related to the sad story of a South African University's Doctoral candidate whose thesis had been routinely forwarded to the Examination Board by his sponsors for approval of his capping.
His thesis was a beautifully performed work of more than sufficient weight, studying the vexing question of why the few whites working in South African mines suffered an utterly disproportionate number of spinal injuries. The candidate had stress tested a large number of spinal samples from whites and blacks and determined that where white spines could be damaged by pressures of a few tens of kilograms, that black spines could withstand several thousand kilograms without injury. There was unanimous agreement that the Doctorate be awarded when one of the examiners joked (I think; I hope; it was meant as a joke), "This proves that they (i.e. blacks) are meant to be hewers of wood and drawers of water" (referencing the role granted blacks in the Judeo-Christian babble). The question of whether this was a "racist study" having raised its dirty head, approval was adjurned sine dies. The next year his award was again tabled without voting - which effectively disallowed the PhD, as it moved the candidate out of meeting the "reasonable time" requirement.
So even when information is substantial and unarguable, but points to a genetic difference, it is regarded as unacceptable despite, like Walter's example, being favorable to the black.
The other is perhaps a little less black and white, but nevertheless, I found it very persuasive. It relates to the SAAF flight school which was under massive political pressure to graduate black pilots in the mid 1990s. IIRC, to achieve this objective, it reached the ridiculous point where the intake ratio was around 80 blacks for each other race classification (where a mere "affirmative correction" ought to have seen perhaps a 4:1 ratio to be representative). Even with this weighting, the black candidates were still not graduating, although the few so called Indians, Coloured and Whites, as well as the even smaller number of women candidates, were.
Year after year, the head of the flight school argued that he would not reduce the qualification requirements - but asserted the failure to graduate black pilots was not "racist" but a matter of demonstrated capability failures; and he tendered persuasive results relating to the lack of critical capabilities to discern and act upon spatial relationships and trajectories in simulator environments; ultimately machine measured to reduce charges that the instructors were unconsciously prejudiced (and that was asserted) and a prerequisite to graduation, despite the introduction of intensive "remedial programs." The director repeatedly tendered his resignation - which was (at least while I was there), not accepted, even by his very "affirmative action" oriented political masters. I am told that after his eventual retirement in the normal course of events that a number of black candidates have graduated; but that this only happened after the airforce had been effectively grounded by a lack of budget for fuel. The last may or may not be apocryphal.
Against this, it should be noted that the US has had large numbers of successful Black pilots, but that their genetic heritage would be very different from South African blacks and their relatively easier access to airframes (along with the fact that even Bush managed to graduate as a pilot) might mean that the US has a less strenuous pilot selection process.
All the above not withstanding, IIRC, Israel's kibbutz programs did succeed in "normalizing" black IQs in the significant number of "Black Jews" integrated into their society (at Palestinian expense of course). Apparently placing infants in a collective upbringing environment mitigated the effects of poor parental practices. This points not to significant genetic differences in IQ but to the fact that black parents may have sociological impediments to raising their children effectively (e.g. children carried strapped to the parent tend to do much worse in mental and physical performance tests than similar age brackets of children that are free to crawl around). This may also speak to why children raised in orphanages (with all their failings) unexpectedly tend to do better (as measured by income and years of education) in life than children raised by parents and adoptive parents.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #11 on: 2007-10-24 19:37:20 » |
|
[Blunderov] Found this by Julian Baggini who is always sensible, IMO anyway. In the appended piece I'm not sure that he doesn't make too much of a meal of Watson's comment "People who have to deal with black employees find they are not equal to whites."Baggini goes on to say "There you do find the genuinely racist statement that Watson allegedly made."
Hmm. The conversation is about genetics and the statement is either true or not and can either be backed up or not. To assume that Watson must be able to do neither seems, well, dogmatic.
To be sure, Prof. Watson does not seem to have much diplomatic sense, or indeed even any apparent sense of danger whatsoever. Talk about leading with the chin!
Part of the problem, ISTM, is how very much store is set by "intelligence". It is considered even more of a virtue than beauty except in the case of women where the opposite applies. Ironically, one is as much of a vanity as the other and both will fade to sad reminders. (Not before having caused a lot of trouble though.)
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julian_baggini/2007/10/binary_limitations.html
Binary limitations
A predictable debate surrounds James Watson's recent comments. But how far could you go along with his argument before descending into racism?
Julian Baggini
I've found the debate following James Watson's controversial remarks about race and intelligence depressing, all the more so for its predictability. It may be true that real-world choices require binary choices, such as whether Watson's talks went ahead or not. That implies another binary choice: taken as a whole, his remarks were acceptable or not. But when discussing the issues the case raises, surely we have to look more closely and unpick exactly what was objectionable in what he said and what lies within the domain of acceptable debate. For Watson said several things, some of which deserve an airing and some of which don't.
So how far could you go along with Watson before descending into racism? Which of these five statements of ascending controversy do you think has a legitimate place in public debate?
1) Average genetic differences between human populations result in different distributions of observable characteristics.
If you think this is racist then I'm afraid you think the truth is racist. It should be an incontrovertible fact that there are typical genetic differences between different populations which have historically been geographically separated. That is, after all, the reason why skin pigmentation varies, and also why some medical conditions, such as sickle-cell anaemia, are more prevalent among people with ancestors from certain regions than others. It might also explain why athletes of West African descent have dominated sprinting for decades.
It may be true that we shouldn't say this amounts to genetic differences between races, because "race" is a discredited, unscientific category. However, since even the fight against racial discrimination uses the notion of race, the language of race is not in itself always objectionable.
2) Genetic differences may extend to cognitive as well as purely physiological characteristics.
Given genetic variation is a reality, and given the brain is a physical organ, might it not also be the case that the average mental capacities of people with different genetic histories differ? It would be rash to assume that this is the case, but surely it wouldn't be too surprising if it turned out that it was. We already know that gender makes a difference. For example, on average, experiments suggest women are naturally better at many verbal tasks and men better at many spatial ones. Does this make men better than women, or vice-versa? No - just different. Does it mean we can know that for any given man and woman, the man will be better at spatial tasks? No - the differences are merely averages.
One of Watson's reported comments made no more than the basic claim that some cognitive differences would probably be found between people with different geographical roots: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so." That is discomforting possibility, but not racist.
3) The scientific investigation as to whether such cognitive differences exist has found evidence that average IQ is not constant across the world.
This, again, can't be racist because it's true. What's more, the results, such as they are, hardly support the white supremacist case. It turns out the highest average IQs are found among Asians, not white Europeans.
Of course, the trouble is what you make of this finding. Does it show that Asians are more intelligent that Europeans? Well, IQ is a controversial measure. While it is just wishful thinking to believe it doesn't correlate with general intelligence at all, the idea that it perfectly captures all the facets of intelligence is even more ridiculous. Indeed, Cameron Doudu, in his criticism of Watson, makes a lot of this point, claiming that Africans "do not need a high 'IQ' - such as found in tests devised by westerners." In that case, why get upset when someone suggests that Africans don't on average have as much of the kind of intelligence they don't need? So when Watson said that people want to believe that Africans' "intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really," he is being no more racist than his critic Doudu, who also asserted the typically different - not superior or inferior - intelligence of Africans.
The other crucial complication is that IQ does not seem to be entirely genetic. Education does make a difference, so cross-cultural test results should be treated with caution. But that does not mean they should be dismissed completely. The data on IQ are just that - data - and are not racist.
4) Some ethnic groups are superior to others.
This is where things get distinctly unscientific. Qualify the statement in various ways and you may get something most people would think is not only not racist but probably true, such as "Kenyans are on average superior at long-distance running to white northern Europeans." It's when you get on to claims about overall superiority or inferiority that you're entering the dangerous world of racist clap-trap. Did Watson make this general claim? He did not, though he came too close for comfort, as I'll argue below. He did, however, explicitly reject the racist view that such average differences as may exist justify discriminatory policies.
5) People who have to deal with black employees find they are not equal to whites.
There you do find the genuinely racist statement that Watson allegedly made. Even if there are typical differences of IQ that correlate roughly to geographical origin, the idea that these are so marked that anyone can tell just by working with a black person that dark-skinned people are not up to scratch is as ludicrous as it is offensive. It was this remark which I think made it impossible for those due to host Watson's lectures to go ahead. Scientists like Sue Blackmore who defended Watson's right to discuss controversial ideas seem to have missed this point. Had he only made the first three claims outlined above, I too would be defending him. But in his remark about black employees he went further than this, implying the general belief that some ethnic groups are superior to others, and that you don't actually need science to prove this.
But this has left us with a missed opportunity. Because debates tend to return to the binary - James Watson, for or against? - we've missed the chance to debate the truly controversial and live questions he raised. Which of the five statements I've outlined deserve open debate? I think the first three all do, but many of those opposing Watson seem erroneously to think they are all beyond the pale.
As we learn more about genetic difference we may well find that cognitive abilities vary according to where in the world our ancestors lived. If we simply deny this might be possible, we won't be ready to respond as we should, by saying, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it, that human beings are "equal in dignity and rights", not that they all have the exact same capacities. Once again, too much of the outcry over Watson has fallen prey to the myth that equality requires sameness, between individuals or populations.
One final thought: Watson was condemned too swiftly for my liking, because the calls for banning came on the basis purely of a second-hand newspaper report of his comments, while he was still asleep in America. It is very odd that in a society that is so mistrustful of journalists, one report of Watson's comments was deemed sufficient evidence to damn him.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.93
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #12 on: 2007-11-04 20:26:52 » |
|
source: The Independent
James Watson: To question genetic intelligence is not racism
Published: 19 October 2007
Science is no stranger to controversy. The pursuit of discovery, of knowledge, is often uncomfortable and disconcerting. I have never been one to shy away from stating what I believe to be the truth, however difficult it might prove to be. This has, at times, got me in hot water.
Rarely more so than right now, where I find myself at the centre of a storm of criticism. I can understand much of this reaction. For if I said what I was quoted as saying, then I can only admit that I am bewildered by it. To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.
I have always fiercely defended the position that we should base our view of the world on the state of our knowledge, on fact, and not on what we would like it to be. This is why genetics is so important. For it will lead us to answers to many of the big and difficult questions that have troubled people for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
But those answers may not be easy, for, as I know all too well, genetics can be cruel. My own son may be one of its victims. Warm and perceptive at the age of 37, Rufus cannot lead an independent life because of schizophrenia, lacking the ability to engage in day-to-day activities. For all too long, my wife Ruth and I hoped that what Rufus needed was an appropriate challenge on which to focus. But as he passed into adolescence, I feared the origin of his diminished life lay in his genes. It was this realisation that led me to help to bring the human genome project into existence.
In doing so, I knew that many new moral dilemmas would arise as a consequence and would early on establish the ethical, legal and societal components of the genome project. Since 1978, when a pail of water was dumped over my Harvard friend E O Wilson for saying that genes influence human behaviour, the assault against human behavioural genetics by wishful thinking has remained vigorous.
But irrationality must soon recede. It will soon be possible to read individual genetic messages at costs which will not bankrupt our health systems. In so doing, I hope we see whether changes in DNA sequence, not environmental influences, result in behaviour differences. Finally, we should be able to establish the relative importance of nature as opposed to nurture.
One in three people looking for a job in temporary employment bureaux in Los Angeles is a psychopath or a sociopath. Is this a consequence of their environment or their genetic components? DNA sequencing should give us the answer. The thought that some people are innately wicked disturbs me. But science is not here to make us feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge and greater understanding.
In finding out the extent to which genes influence moral behaviour, we shall also be able to understand how genes influence intellectual capacities. Right now, at my institute in the US we are working on gene-caused failures in brain development that frequently lead to autism and schizophrenia. We may also find that differences in these respective brain development genes also lead to differences in our abilities to carry out different mental tasks.
In some cases, how these genes function may help us to understand variations in IQ, or why some people excel at poetry but are terrible at mathematics. All too often people with high mathematical abilities have autistic traits. The same gene that gives some people such great mathematical abilities may also lead to autistic behaviour. This is why, in studying autism and schizophrenia, we believe that we shall come very close to a better understanding of intelligence and, therefore, of the differences in intelligence.
We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.
To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers. It is very likely that at least some 10 to 15 years will pass before we get an adequate understanding for the relative importance of nature versus nurture in the achievement of important human objectives. Until then, we as scientists, wherever we wish to place ourselves in this great debate, should take care in claiming what are unarguable truths without the support of evidence.
The writer, a Nobel prizewinner for his part in unraveling DNA, is chairman of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the United States
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #13 on: 2007-11-15 06:48:19 » |
|
[Blunderov] Seems that James Watson may be more a victim of the dreaded truthiness than anything else; this quote from the appended article jumps off the page :"People, including me, would rather believe that significant human biological evolution stopped between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, before the races diverged, which would ensure that racial and ethnic groups are biologically equivalent,".
What if it isn't true? Apparently this is a question which dare not speak its name
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925421.300-are-we-still-evolving.html
Are we still evolving?
11 March 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Kate Douglas
"Are humans still evolving? In the vernacular sense of improving morally and intellectually - by cultural changes - I think so," says Steven Pinker. "In the biological sense of changes in the gene pool, it's impossible to say." If pressed to come off the fence, however, the Harvard-based evolutionary biologist knows where he stands. "People, including me, would rather believe that significant human biological evolution stopped between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, before the races diverged, which would ensure that racial and ethnic groups are biologically equivalent," he says.
It's an understandable position given the political implications of being wrong. And in one important sense Pinker is absolutely spot on: it's very difficult, if not impossible, to observe human evolution in action. But saying it isn't happening is an increasingly difficult position to defend scientifically. Recent discoveries show that we must reject the idea that human evolution stopped dead 50,000 years ago or more. In fact, there is every reason to believe that it is going on right now.
Take the discovery last year by Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago of two genes involved in brain development that emerged in recent human history and swept quickly through the population. One, a version of a gene called microcephalin, arose between 14,000 and 60,000 years ago and is now carried by 70 per cent of people. The other, a variant of the ASPM gene, is as recent as 500 to 14,000 years old and is now carried by about a quarter of the global population.
No one yet knows the function of these genes, but Lahn's discoveries could be just the tip of the iceberg. With the publication of the chimpanzee genome (Nature, vol 437, p 69), geneticists are in a position to catalogue all the changes that have occurred in the human genome in the 7 million years or so since our species split from its closest relative. They will also be able to pinpoint when those mutations first arose - be it a few hundred or many million years ago - and what role they might have played in the evolution of our species.
The discovery of ongoing human evolution raises many questions, some of them uncomfortable. What if, for example, Pinker's fears are confirmed and racial groups turn out not to be biologically equivalent? Is natural selection still a driving force in humans, given that our survival is often less dependent on genes than on technology? To what extent might a changing genome lead to changes in attributes we value, such as intelligence? What might our species look like 1000 years from now? Contemporary human evolution may be a minefield, but it's a minefield that can no longer be ignored.
If asked whether we are still evolving, most experts would concur with Pinker: it depends what you mean by evolution. So, what are the options? In the loosest sense of the word, evolution is simply the change over time in a species' gene pool - all the genes in all the individuals alive at one time. In that sense, all species are evolving, even those that reproduce by cloning, because DNA inevitably changes over time through random mutation, and because some individuals of a species will have more offspring than others.
Beyond this, though, things get a bit more complicated. When considering how evolution might be happening, it is perhaps easier to think of a "gene boat" rather than a "gene pool" to represent all the genes present in the human population at the moment. Imagine this craft bobbing on a sea of all possible human genes, with the water under its hull representing the combination possessed by the species at any particular time. Left to its own devices, the boat drifts aimlessly. This is "genetic drift", where a species is changing randomly without any driving force from its environment.
Now imagine our boat has a sail, so that when the wind blows, it heads off with seeming purpose. That's like natural selection or sexual selection, in which an external force influences the direction taken by the gene boat. In the case of natural selection, the driving force is adaptation to a change in environmental conditions. For sexual selection, the force is exerted by other members of the species preferring to mate with individuals who possess desirable characteristics, which then become more prevalent.
Imagine now that the boat has a tiller and someone at the helm to steer it. This would be the equivalent of artificial selection similar to dog or plant breeding. The gene boat even encompasses artificial selection by genetic engineering. These are the possibilities, but to what extent is the evolution of our species being shaped by these various forces?
Genetic drift undoubtedly plays a role. Its scale is difficult to measure, however, given that drift produces no obvious trends in the way a species looks or behaves. Some experts argue that natural selection is diminishing in importance, and as it does genetic drift comes to the fore. It's a contentious suggestion, but even if they are correct, the aimlessness of drift makes it of limited interest.
Which takes us to natural selection. It's clear that the raw genetic material upon which selection could act is being generated all the time - the human genome is not immune from mutations, some of which could confer a selective advantage. But are there any selection pressures at work?
Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, has famously argued that natural selection is no longer important for humans. He points out that natural selection works by ensuring that individuals whose genes are best adapted to the prevailing environment are most likely to survive and reproduce. But, he says, in the developed world, survival no longer depends on genes. "Just 500 years ago - yesterday in evolutionary terms - a British baby had only a 50 per cent chance of making it to reproductive age. Now, the figure is around 99 per cent," Jones says. There is also a more level playing field in the reproduction game. "No longer, as in the Middle Ages, do a few rich men have many children while many of those in poverty are forced into the army or into monasteries," he says. Jones admits that measuring reproductive success, particularly for men, can be difficult, but he calculates that the changes in survival and reproduction rates have led to a decrease of around 70 per cent in the opportunity for natural selection to act today, compared with the time when our ancestors lived as peasant farmers.
That's not quite the "zero" natural selection that some reports of Jones's views have suggested. Even he accepts that genes can still make a difference to survival and reproduction. One obvious example is genes that confer resistance to emerging diseases. Some parts of Africa, for example, have seen an increase in the frequency of a gene called CCR5-32, which offers some protection against infection with HIV-1.
There are other, more puzzling examples. One form of the dopamine receptor gene DRD4 has become much more common over the past few thousand years. The rate of increase suggests the gene has been positively selected for, though it's not clear why: the variant is associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
So natural selection is still at work, and some evolutionary biologists believe it would come as no surprise to find many more examples. They point out that we live in an era of rapid technological progress, and hence a fast changing environment, exactly the conditions under which you'd expect natural selection to act. Technological change has clearly driven natural selection in the past. The invention of dairy herding, for example, selected for a gene that gives adults the ability to digest milk sugars. So why not now? It's not hard to dream up selection pressures that could be acting today. Caesarean sections, for example, could be selecting for genes that allow babies to grow bigger in the womb.
Some experts, including Pinker, argue that technological change doesn't necessarily drive natural selection. Once culture emerged, they say, it provided non-genetic means to adapt to change, such as more technology or culturally inherited changes in behaviour. Though that is true in many ways, it does not necessarily mean that evolution has stopped. Technology and medicine, by enabling almost everyone to have children, could be causing "reverse evolution" by preventing unfit genes from being purged from the gene pool. "Relaxed selection combined with a high mutation rate is probably causing gradual deterioration of many functions, especially disease defences," says Gregory Cochran, adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
There are also plausible ways in which culture itself could be driving natural selection. This view has been expounded by Christopher Wills of the University of California, San Diego. In his book The Runaway Brain, he argues that there has been, and still is, positive feedback between our culture and our genes that led to the rapid evolution of the most characteristic human attribute, the mind. It began when the relatively advanced brains of our ancestors allowed them to succeed because of their wits rather than physical attributes. "Without a doubt, the most important selective pressures continue to be on brain function," says Wills.
This is one reason why Lahn's discovery of recent brain evolution has created such a stir. Lahn agrees with Wills that the defining feature of human evolution is that our minds have shaped our environment, which in turn has led to evolutionary changes in the way we think, and he is convinced it is continuing. Wills goes further, arguing that in the modern world nobody can do everything, so the advantage lies in being good at something that not many others can do well. "My prediction is that we are not simply getting smarter, we are selecting for more variability in our behaviours," he says. If he's right, that means our gene boat is getting bigger.
Lahn's discoveries have also given a boost to some controversial ideas. Last year, Cochran and his colleague Henry Harpending published a paper claiming that natural selection has increased the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews in the past 1000 years (Journal of Biosocial Science, vol 37, p 1). Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure, but this ethnic group scores between 12 and 15 points higher than average on IQ tests. Cochran and Harpending point out that from about AD 800 to 1700, Ashkenazim were forbidden to work in common trades and tended to make a living from more intellectual pursuits such as finance. The most successful had the most offspring and so there was natural selection for intelligence, argue the pair. They say they have genetic evidence to back them up, though the details have yet to be published.
Similarly, Lahn himself has found that the new microcephalin gene, which has been positively selected for and therefore appears to confer a useful trait, is relatively rare in sub-Saharan Africa, and the new form of ASPM is most prevalent in people from Europe and the Middle East, suggesting that both mutations originated in non-Africans after our ancestors migrated out of Africa. Lahn, though, has been keen to stress that both genes may still have arisen in Africa and that, anyway, having the genes may make brains "fitter" in certain environments, but doesn't necessarily mean they are "better".
Natural selection, however, isn't the only reason why a gene might become more prevalent. It's also possible that the driving force is sexual selection. Among the most prominent supporters of this idea is Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, author of The Mating Mind. He believes that the rate of human evolution is accelerating, and that selection for sexually desirable traits is the driving force. "Our high rates of migration, outbreeding, and cross-ethnic mating are recombining our genes at unprecedented rates," he says.
What is more, the vast human population means that our gene boat is acquiring new mutations faster than ever. Miller also points out that people are far more likely to meet and have children with someone who is like them. "Assortative mating - for intelligence, personality traits, mental health, physical health, attractiveness - is getting ever more efficient through higher education, urbanisation, singles' ads, internet dating and speed dating," says Miller. Taken together, that is likely to mean that advantageous new mutations have a greater opportunity than ever to become fixed in the population.
Assortative mating is also promoted by contraception. And other reproductive technologies are probably exerting an influence on human evolution too. "Willingness to be a sperm or egg donor is being strongly favoured by current selection," says Miller. And if germ-line genetic engineering became commonplace, the effect would be much more profound. "I suspect," says Lahn, "that way before the next millennium, we will have figured out ways to manipulate our own genome, such that evolution will operate on a whole new set of rules that even Darwin did not envision." Miller agrees. "Within a few generations, market-based genetic technology will eclipse socio-sexual selection as the driving force in human evolution," he says.
Miller foresees a future in which parents try to eliminate traits that they personally find undesirable, but says it's impossible to predict how that will affect the human gene pool. There are, however, human characteristics that will probably always be seen as desirable, and are likely to be actively selected for by genetic technology. In 1000 years, Miller predicts, "people will be much more beautiful, intelligent, symmetrical, healthy and emotionally stable, due to 40 generations of genetic screening against harmful mutations". And if futurologists such as Ray Kurzweil are correct, our gene boat will also get some shiny new high-tech additions, as humans merge with technology to become cyborgs and biological evolution is rendered obsolete (New Scientist, 24 September 2005, p 32).
“1000 years from now, people will be much more beautiful, intelligent, symmetrical, healthy and emotionally stable, thanks to 40 generations of genetic screening”Our gene boat may even find new waters to sail on. "One way in which we could evolve in a truly spectacular fashion is if we colonise other planets," says Wills. "Those colonists - and the animals and plants that they take with them - will undergo dramatic evolutionary changes in the process of adapting to incredibly different conditions." It's possible that colonists would even become a separate species if there was no interbreeding with people on Earth.
All in all, it's hard not to conclude that humans are still evolving, probably quite rapidly. "All species are evolving, but at different rates - some so slowly that the term 'glacial' would comically miss the mark," says Daniel Dennett from Tufts University in Boston. "But I expect that Homo sapiens is evolving at a rather swift pace."
So where are we heading? Most experts agree that trying to predict the direction of evolution is a fruitless exercise. "Evolution is not really a predictive science," says Jones. Others point out that we may not like where we're heading. "Perhaps we will so befoul our planet," says Dennett, "that only an eccentric and hardy remnant of our species - which can survive on earthworms while living in underground burrows, for instance - will remain." Wherever we end up, it seems clear that the story of human evolution has only just started.
From issue 2542 of New Scientist magazine, 11 March 2006, page 30
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:James Watson fired
« Reply #14 on: 2007-11-15 11:52:42 » |
|
In support of the idea that we continue to evolve, many years ago my father, one of the most observant people I know, observed that rich men have pretty daughters. While I have met a few exceptions, and the ability to spend money to disguise imperfections clearly doesn't hurt, the observation seems to hold up on a global basis.
The reason he gave was that rich men not only attracted, but could also afford to select for, the most attractive women from the pack. And clearly did. Simultaneously, as businesses tended to go towards male offspring (still do), having a bevy of pretty daughters does not dilute wealth, but in fact acts as an enabler of family ties which tends to increase wealth.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
