SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
James Watson: Scientist loses titles after claims over race
Nobel Prize-winning American scientist James Watson has been stripped of his honorary titles after repeating comments about race and intelligence.
In a TV programme, the pioneer in DNA studies made a reference to a view that genes cause a difference on average between blacks and whites on IQ tests. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said the 90-year-old scientist's remarks were "unsubstantiated and reckless". Dr Watson had made similar claims in 2007 and subsequently apologised.
He shared the Nobel in 1962 with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick for their 1953 discovery of the DNA's double helix structure.
Dr Watson sold his gold medal in 2014, saying he had been ostracised by the scientific community after his remarks about race. He is currently in a nursing home recovering from a car accident and is said to have "very minimal" awareness of his surroundings.
Previously: Disgraced Scientist is Selling his Nobel Prize
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:30PM (9 children)
The thing is, if the process were open, honest, justly applied, etc. eugenics would be a good idea. Now imagine that it's done by any current government.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:49PM (8 children)
No it wouldn't, diversity is strength and eugenics would end up making humanity into twisted outliers like Chihuahuas and Great Danes. Sure you've selected for some desirable traits, but eventually the genetic landscape is limited and humanity loses out as a whole. Maybe one day we'll know enough about genetics to manipulate our own makeup, but that should be a very scary prospect to anyone with half a brain.
Amusing how the average soylentil is very pro-freedom yet ideas like eugenics somehow get supported. Irony FTW!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (2 children)
People have this weird mistaken idea that because evolution is 'natural' it is this nice gentle process where species slowly improve. This is a long way from the truth.
Evolution is nasty, brutal, ruthless and wasteful. In any evolving species the majority of offspring are going to die in horrible ways.
If you think eugenics is bad, evolution is far worse. But that is what you are arguing for.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @03:40AM (1 child)
You were close to a decent point. Evolution is a natural process, eugenics is adding a human controlled layer on top where we select for traits we find desirable. I will 100% take a natural disaster causing mass death over human controlled genocide.
It is weird how a human brain can take one perceived brutality and use it to justify further brutality, but that is what you are doing. Besides, I'm not arguing FOR evolution, that will happen one way or another. Genocide will only add a quick burst to the death rate, then "evolution" AKA normal human living will continue the pretty standard death toll.
Or are you arguing we need to genocide entire populations in order to prevent future suffering? Thanos did you break out of the 4th wall?? You realize some basic math makes your crime against the universe pointless right? RIGHT?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday January 14 2019, @05:53AM
All we need is a controlled breeding program for luck. That way the species cumulative luck across the planet will keep us safe from any enemy. Or so goes the species in Niven's universe.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Monday January 14 2019, @04:20AM (4 children)
Actually, diversity is Chihuahuas and Great Danes; eugenics is wolves.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:24AM (2 children)
Eugenics "is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population" (wikipedia) through selective breeding. That is what led to the wildly different breeds of dogs like Chihuahuas and Great Danes, humans selectively breeding dogs for specific traits.
Were you going for a metaphorical take on it??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @05:58PM (1 child)
Actually, eugenics is more like "Fuck you! Give me everything you have!" What's that? You were under the naive impression that eugenics was about "improving the genetic quality of a human population"? Such a silly fellow!
I hope this clarifies things for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @08:18PM
Heh, yeah that is how it actually goes down but that wasn't what we were discussing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Michael on Monday January 14 2019, @02:40PM
Selectively bred (esp pedigree) dogs have high morphological variation at the expense of lower genetic variation within the breed. The genetic combined total across all dog breeds may have as much variation as the original wild population they're derived from, but it's distributed badly and results in entire breeds with undesirable traits which impact the animal's quality of life, mobility or independence.
Presumably a selection scheme which was more carefully designed and had more feedback built in would do better, but doing it today we may well be better off with gmos/designer puppies.