Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday January 13 2019, @10:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the race-to-disgrace dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:41PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 13 2019, @11:41PM (#786116)

    Finally a voice of reason. The racists around here need to learn that these systems are intertwined and complex, and worrying about which race is "better" is a stupid waste of time and energy that is objectively wrong.

    Discrimination (like affirmative action) is racist, looking for solutions to evident underlying problems is not. The left [politifact.com] has now lost the fucking plot [psychologytoday.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Offtopic=1, Troll=1, Interesting=1, Touché=3, Total=6
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:56AM (#786213)

    Hey this is policy now you can't object to it
    The next person hired cannot be white. Must be black or minority.
    Must be male. Must be female.
    Diversity is king!

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:00AM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @02:00AM (#786216)

      That was the 8th movie with a white or Asian lead. The next movie must have a black lead.

      Okay but we already have script and funding and author approval and distribution and

      The lead must be black

      But the character isn't black in the source material

      Change it

      People will notice

      Just do it

      What about the fans

      If they complain they are racist

      Its your money.

      • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday January 14 2019, @05:22AM (13 children)

        by Kell (292) on Monday January 14 2019, @05:22AM (#786284)

        Except, historically, this seems to go the other way? I can only think of one counter example, where Dr. Martin King jr was being played by a caucasian man. It made made headlines, and always struck me as ironic as King had not wanted people to be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the quality of their character.

        --
        Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:25AM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:25AM (#786357)

          It made made headlines, and always struck me as ironic as King had not wanted people to be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the quality of their character.

          Unfortunately there are many who assert that being "colorblind" is a form of racial discrimination, and who strongly support being judged by skin color when it results in their being given preferential treatment.

          One such example of this is affirmative action.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @08:43AM (#786363)

            Hey I know one of them! Talking with her is life being in room 101.
            Up is up so long as she agrees it is up. According to her hiring a less qualified minority is better than a more qualified person who is not a minority.
            In a strange weird turnaround from what it looks like it seems that asians are treated as Caucasian around here now. This might very well be a local abnormality. One I know was pissed that a "minority" got the job she applied for in two applicants on the back of her 15+ years experience over the two years of the other. Watching her boil at the morning tea thrown for the new minority manager I considered how this hire could be called a minority when there are a billion of them on the planet. Just must be a new age terminology twist.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Monday January 14 2019, @10:10AM (7 children)

            by Kell (292) on Monday January 14 2019, @10:10AM (#786393)

            I am personally dead-set against quotas and affirmative action. Nothing pisses me off more than someone assuming that I got a job or promotion "just because" I'm a woman. It harms companies by choosing weaker candidates, and it harms candidates by casting aspersions on their merit.

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @01:33PM (#786429)

              Management have been trumpeting that we now have over 55% females in leadership positions across the organization. That's Middlelevel management and higher.

              You should see some of these managers in action. It's disgraceful. Aweful.

              A long time ago we had strong, strategic, inspiring female managers. Less than 10% of management. In some ways it sucked to be them. They had to be everything a male manager was and more. Watching them, learning from them, working with them was inspiring.

              Now we have people who can pass an MBA, maybe.

              Hey, though. We have more than half the management positions filled by females. And that is what counts.

              I miss the old days.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:36PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @11:36PM (#786708)

                And that is what counts.

                Especially for the competition!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @06:40PM (#786548)

              can someone explain why this was voted down?

              i would like that everyone with talent is recognized and rewarded, without the need for an arbitrary playing field leveling system. that she expresses concern that people expect she's not talented and instead is part of an effort to level the playing field because of a quota, that doesn't seem trollish, but maybe im missing the context.

            • (Score: 2) by Kell on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:07AM (2 children)

              by Kell (292) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @12:07AM (#786719)

              How the hell is this modded as a troll? This is something I've experienced first hand as a "diversity candidate".

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:23AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @02:23AM (#786749)

                It doesn't fit the SJW agenda?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @05:37AM (#786797)

                Rule 16: There are no women on the internet.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:12PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @10:12PM (#787075)

              https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888?pfmredir=sm [abc.net.au]

              have a read of this article, it's a real cack
              they put ina policy to remove discrimination against women when hiring in the public service only to find that people generally discriminated *for* female candidates

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:30AM (2 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:30AM (#786821) Journal

            That's an oversimplification. "Colorblind" is a problem because it assumes a level playing field where there isn't one. Now, the answer may not be "reverse discrimination," but unless and until something is done to fix the underlying causes, what else is left? I have a friend who compares AA to aspirin for a cancer patient, but also opines "if it's aspirin or nothing I'd of course want the aspirin."

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:13AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15 2019, @09:13AM (#786842)

              That's an oversimplification. "Colorblind" is a problem because it assumes a level playing field where there isn't one. Now, the answer may not be "reverse discrimination," but unless and until something is done to fix the underlying causes, what else is left? I have a friend who compares AA to aspirin for a cancer patient, but also opines "if it's aspirin or nothing I'd of course want the aspirin."

              Interesting perspective, but what is the criteria to satisfy the conditions that a "level playing field" has been achieved? Such that affirmative action -- just another form of racial discrimination -- can be tossed aside completely?

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:57PM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @06:57PM (#787001) Journal

                Yes. If we truly have equality of opportunity, we wouldn't need AA. I don't like it personally, but the only alternative in the present system--getting rid of it and replacing it with jack shit--is even worse.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...