3 ms·

While it's disturbing to think that someone as smart as Watson may have descended into scientific racism, more upsetting still is this recent trend of politiciz

While it's disturbing to think that someone as smart as Watson may have descended into scientific racism, more upsetting still is this recent trend of politicizing all achievements, scientific, creative, or otherwise. I've never met a perfect person. Can't we accept that people with great achievements will also have ordinary failings? And should we deny their obvious contributions over their political failures?

eesmith 8y ago
"Recent trend"? Isn't it part of the human characteristic to look at the whole person, good and bad, and not just cherry-pick the good? Even when considering only Nobel Prize winners, look at the response to Shockley's views in the 1960s, or Philipp Lenard's views on "Aryan physics" which lead the Allied forces to strip him of emeritus status from Heidelberg University in 1945. The act of labeling someone as part of the "black" or "white" races is a political one, as race is a sociopolitical term and not one really based in genetics. (Eg, the "one drop" rule in the US has no meaningful biological basis.) Watson's political views are certainly subject to politicizing, yes? Nor do I believe that Watson's views are really "ordinary failings". If they were ordinary, wouldn't we be hearing a lot more about other biologists making similar claims? But we don't. On the flip side, ordinary failings can also have negative consequences, yes? When do we let fame shield people from those consequences?
- mimixco 8y ago
  These are all good points and I agree, especially that race is a social construct and not a scientific one. It's not my intent to diminish the impact of bigotry, whatever its source. Racism, sadly, is ordinary. I do think that the trend of stripping people of their titles over political issues has gotten worse lately. Since all of us have beliefs that others don't like and all of us do things others don't agree with, it sets a dangerous precedent. Being a racist may make someone a bad person, but it doesn't make them a bad scientist. I guess that's what I was trying say in a nutshell.

eesmith 8y ago

"Recent trend"? Isn't it part of the human characteristic to look at the whole person, good and bad, and not just cherry-pick the good? Even when considering only Nobel Prize winners, look at the response to Shockley's views in the 1960s, or Philipp Lenard's views on "Aryan physics" which lead the Allied forces to strip him of emeritus status from Heidelberg University in 1945. The act of labeling someone as part of the "black" or "white" races is a political one, as race is a sociopolitical term and not one really based in genetics. (Eg, the "one drop" rule in the US has no meaningful biological basis.) Watson's political views are certainly subject to politicizing, yes? Nor do I believe that Watson's views are really "ordinary failings". If they were ordinary, wouldn't we be hearing a lot more about other biologists making similar claims? But we don't. On the flip side, ordinary failings can also have negative consequences, yes? When do we let fame shield people from those consequences?

mimixco 8y ago
These are all good points and I agree, especially that race is a social construct and not a scientific one. It's not my intent to diminish the impact of bigotry, whatever its source. Racism, sadly, is ordinary. I do think that the trend of stripping people of their titles over political issues has gotten worse lately. Since all of us have beliefs that others don't like and all of us do things others don't agree with, it sets a dangerous precedent. Being a racist may make someone a bad person, but it doesn't make them a bad scientist. I guess that's what I was trying say in a nutshell.