The Irrelevance of the Issue of Race and Genetics

     Over the holidays of 2023, I read many of the biographies written by Isaacson, and the one on CRISPR rehearsed the episode of James Watson and his infamous remarks about race. Though known for his discovery, along with Crick, of the double-helix structure of DNA, he will also be known for claiming, several times now, that those from Africa have lower IQ.

     To broach this topic as an academic would be for two reasons:

     1. One wished to present countervailing evidence to Watson’s claim.

     2.  One fancied oneself a renegade that was going to speak to “truths” that                        opposed to the prevailing view (namely, variation among individuals is more              important than that between groups).

    In either case, basic common-sense dictates to write about race and IQ is a virtual Kiss of Death for an academic career. One does not wish to be associated with this unsavoury debate in any shape whatsoever, even as a critic of Watson.

    My purpose is to explore the nature of social science research here. Social science research is prescriptive as much as it is descriptive. Often research, even if not intended, is to usher in a world as it should be. We create new categories (learning disability, IQ, SES, a plethora of mental illnesses and so on) by which to understand ourselves, which in turn change who we are and how we experience the world.

    In a society aiming for inclusion, “discoveries” about difference between groups (any groups) are counterproductive. At face value, I do not doubt there are differences between groups (e.g., some that live at high altitudes have been shown to have better abilities to oxygenate their blood).

    The issue of intelligence has a long and sordid racist history rooted in colonial views about the world. It is possible, but not clearly how relevant, it would be if one discovered that gays were more intelligent than straight people, or on two islands, the blacks had higher IQs than the whites. At an individual level, we all recognize some people have better genetic luck, having better looks, being taller, or having a better memory. It’s a fact of life. All of such talk of genetic diversity, especially at a group level, flies in the face of the ideal most Western democracies are striving for. We are human. We are all basically the same. Made in the image of God. We all deserve respect.

    The ethical imperative—respect—however, has no clear link, to my mind to intelligence. Intelligence, whatever it is, we know what it is not. It is not a measure of wisdom, ethics, or rationality. I do not doubt that Joseph Mangle, the Angel of Death, was intelligent (having a medical degree and PhD in anthropology, he was at least educated). But I don’t think him a good man. Even if we consider what IQ is, there are environmental factors at play, too.

    In an educational and social setting, the entire talk of intelligence and genes is unsavoury. Making the world better through science is something we should all worry about, not just the Nazi version, but the more innocuous variations, too. And as for Watson, it is good to remember (though there is probably debate about this too now), that we all hail from Africa, and before that, bacteria. The philosophical lesson of biology should be, though it is not, that all life has commonalities. From a Hindu point of view, everything is a reincarnation of God. We should respect all life, including animals, and people of different cultures.

    Watson’s comments show he was deaf to the environment he was working in (so in this sense he was stupid), and his views about race could be either wrong, irrelevant, or counterproductive. Part of what counts as knowledge is things we value. “True” is not just true, and even basic understanding of mathematics teaches us that.

    I’ve tried to say something intelligent about Watson’s remarks that are not insane, that is, not purely condemning (he’s a racist; although his view buttresses such views) or dismissive (there could never be a case for differences between groups rooted in genetics). As to the thorny issue of IQ and race, I avoid it because it serves no clear positive purpose, which is the agreed upon consensus in academics and why no one is getting funding to do such work. Of the many things that interest me, this is not one of them.