Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BlueWaveNeverEnd

(12,104 posts)
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 02:49 PM Monday

racist sexist James Watson has died

Nobel prize winning scientist that Charlie Kirk would have loved....


James Watson: From DNA pioneer to untouchable pariah | STAT https://www.statnews.com/2025/11/07/james-watson-remembrance-from-dna-pioneer-to-pariah/

James Watson, dead at 97, was a scientific legend and a pariah among his peers
He co-discovered DNA’s structure but later engaged in rank racism and sexism


Together, they shed light on the puzzle of Watson’s later years: a public and unrepentant racism and sexism that made him a pariah in life and poisoned his legacy in death.

Watson cared deeply about history’s verdict, which left old friends even more baffled about his statements and behavior. It started in 2007, when Watson told a British newspaper that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” Moreover, he continued, although one might wish that all humans had an equal genetic endowment of intelligence, “people who have to deal with Black employees find this not true.”


Lab strips James Watson of final honorary roles after his continuing racist statements
He had not been misquoted. He had not misspoken. He had made the same claim in his 2007 memoir, “Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science”: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically,” Watson wrote. “Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.” As for women, he wrote: “Anyone sincerely interested in understanding the imbalance in the representation of men and women in science must reasonably be prepared at least to consider the extent to which nature may figure, even with the clear evidence that nurture is strongly implicated.”

There was more like that, and worse, in private conversations, friends said. Watson became an untouchable, with museums, universities, and others canceling speaking invitations and CSHL giving him the boot. (Though as memories of his worst remarks receded, Watson enjoyed sporadic rehabilitation.) Friends were left shaking their heads.

“I really don’t know what happened to Jim,” said biologist Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who in the 1990s led the campaign to get MIT to recognize its discrimination against women faculty. “At a time when almost no men supported women, he insisted I get a Ph.D. and made it possible for me to do so,” she told STAT in 2018. But after 40 years of friendship, Watson turned on her after she blasted the claim by then-Harvard University president Lawrence Summers in 2005 that innate, biological factors kept women from reaching the pinnacle of science.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

dalton99a

(91,098 posts)
1. He was lucky to be at the right place at the right time when Rosalind Franklin took the famous photo
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 02:57 PM
Monday
(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/)

One formative influence was Watson’s making his one and only important scientific discovery when he was only 25. His next act flopped. Although “Watson’s [Harvard] lab was clearly the most exciting place in the world in molecular biology,” geneticist Richard Burgess, one of Watson’s graduate students, told the oral history, he discovered nothing afterward, even as colleagues were cracking the genetic code or deciphering how DNA is translated into the molecules that make cells (and life) work.

“He fell flat on his nose on all these problems,” Harvard’s Ernst Mayr (1904-2005), the eminent evolutionary biologist, told the oral history. “So except for this luck he had with the double helix, he was a total failure!” (Mayr acknowledged the exaggeration.) By the 1990s, even Watson’s accomplishments at Harvard and CSHL were ancient history.

Watson nevertheless viewed himself “as the greatest scientist since Newton or Darwin,” a longtime colleague at CSHL told STAT in 2018.

To remain on the stage and keep receiving what he viewed as his due, he therefore needed a new act. In the 1990s, Watson became smitten with “The Bell Curve,” the 1994 book that argued for a genetics-based theory of intelligence (with African Americans having less of it) and spoke often with its co-author, conservative political scholar Charles Murray. The man who co-discovered the double helix, perhaps not surprisingly, regarded DNA as the ultimate puppet master, immeasurably more powerful than the social and other forces that lesser (much lesser) scientists studied. Then his hubris painted him into a corner.

underpants

(193,864 posts)
4. Link isn't working. That was a good read.
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 05:14 PM
Monday

The Bell Curve huh?
Hernnstein was a “scientific racist. Murray because his promoter basically.
Apparently Watson was scientists who became a racist.

hlthe2b

(112,088 posts)
2. Dramatic change in belief systems among highly intelligent individuals like that should be studied imo...
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 03:00 PM
Monday

Too bad he didn't leave his brain to science (assuming he did not)...

But, I say the same about serial killers and sociopathic power-hungry Presidents, for that matter.

stopdiggin

(14,693 posts)
5. can we say that the 'Bell Curve' embrace - was inconsistent
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 06:06 PM
Monday

with earlier belief systems? Apparent the hubris (and a certain amount of narcissism ?) clearly wasn't.

hlthe2b

(112,088 posts)
6. I have not stated nor am not implying with everyone, but Watson's colleague, herself, discusses out of character
Mon Nov 10, 2025, 07:18 PM
Monday

-the latter Watson was to the earlier Watson. THAT is the point. And before you point out to me that the Bell Curve was published in the 90s, (which I am well aware), his "EARLY " life (given his longevity) might reasonably be defined as considerably earlier than that or his embrace of that.

If you know anything about dementia or other structural brain diseases, one of the early aspects of personality lost is any filter of controversial ideas or beliefs--or even the development of pronounced antagonistic behaviors or expressed beliefs towards others. Thus, it holds scientific value to study this phenomenon--which does imply study of brains (and other factors).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»racist sexist James Watso...