[from my myspace] Controversy and Genetics?

[intro]
I used myspace.com blogs for the past few years for my randomly-spaced blogging. Therefore, I am jumpstarting my blog here with most of those blogs, lightly edited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original posting: Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 5:45 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Genetics is a touchy issue. How so, you ask? You must be thinking that genetics is a science. Science is fact, proven by empirical research. How can something as straightforward as science be so controversial? It can't be possible that genetics actually raises people's temperatures!

Wrong. All wrong. When genetics tries to explain things such as differences in intellect, athleticism, or success potential based on genotype (which cannot be changed--for instance, race, gender, etc.), people explode. Period.

Dr. James Watson is a Nobel laureate for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA way back in 1953. His distinction of being a Nobel Prize winner and DNA pioneer has led to people twisting his words to raise … something. I don't know what.

For example, about 10 years ago, a British newspaper published the headline: "Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner." About this event, Watson said: "It was a hypothetical thing. If you could detect it pre-natally, could a woman abort a child who was homosexual? I said they should have the right to, because most women want to have grandchildren, period. We can't do it, but it's common sense. Anyways, it was a bad day when that headline hit. I was just arguing for the freedom of women to try and have the children they want, not what is right or wrong."

Watson is a geneticist. These are things geneticists explore. He has even discussed if there was a genetic explanation for Jewish success. "I'm not particularly worried about the fact that we're not all the same," he began. "I'm really much more concerned with social justice, that everyone has a place in society. That's really what I'm concerned with. … If they find genes for all kinds of Jewish intelligence, I don't think it's going to affect me in the slightest." Going on, he said, "There was a difference between the Scotch and Irish, and it suddenly disappeared. … A 10-point difference can disappear pretty fast."

Offering his own take on a solution to intellectual differences between and among races, he brought up the comparatively lower intellect (as far as IQ testing goes) in the African region, "We could change things through better schools, or we could change things through medicines. We certainly know if you had very poor nutrition and you don't have enough iodine, that's going to stamp a whole people. And to what extent poverty in Africa is related to this—nutrition or no nutrition—we don't know."

Really, what Watson discusses is all theoretical and completely up-in-the-air. There simply isn't a conclusive answer, but he still conjectures—as all scientists do. In the same way that whites might supersede blacks in the "smartness" category, blacks overtake whites in the athletic field, and Waston addresses this: "I don't know what it's due to. Because we haven't found genes. You know, genes depending on what sort of types of muscles, slow twitch, fast twitch. I don't think it's going to change things much. White runners will still try to beat black runners. And they'll largely lose. But they're gonna try. If you're a sprinter, you're going to try to run as fast as you can."

Even if a genetic explanation for these "racial differences" is found, Watson still holds onto the fact that it is for the betterment of society for such knowledge to be known. It won't affect people on an individual basis. He said, "I am convinced that the movement towards personalized genetics is going to improve their lives. Black people and white people, we're going to both be better because of this knowledge. Everyone should be judged [as] individuals. No one should be judged by a term like 'black.' So I'm optimistic about where we're going. I don't think it's going to lead to people being just discriminated. I see them being helped by knowing what genes might affect your health, and also in understanding when you don't fit in."

Now, say, hypothetically, there really is a genetic reason for intellectual differences based on race. Would it be wise to shield such information from the public, knowing full well that such information may cause the "inferior" races to be lowered in society? To this, Watson says, "I don't think we can prevent the discoveries. [That would] prevent any possibility of using knowledge to make people's lives better, so I don't think that's the way to go. I do think we have a moral question, a very serious moral question. … To what extent do you help people, at the bottom? What is called social Darwinism, you know, let them go extinct, I find repulsive."

Going off on this "social" aspect Watson brings up, it's been argued that there has been less and less racial discrimination in the last century or so because race is being seen as a social construct rather than a rigid biological trait. In the days of slavery, blacks were enslaved with the rough mindset of "Your skin is darker. You are inferior to me. Any children you have will also have dark skin and therefore will be inferior." However, in recent times, differences between racial groups have been more attributed to the cultural differences between the racial groups, à la black culture, Korean culture, Irish culture, and so forth. It was no longer merely just a difference in skin color or but a difference in a people's way of life.

So semi-based on this, differences in intellect, success potential, athletic ability, or whatever stem from the culture one is raised in. There might be some influence from genetics, but the environment makes the most difference.

Um … this is getting lengthy and I completely lost sight of what my original response to all this was … I think it was basically that genetics (science) can explain whatever it wants to in terms of racial groups being different, but individual people can absolutely always rise above or dip below norms. Hm, that sounds way too enlightening and idealistic. I would bring up ex-Harvard president Larry Summers and his comments about gender and my views on that, but I'll cease for now. I could also discuss how science is really like a religion (in that it is really just another way of viewing the world and could absolutely possibly be completely fictitious), but that would lead me off so many tangents as well.

[Quotes from http://www.theroot.com/id/46667/]