GrrlScientist is an evolutionary biologist, ornithologist, aviculturist, birder and freelance science and nature writer. A native of the Pacific Northwest, she relocated from Seattle to NYC with her parrots after earning a BS in Microbiology (emphasis in Virology) and PhD in Zoology (Ornithology) from the University of Washington. In NYC, she was the Chapman Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History for two years, pursuing part of her "dream" research project by reconstructing a molecular phylogeny of the parrots of the South Pacific islands. GrrlScientist has written a blog about science since 4 August 2004 (the early years are archived 
tags: James Watson, racism, African ancestry, genetics, genome, deCODE Genetics
James Watson, 1962 Nobel Prize winner
for co-discovering the structure of DNA along with
Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins.
This is one of the funnier things I've read recently. It turns out that 1962 Nobel laureate, James Watson, who recently made some disparaging comments about the intelligence of Africans, probably is of African descent himself.
Watson, whose genome was completely sequenced, is the second person whose entire genome was published on the internet. As a result, it is freely accessible to the public. So, because scientists will be scientists, an Icelandic company, deCODE Genetics, carried out an analysis of Watson's genome and found that 16 percent of his genome is likely to have come from an ancestor of African descent. In contrast, the genome of the average person of European descent has only one percent that is consistent with African ancestry.
"This level is what you would expect in someone who had a great-grandparent who was African," observed Kari Stefansson of deCODE Genetics. "It was very surprising to get this result for Jim."
Earlier this year, Watson claimed that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really".
The ensuing controversy forced Watson to resign as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York state, after overseeing the place for 39 years. Incidentally, Watson also is a board member of Seed Media Group, publisher of Seed magazine and ScienceBlogs, which is where this blog is located.
Additionally, the analysis revealed that nine percent of Watson's genome likely came from an ancestor of Asian descent.
On the other hand, considering that all humans came from Africa (some more recently than others, of course), I would suppose that all gene alleles are ultimately "African". /irony alert/ Of course, I am most interested to know Watson's results in a slam-dunk contest for 79-year old white men -- would he have a 16% higher score than average? /irony alert/
Sources
Australian News (quotes).
Independent (quotes).
NYTimes (background).
Life Science
Education & Careers
Comments
It's obvious what happened here. The superior asian genes neutralize the effects of the inferior african genes.
Posted by: PENIX | December 10, 2007 9:00 PM
So, Watson knows whereof he speaks.
Posted by: Tsebitai | December 10, 2007 9:31 PM
so if he is part black then i guess that gives him the right to say what he said he very well could be right.
Posted by: sam | December 10, 2007 9:45 PM
Re: all gene alleles are ultimately "African"
Rubbish. Of course genes have mutated since the first people started walking out of Africa.
That says nothing about the relative fitness of those genes of course, other than the standard Darwinian supposition - they were better for survival in the climate they survived in.
The same also goes for people still in Africa - they've got "new" genes that have emerged since other early humans left Africa, and presumably they're "better" because of it.
--Q
Posted by: Quarrel | December 10, 2007 9:47 PM
Writing "/irony alert/" really is an insult to the reader's intelligence. Not all of us are American.
Posted by: Radster | December 11, 2007 3:47 AM
this makes perfect sense, only africans would say something this stupid :p
Posted by: xavo | December 11, 2007 5:15 AM
i can't believe the commentary thus far on a science blog can be so shortsighted and biting. please think before you respond.
Posted by: nebiz | December 11, 2007 6:05 AM
Radster, you might want to check out comments 4 and 7. Perhaps red, blinking text and a shower of winking emoticons are called for.
Re. Watson: I'm reminded of a story told about Duke Ellington. Ellington was walking out of a nightclub where his orchestra was performing, when he was accosted by a drunk, white businessman: "Mr. Ellington, y'know, if you'd've been white, you'd be a great composer." Ellington looked at the man, regarded him coolly, and said, "If I would have been white, things would certainly be different."
Posted by: HP | December 11, 2007 10:14 AM
Stupid post, stupid comments.
Saletan and Watson are correct, and misinterpreted by the PC cops here and elsewhere.
Scientists aren't necessarily scientific.
Posted by: Ormond Otvos | December 18, 2007 2:48 PM
Incidentally, Watson also is a board member of Seed Media Group, publisher of Seed magazine and ScienceBlogs, which is where this blog is located.
That's an interesting fact. Was there any official reaction from Seed or SB to Watson's latest inanity?
Posted by: Bill | December 18, 2007 5:21 PM
Am I the only one who sees a remarkable resemblance to Mr. Burns in this photo?
Also, very nice post title :)
Posted by: bug_girl | December 18, 2007 7:35 PM
Great news! you article was accepted for our Natural Science Carnival! Visit the Carnival here and don't forget to comment, link back, spread the word!
Posted by: Renata | January 12, 2008 11:58 AM