James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Sooner or later, it would seem even the most brilliant and accomplished scientist says something stupid. James Watson's disappointing pronouncement on race and intelligence is in no way excusable, but it may be explainable. Would that it were not so, but I fear the law of inevitable stupidity will only become more apparent thanks to human longevity and the ever-expanding volume of the blogosphere.
Watson is far from being alone when it comes to that subset of distinguished and accomplished elder statesmen and women of academia who have stepped over the line of reason. Consider these other examples from the not-so-distant past:
Linus Pauling: The recipient of two Nobel prizes, one for explaining chemical bonds at the quantum level, another (Peace) for anti-nuke testing, switches course again and begins to tout vitamin C as a miracle drug. (Watch out Al Gore.)
Lynn Margulis: One of the most important figures in evolutionary biology, co-developer of the theory of endosymbiosis, which explains the existence of eukaryotic cells and therefore all higher life forms on Earth, recently ventured into the realm of HIV denial when she opined in a comment on PZ Myer's Pharyngula blog "that there is no evidence that "HIV causes AIDS.".
Freeman Dyson: Unquestionably a genius, at least in theoretical physics. At least once. Now he thinks he knows better than several thousand climatologists, and dismisses global warming as unconsequential, or at worst, not a bad thing.
Nikola Tesla: Not technically a member of academia, but the guy invented radio (sorry, Marconi, but he did), AC power and lots of other cool electrical things. He is practically responsible for the modern world of convenience in many respects. But toward the end, he embraced a wide variety of patently silly new age, occult and other pseudoscientific ideas, including UfOlogy. Oh well.
The list goes on. Feel free to suggest your own examples. My fear is that sooner or later even the best of us will come to speak approvingly on something that has no scientific merit. And with our newfound tendency to blog whenever and wherever we can on just about any subject, including those about which we know next to nothing, who among us won't end up like Watson or Pauling et al?
Education & Careers
Comments
Wallace: fell for spirituallism.
Posted by: iRobot | October 18, 2007 12:19 PM
Newton had some pretty silly beliefs too.
Posted by: Paul Norman | October 18, 2007 12:59 PM
Watson's remarks were certainly impolitic, but the response to them has been over the top.
Posted by: Lance | October 18, 2007 1:24 PM
Vitamin C and racism aren't in the same ballpark; they're not even the same sport.
(HIV denialism, on the other hand...)
.
Posted by: CP | October 18, 2007 1:56 PM
That's really a rather glib copout. Not every scientist makes an ass of himself, no matter how long he lives.
The question is, what does the scientific community do? If you work at Cold Spring Harbor Labs, where Watson is chancellor, or had been planning to host a lecture by him?
CSHL has issued a statement that it vehemently disagrees with Watson's statements, and the British museum that was to host a lecture this week has canceled. With good reason I think, because he's gone way beyond the science.
Posted by: Paco | October 18, 2007 2:00 PM
"Law of inevitable stupidity" is decidedly over the top. Perhaps closer would be "law of non-immunity": it doesn't matter how eminent you are in one field (or even a number of fields), it offers you no immunity from making a fool of yourself if you step outside your field of expertise.
Posted by: Stephen | October 18, 2007 3:33 PM
According to the rules of science, shouldn't this be termed the "Hypothesis of inevitable stupidity?"
Also, is it so wrong to question the certitude of the link between HIV and AIDS? I'm not saying she's right, but when people asked Einstein (whose stupidity lied ultimately in refusing to accept some of the consequences of his own theories) how he devised the theory of relativity, his response was "I ignored an axiom."
My question is this, why do people bemoan celebrities who talk about issues unrelated to their fame, but only condemn intellectuals for the same when their opinions seem crazy or involve bigotry?
Regardless, screw Watson. His achievements will stand, but they will be tainted in the same way we view Nazi scientists who helped us get to the moon.
Posted by: Kevin Cleary | October 18, 2007 11:46 PM
while i suppose not technically an act of "stupidity", i'd like to cast my vote for the "ridiculous mumbo-jumbo" of non-overlapping magesteria foisted upon us by the late (and usually reasonable) steve gould... i dunno if he was batting for readerhip spikes in the bible belt, but this wasn't the gould i knew and loved... one big panda thumb down on that whole mess...
Posted by: Rick MacPherson | October 19, 2007 1:42 PM
Kary Mullis (Chemistry 1993 for PCR) has long been on the HIV != AIDS bandwagon, is on the no global warming wagon, was almost witness for the defense in the OJ Simpson criminal trial (PCR contamination is too easy, so don't trust the DNA evidence), and has been banned from (I think ASCB) meetings for showing slides of his nude girlfriend.
Posted by: madbard | October 19, 2007 8:21 PM
Immanuel Velikovsky started off as a respected psychiatrist - then he wrote 'Worlds in Collision'....
Posted by: MikeB | October 21, 2007 5:12 PM