Professor Watson and censorship

Professor James Watson, the Nobel prize winning scientist, is reported to have said that "Black people are less intelligent than white people". The BBC 10pm news last night covered this news oddly, James Watson was only shown in black and white photos from what appeared to be the 1950's and showed him as old fashioned and out of touch, whilst those interviewed to show their distaste were shown in colour and allowed to express them. Now this morning John Humphries is interviewing two people on the Toady programme, one of whom, Professor Stephen Rose, is saying that James Watson is "scientifically incompetent in this area" of science and so should not. Professor Ian Wilmott is mostly agreeing but is saying that his ideas should be exposed to public scrutiny, would like to hear his views without being processed through the media and that "the airwaves would be awfully quiet if nobody spoke in an area in which they weren't competent".

I am not a scientist let alone a molecular biologist but my mind is not so affected by political correctness that I am not prepared to listen to a Nobel prize winning scientists views. I do not know whether Professor Watson is right or wrong but I do know that he knows more than me about genetics (even if that is not exactly his specialist area) and so I should listen to his views, even if I find them "troubling".

Let's take a giant leap, what if Professor Watson was right? What if he could prove by scientific methods, including experiment and analysis that black people were less intelligent than white, what then? I am not saying that this is the case, I am just asking, "what if?". Would he be allowed to state his findings on the BBC or at the Science Museum? I only ask because it seems to me that it is the view of the BBC and various public bodies that certain theories in certain areas should not be expressed because they cannot be true because they offend our sensibilities. I am finding this a difficult piece to write because I do not want to offend anyone and because I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of Professor Watson's claims but I do feel that the stance taken by the BBC and the Science Museum is somewhat anti-free speech.

This is the contentious piece from the article about Professor Watson in the Sunday Times last weekend "He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of 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," and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because "there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level."

Slightly later on the Toady programme came this quotation "A lack of exposure to science and grossly inadequate scientific education in schools has created a population which is as effectively cut off from an understanding science and how it operates as a tone deaf individual is cut off from the appreciation of music". It is by Professor Mark Pepys who is delivering the Harvey Oration this year. He explained that Harvey introduced the evidence based, experimental approach that was illuminated by cognitive brilliance completely transformed the way we look at the world. Before Harvey came along the only way to interpret the physical world was 'one thing follows another, therefore the first thing causes the second' or else it's an act of religious faith or witchcraft or superstition.

Can anyone think of an organisation that fails to question "scientific assertions" from a scientific basis? How about the BBC who very rarely challenge the scientific consensus on Man Made Climate Change. Maybe the problem at the BBC is the lack of science graduates employed in the news and current affairs departments. Surely their "experts" are graduates in their fields of expertise. I am afraid not, Bishop Hill informs me that Roger Harrabin is a graduate in English and he is the Toady programme's tame science expert. As Bishop Hill says "I don't know about you, but I find it pretty gobsmacking that someone who is paid to interpret complex scientific papers and reports on our behalf doesn't actually have a flaming clue what any of it means. In fact take that back, he presumably doesn't read any of the papers at all because he is incapable of understanding them. He regurgitates press releases for a living."
Bishop Hill continues "And what about the rest of the BBC's environment team?

Margaret Gilmore was an environment correspondent until 2005. She studied English.

Tom Fielden, science and environment correspondent - not sure what subject he studied, but it wasn't scientific.

Richard Bilton, previously environment reporter - studied Communication.

Matt McGrath and Julian Pettifer - I can find no record of them ever having been to university, although presumably they must have been.

So here's the challenge: can anyone find a BBC environment reporter with a scientific background?"

So far we have discovered that "Palab Gosh (BBC Radio Science) has a science degree from Imperial College" and that David Gregory (a regular correspondent on Biased BBC) who works as the Science and Environment Correspondent for the BBC in the Midlands has a PhD in Physics.



I have felt uncomfortable writing this piece because despite the fact that I know I am not a racist and am just exploring this subject because of the way it is being covered by the media, I feel that my writing may be misconstrued. Is this a sign that free speech in the United Kingdom in 2008 is more myth than fact?