On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Ian Murray wrote:
> The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
> Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer
> 18:13 28 February 03
> NewScientist.com news service
>
> Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of
> its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a
> genetic disease that should be cured.
I don't really see why people think a world populated by persons intelligent, altruistic, and beautiful to the nth degree would be such a terrible place. Sure, we ought to be skeptical of the means, but the ends would be unquestionably good (if good is taken to be a meaningful term).
-- Luke
> On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered
> the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life. The breakthrough
> revealed how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next
> and revolutionised biology and medicine.
>
> But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson
> says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular
> biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to
> tackle stupidity.
>
> "If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now
> president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10
> per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the
> cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things
> like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the
> lower 10 per cent."
>
> Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing
> beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we
> made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."
>
>
> Complex traits
>
>
> But other scientists have questioned both the ethics and plausibility of
> his suggestions.
>
> Nikolas Rose, a bioethics expert at the London School of Economics, says
> such genetic engineering may not be possible: "These are complex traits,
> with multiple genes interacting with the environment."
>
> "These are characteristically casual and provocative statements by James
> Watson," Rose adds. "I think they should be treated just as amusing rather
> than as a serious account of what behavioural genetics or any genetics
> should be doing, or will be able to do."
>
> Geneticist Steve Jones, at University College London, dismisses Watson's
> comments about beauty as "daft". "The concept of beauty is a subjective
> one," he told New Scientist.
>
>
> No fool
>
>
>
>
>
> Related Stories
>
>
> Passive smoking dents children's IQ
> 7 May 2002
>
> IQ is inherited, suggests twin study
> 5 November 2001
>
> Being ugly is attractive too
> 6 September 2001
>
>
> For more related stories
> search the print edition Archive
>
>
>
> Weblinks
>
>
> James Watson, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
>
> 50 years of the double helix
>
> Galton Laboratory, UCL
>
> Windfall Films
>
>
>
> But he adds: "The IQ suggestion is a little bit less silly, if you turn
> the logic on its head. Watson likes to annoy - no question - but he's no
> fool." Genetics could and does help people with severe disorders like
> Fragile X syndrome and phenylketonuria, both of which affect IQ, says
> Jones: "The problem is where do we draw the line?"
>
> Series producer David Dugan, of Windfall Films, said the programmes also
> show Watson visiting a family who greatly value their child with Down's
> syndrome, as well as their child without Down's.
>
> "We were keen to confront Jim with this - he was genuinely moved," but
> insisted that geneticists should work to eliminate the disorder. Dugan
> believes Watson's views emanate from his own family's experiences with his
> son, who has a mental illness resembling schizophrenia.
>
> DNA begins in the UK on 8 March on Channel 4.
>
>
> Shaoni Bhattacharya
>
>
>