Once more into the minefield

Recently, James Watson (the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule) wandered into one of the biggest "no go" areas of modern public discourse - the possible correlation of race and other traits (ie IQ, predisposition to criminality, etc). It's not clear that this foray into the minefield was intentional - he made some very inflammatory-sounding initial statements, followed up with profuse apologies and protestations that that "wasn't what he'd meant." But a clarifying article he wrote for the UK Independent newspaper contained some very intellectually responsible (IMHO) yet dangerous and unpopular sentiments, which I found very interesting.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece

The money quote:

We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments
in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to
do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

This is not to say I'm a sudden buyer of this racial differences idea - I've got Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" on my bookshelf just like every other intellectually responsible adult. But I like Watson's quote because it emphasizes that the principles of intellectual responsibility and objectivity to which I subscribe belong in every debate, including this one. "I don't want this to be true, but that does not prevent me from asking the question."

Of course, I've found that participating in this debate is an icky experience precisely BECAUSE many of the participants harbour an unsavoury desire for racial differences to exist, as a potential means of explaining their failures or justifying their gains. It's icky for another reason as well, as Dr. Watson has found out: he's just been forced to resign his research position as the result of his comments. A minefield, indeed.