As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.

As if more evidence was required to show that morality and biology don't mix...

A few days ago I stumbled across this news piece on cnn.com.

I'm still not quite sure what I think of the entire issue. Watson may not have made such statements (though I honestly don't believe that a newspaper would put such words into a Nobel laureate biologist's mouth), yet that is somewhat of a moot point from my perspective; more consequential is the fact that he's been suspended for the claims in question, which strikes me as slightly uncharacteristic of the scientific community.

Although racism is understandably and rightfully a thing of turpitude in a social and political context, I personally was under the impression that the fields of science and biology were exempt from such considerations. I quite simply don't understand the relationship that has obviously been drawn between Watson's undesirable conclusions and his capabilities and expertise as a research biologist - should Watson's rascist opinions necessarily be appreciated or tolerated? No, probably not, though I don't have enough knowledge regarding the research done to really form a conclusive opinion either way. But should Watson, the discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, be suspended from a field in which he is obviously extraordinarly gifted? His employers clearly think so, but logically it just doesn't add up to me.

This may be a unusual connection to make, but in a way this debacle reminds me of Clinton's impeachment...

The 1990 Trust may try for a ban on Watson's published works all they like, I think I will be picking up 'Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science'.