Documentary on James Watson (on scientific advisory board of OMF)

D

Denise

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
New documentary explores the 'complexities and contradictions' of James Watson

PBS is premiering a new documentary tonight [2 Jan 2019] about James Watson, the scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for his role in the research that revealed the structure of DNA. Watson went on to serve as the first director of the Human Genome Project and founded Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But in his later years, Watson began to spout offensive views. He was forced to leave his role as director of CSHL in 2007 after making racist remarks. In promotional materials, PBS says the film will explore Watson’s “signature achievements, complexities and contradictions, including his penchant for expressing unfiltered and objectionable points of view.”




Trailer


https://www.thirteen.org/programs/american-masters/american-masters-decoding-watson-trailer-qwnijt/


New York Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html






 
Denise said:
New York Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html
Click to expand...
I thought things were better than this :(

“If he knew African-Americans as colleagues at all levels, his present view would be impossible to sustain,’’ Dr. King said.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for combating prejudice in biomedical research, where African-Americans represent just 1.5 percent of grant applications to the N.I.H. Biases in hiring by medical school science departments are well documented.
 
It’s been the question of the week. What to do with Jim Watson’s legacy? On the one hand, he's been a brilliant scientist who made no small contribution to biology. On the other, he's an outright racist. And as we found out from a new PBS production this week, Watson is remaining a racist to the end. Should PBS have even spent their resources on such a show, given a platform to the man? Will this now bolster the new wave of racists who are using science for their projects of racial purity? And can a scientist who was apparently so brilliant and open really be so closed off and pig-headed, or as one cancer biologist on the program asks, can these two sides exist mutually compatible in the same mind?

“He stands for critical, radical thought. And how he could go back to an old-rooted notion that has nothing to do with critical thinking . . . I really don’t know," says CSHL cancer researcher, Lloyd Trotman.
Click to expand...
https://mendelspod.com/blog/no-redemption-decoding-watson/
 
Watson is a mixed bag, and I have never been comfortable with him being 'on our side'. Just too much of a liability.

We have enough political and public relations problems without having to also deal with his self-inflicted baggage.

In fairness to Watson, he has a son who is seriously disabled with schizophrenia, so he is not unaware of the problems and prejudices the disabled can face, including in the mental health context.
 
Sean said:
In fairness to Watson, he has a son who is seriously disabled with schizophrenia, so he is not unaware of the problems and prejudices the disabled can face, including in the mental health context.
Click to expand...

He seems to be completely oblivious to the prejudices those with mental health issues can face from within their own family:

“If we knew our son would develop schizophrenia, we wouldn’t have had him”
Click to expand...

I don't mind him taking a pot-shot at Linus Pauling though, as I have had to listen to that vitamin C nonsense from well-meaning (I think) former friends when brain-storming (or whatever-it-is-they-have-between-their-ears-storming) suggestions for how to deal with my ME symptoms.

But Watson does seem to be a rather odious individual who should be confined to his lab, preferably gagged, to get on with whatever it is he's good at.
 
He seems to be completely oblivious to the prejudices those with mental health issues can face from within their own family:

“If we knew our son would develop schizophrenia, we wouldn’t have had him”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Playing devil's advocate (and assuming that quote is accurate):

Serious schizophrenia is one of the more difficult and tragic conditions to have, and try to live with. Watson's view is not inconsistent with caring deeply about his son. It may just be Watson's version of the least worst option for his son to avoid that suffering.

We also don't know the details of the case, which can make all the difference.

I don't envy him and his family having to deal with it. His solution may or may not be the best for all concerned, but I don't think worse of him for thinking it might have been. He might be right.

Also worth noting that he said 'we' and 'our', so maybe the mother of his afflicted son has the same view too.

How is Watson's position different to the common modern practice of terminating pregnancies early for a range of serious genetic disorders, like Downs Syndrome?
 
I don't know much about schizophrenia. My first thought was what it must be like for his son to hear that. It may be a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and even to express privately, or after the son has died (which apparently he hasn't yet), but according to the linked tweets (if you click on the comment) Watson has said it publicly at genetics conferences. Seems rather insensitive towards his son.
 
TiredSam said:
I don't know much about schizophrenia. My first thought was what it must be like for his son to hear that. It may be a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, and even to express privately, or after the son has died (which apparently he hasn't yet), but according to the linked tweets (if you click on the comment) Watson has said it publicly at genetics conferences. Seems rather insensitive towards his son.
Click to expand...

I concur.

And I'd bet Watson repeating these statements in public forums only adds to his son's mental anguish.

Watson is basically twisting the psychological knife in his son.


ETA for clarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom