Fun_People Archive
15 Nov
Nobel Winner's Theories Raise Uproar

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 100 00:10:03 -0800
To: Fun_People
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Nobel Winner's Theories Raise Uproar

X-Lib-of-Cong-ISSN: 1098-7649  -=[ Fun_People ]=-
X-http://www.langston.com/psl-bin/Fun_People.cgi
Forwarded-by: Ninafel@aol.com
Forwarded-by: SSheffi328@aol.com

November 13, 2000 (SF Chronicle)

Nobel Winner's Theories Raise Uproar in Berkeley
Geneticist's views strike many as racist, sexist

Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer


   Nobel laureate James Watson, whose co-discovery of DNA revolutionized
the field of genetics, has provoked a scientific controversy by suggesting
there are biochemical links between skin color and sexual activity and
between thinness and ambition.
   Watson advanced his thesis during a guest lecture at the University of
California at Berkeley last month, prompting several faculty members to
brand his remarks as racist, sexist and unsupported by any scientific data.
   Witnesses were flabbergasted when the 72-year-old discoverer of the
double helix suggested there was a biochemical link between exposure to
sunlight and sexual urges. "That's why you have Latin lovers," Watson said.
"You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient."
   In a lecture hall jammed with more than 200 Berkeley students and faculty
members, Watson showed a slide of sad-faced model Kate Moss to support his
contention that thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious.
   "Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're
not going to hire them," Watson said.
   Even those who chalked up Watson's remarks to his penchant for
deliberately stirring things up were concerned that hearing such views
expressed by a Nobel laureate would fuel irresponsible speculation about
how genes might influence behavior.
   "Doesn't a guy like Jim Watson have the responsibility to make this not
ugly?" asked UC Berkeley biologist Michael Botchan, a Watson protege.
"Yes. But I cannot tell Jim Watson to change his ways."
   Watson, who shared a Nobel Prize for his role in figuring out the
structure of DNA in 1953, and who launched the Human Genome Project in
1990, declined to answer questions about his lecture.
   However, a spokesman at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a research
institute on Long Island where Watson serves as president, confirmed the
gist of his remarks and said Watson has voiced similar sentiments at other
scientific gatherings.
   Berkeley biology professor Susan Marqusee walked out about a third of
the way through Watson's hourlong lecture, titled "The Pursuit of Happiness:
Lessons from pom-C."

CLAIMS UNSUPPORTED BY DATA
   "I was kind of in shock most of the time," Marqusee said. "He took a
lot of what I consider sexist and racist stereotypes and claimed a
biochemical basis without presenting any data."
   Botchan, who presided over the session, said Watson was merely trying
to call attention to a protein (pom-C) that helps create several
different hormones: One determines skin color (melanin); another enhances
a sense of well-being (beta endorphins); and the third plays a role in fat
metabolism (leptin).
   Botchan said Watson was wondering out loud why evolution had linked
these hormones, and whether the interrelationship of these mood and
behavior-influencing compounds might be affected by exposure to sunlight.
   Unfortunately, said Botchan, Watson advanced his hypothesis with
"comments that were crude and sexist and potentially racist." But Botchan,
who did post-graduate work under Watson, said he doesn't think the Nobel
laureate is racist or sexist, merely insensitive.
   "Jim says startling things," he said. "He is a person who tends to shock
people."
   For instance, Botchan said, Watson once suggested Japan should be bombed
for dragging its feet on supporting the Human Genome Project.
   Berkeley genetics professor Thomas Cline said Watson's lecture "crossed
over the line" from being provocative to being irresponsible because the
senior scientist failed to separate fact from conjecture.
   "If he wants to give a talk like this in his living room, that's his
business, but to give it in a setting where it's supposed to be scientific
is wrong," Cline said, adding that listening to Watson at the podium was
"more embarrassing than having a creation scientist up there."

GRADUATE STUDENTS UPSET
   The controversial talk was profoundly disturbing to some graduate
students in Berkeley's molecular biology department, who ultimately brought
Watson's comments into the public spotlight.
   "I found it really offensive," said Sarah Tegen, one of several graduate
students who recounted Watson's remarks.
   She said Watson happened to be in Berkeley when the department needed
a speaker for a regular scientific seminar. The lecture hall, which
seats around 200 people, filled to overflowing as word spread that Watson,
one of the founders of modern biology, would speak.
   Watson, who has a reputation as an engaging lecturer, started off
describing an experiment by scientists at the University of Arizona, who
injected male patients with an extract of melanin. They intended to test
whether they could chemically darken the men's skin as a skin cancer
protection, only to observe an unusual side effect -- the men developed
sustained and unprovoked erections.
   "He said this (melanin injection) is even better than Viagra because you
don't even have to think about sex," Tegen recalled.
   "Then he launched into this whole thing about the sun and sexual drive,"
added Berkeley graduate student Jill Fuss. She said Watson showed slides
of women in bikinis and contrasted them to veiled Muslim women, to suggest
that controlling exposure to sun may suppress sexual desire and vice versa.
   Watson reportedly went on to suggest that people who live in northern
climates drink more alcohol to compensate for the unhappiness they suffer
because of sunlight deprivation. Then he delved into what he presented as
the bad news, good news aspects of being fat, the students said. The bad
news, said Watson, is that thin people are more ambitious and therefore
make better workers. On the other hand, fat people may be more sexual,
Watson told the assembly, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels
of leptin, one of the hormones derived from pom-C. He used a slide of a
Reubens painting to illustrate the assertion.
   Tegen was offended by Watson's repeated references to women. "To be a
woman in science is difficult enough as it is without one of your own
demeaning women," she said.
   Jeffrey Friedman, a molecular geneticist at Rockefeller University and
a leading authority on leptin and obesity, had this reaction when
presented with a distilled version of Watson's remarks: "People can
speculate about anything they want," he said. "But I know of no data linking
differences in weight to any particular set of personality differences."

OTHER LAUREATES TARNISHED
   If Watson's theories are judged as being beyond the scientific pale, he
would not be the first Nobel laureate to fall from grace after winning the
highest honor in science.
   Now-deceased Stanford University professor William Shockley, who shared
a Nobel for inventing the transistor, was ostracized during his lifetime
for calling certain races genetically inferior, and for suggesting that
people with IQs under 100 be paid bonuses if they agreed to be sterilized.
   Former biotech scientist Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel for inventing a
process to multiply DNA samples, was marginalized after he lent his name
to several dubious causes, including the discredited notion that HIV is
not the cause of AIDS.
   No matter how history judges Watson's emerging views on pom-C, his fame
guarantees a broad audience for his views, however politically unsettling
or scientifically unsound they may be.
   Berkeley biology professor Caroline Kane, who did not attend Watson's
talk, said she was disappointed that "a figure who looms so large in the
science of the late 20th century" would take such a provocative stance in
the absence of the precise data that is the hallmark of good science.
   "Sometimes, Nobel laureates are asked to give their opinions on areas
where they should keep their mouths shut," Kane said. "Unfortunately, Jim
just likes to talk."

   E-mail Tom Abate at tabate@sfchronicle.com., Chronicle staff writer Todd
Wallack contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2000 SF Chronicle

© 2000 Peter Langston