Should scientists keep their mouth shut?

[VS007]

James Watson opined on intellect amongst races and the political correctness department slammed him and drove him out of town!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

BTW he is also the Noble prize winning discoverer of DNA!

Watch this TED talk where he tells the story of how it was discovered.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_watson_on_how_he_discovered_dna?language=en#t-1182563

Now due to resource crunch which ensued due to his off putting remarks on race, he has to sell his noble prize!

--

The question is not whether he is right or wrong about his race comments, but shouldn't the media and society be more tolerant of a contrarian or unconventional opinion?
Should there be such a huge penalty for speaking his mind?

[Memento Vivere]

The question is not whether he is right or wrong about his race comments, but shouldn't the media and society be more tolerant of a contrarian or unconventional opinion?
Should there be such a huge penalty for speaking his mind?

I didn't receive any Nobel Prize, but recently I posted something about the Nobel Prize winner, Malala, and the level of deserving the award, plus something about the award selection process and committee. No penalty received, but reading that such opinion is indicate of a narrow view point made me ponder about tolerance and acceptance for different points of view.

My take on cases like Watson's is that now everything such learned personalities say or write is on the internet. It is not hidden away somewhere in some paper or a scientific journal that less people read. It is open to lots of analysis, and outrage.

Rather than less tolerance of contrarian or unconventional opinion, I'd say there is more emphasis on being tolerant of less capable or less naturally endowed human beings, and saying anything even remotely uncomplimentary is frowned upon.

It seems like anything over which a person or set of people have no control, is a taboo topic.

My question - politicians and celebrities and CEO's also pay a price and even face end of career for politically incorrect comments. Do all categories of people deserve tolerance for contrarian/unconventional views, or do scientists, mathematicians, thinkers, writers, deserve more?

[Desi]

Rather than less tolerance of contrarian or unconventional opinion, I'd say there is more emphasis on being tolerant of less capable or less naturally endowed human beings, and saying anything even remotely uncomplimentary is frowned upon.

In the specific case of Watson, he has not shown any genetic evidence or linkage to his claim and the frowning is upon the prejudice expressed.

[Desi]

Now due to resource crunch which ensued due to his off putting remarks on race, he has to sell his noble prize!

Winner of Nobel prize and many other awards. On faculty at Harvard for 20 years.
Director, President and Chancellor of CSH labs. On payroll till age 79.
Worked with National Institutes of Health to start Human Genome Project
Has worked in advisory roles and as director for various groups
Authored over 30 books.
Claims that his hand written manuscript of the book double Helix is worth over $10 million dollars.

And we are to believe that he is selling his Nobel Prize Medal because he is in a financial crunch and needs work at age 86 and cannot find an appointment. I have got Brooklyn Bridge on sale.

[RRS]

Winner of Nobel prize and many other awards. On faculty at Harvard for 20 years.
Director, President and Chancellor of CSH labs. On payroll till age 79.
Worked with National Institutes of Health to start Human Genome Project
Has worked in advisory roles and as director for various groups
Authored over 30 books.
Claims that his hand written manuscript of the book double Helix is worth over $10 million dollars.

And we are to believe that he is selling his Nobel Prize Medal because he is in a financial crunch and needs work at age 86 and cannot find an appointment. I have got Brooklyn Bridge on sale.

Very well said. Don't miss his views on Rosalind Franklin who deserved credit for the double helix discovery as much as Watson/Crick.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson

[/URL]

[Desi]

Very well said. Don't miss his views on Rosalind Franklin who deserved credit for the double helix discovery as much as Watson/Crick.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson

[/URL]

Yes, his views and statements are controversial and even demeaning. I saw a documentary either on PBS or National Geographic or History channel a few years back, that explained the contributions of Rosalind and in fact she probably contributed more to the discovery as I think (don't fully remember as I saw that documentary a few years back) she initially identified the correct double helix structure.

[okonomi]

.... I have got Brooklyn Bridge on sale.

I tried to recall the name of the huckster who sold the BB.... more than once.... and then had to look that up. He (George Parker) wasn't exactly in a financial crunch :wink.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/nyregion/thecity/27brid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[VS007]

In the specific case of Watson, he has not shown any genetic evidence or linkage to his claim and the frowning is upon the prejudice expressed.

His observations may not be able to withstand the scientific rigor, but scientists sometimes come out with several propositions before it becomes a theory. This is a separate topic.

Winner of Nobel prize and many other awards. On faculty at Harvard for 20 years.
Director, President and Chancellor of CSH labs. On payroll till age 79.
Worked with National Institutes of Health to start Human Genome Project
Has worked in advisory roles and as director for various groups
Authored over 30 books.
Claims that his hand written manuscript of the book double Helix is worth over $10 million dollars.

And we are to believe that he is selling his Nobel Prize Medal because he is in a financial crunch and needs work at age 86 and cannot find an appointment. I have got Brooklyn Bridge on sale.

Ye, he in not claiming that he is starving. But his standard of living would have definitely come down.
His research funds also dried up. Basically he became a persona non grata for many institutions.

“Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income,” said the scientist of the aftermath of the incident seven years ago, which forced him to retire from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where he had worked for four decades.
http://rt.com/news/210059-watson-dna-nobel-racist/

[VS007]

Very well said. Don't miss his views on Rosalind Franklin who deserved credit for the double helix discovery as much as Watson/Crick.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson

[/URL]

Yes, many people did deserve the credit. In fact many of the facts were known about DNA even before they started down the path. The prize itself was distributed amongst three scientists.
He maybe a bad person in eyes of many, question is does he deserve to be silenced? Is that good for humanity and free speech?

[VS007]

My question - politicians and celebrities and CEO's also pay a price and even face end of career for politically incorrect comments. Do all categories of people deserve tolerance for contrarian/unconventional views, or do scientists, mathematicians, thinkers, writers, deserve more?

Good point! I am not sure of Politicians, will ponder on that later.

Talking of CEO, reminds of the recent case of Mozilla CEO who held a traditional view of marriage, and again he was chucked out of his position. Why should his personal view point on a social subject be such a taboo? What happened to tolerance amongst open source community there? Another sad victim of speech police.