James Watson and the Race IQ Taboo: Canceled by the Woke Mob
Rest in Peace to James D. Watson. An honest Nobel scientist reputationally burned-at-the-stake for mostly speaking the truth.
From 2000 to 2025, no Nobel Prize winning American scientists were publicly eviscerated by the woke mob and ostracized from academia to the same extent as James Watson.
Watson took an absolute beating. He was stripped of all honorary titles after repeating his belief about race and intelligence.
For reference, Watson stated in 2007 in an interview with The Sunday Times newspaper that he was: “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”
Watson stated that while he hoped all populations were roughly equal in intelligence (IQ) and cognitive ability, he allegedly stated: “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
Many of his scheduled talks were canceled throughout the UK as a form of academic backlash to his volatile commentary.
Pre-2010s, this was still likely a recoverable offense, but I suspect Watson was an old guy who stopped giving a fuck about political correctness… and felt as though it were his duty to speak the truth to power no matter how uncomfortable.
Why? Staying silent is tacit support for the money pit dynamic of aid to Africa and/or educational interventions in attempt to “bridge racial IQ gaps” and bring them up to speed… mostly nothing to show for the billions/trillions spent.
Watson stepped down (i.e. resigned) as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Lab (CSHL) in 2007 but retained the title of “chancellor emeritus.”
After the backlash, Watson apologized stating: “To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize undeservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”
(He would go on to express regret for the social damages caused to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and its supporters saying he did not know enough about the “sensitivities of the human heart.”)
From 2007-2013, Watson refrained from most public engagement with speaking invites massively reduced. He still had limited involvement at CSHL in a non-admin capacity, but his income was dramatically reduced.
In 2014 Watson sold his DNA Nobel Prize for $4.8 million as a result of being scientifically shunned for his old statements on race and IQ.
In 2019, a documentary entitled “American Masters: Decoding Watson” aired on PBS wherein Watson added more fuel to the fire and put another bullseye on his head for the woke mob to attack:
“There’s a difference on the average between blacks and whites in IQ tests, I would say the difference is mostly genetic.”
After this comment, Cold Spring Harbor Lab (CSHL) revoked all honorary positions of Watson and stripped him of all titles.
In a PR campaign to distance themselves from Watson, the CSHL stated: “Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science.”
Rufus Watson, James’ son, emphasized that James’ statements “might make him out to be a bigot and discriminatory” but that was not true.
Rufus added: “They just represent his rather narrow interpretation of genetic destiny… My dad made the lab his life, and yet now the lab considers him a liability.”
So James Watson was cancelled for… wait for it… speaking the truth? Mostly yeah. This is why I’ve stated science needs something like Truth Tiers to eliminate woke contamination of science and prevent pseudo-truths from seeping into AI models.
Should James Watson have bitten his tongue and been a bit more socially sensitive? Perhaps. But he likely felt as though he needed to speak up because nobody else would. I suspect he felt as though everyone else was just too chickenshit to say anything… and likely thinking stop the nonsense you gaslighting fools! Just tell the truth!
Do I share Watson’s views about race and intelligence? Or ethnicities and intelligence?
I’m not sure precisely what Watson believed, but I think so.
I believe human populations were shaped by millenia of: selection pressures, random drift, and environmental contingencies — resulting in varying distributions of traits like IQ/cognition, clannishness, corruption, height, and more.
To clarify my thoughts:
Race is technically a “social construct” because it’s a label that categorizes people into groups based on physical features. From my perspective, race is an extremely fuzzy proxy for evolved gene clusters.
Ethnicity is a more precise proxy for evolved gene clusters, but still very coarse/limited.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE FROM THE SAME RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP IS IDENTICAL… FAR FROM IT (STILL MORE VARIANCE WITHIN MOST GROUPS THAN BETWEEN).
BUT THE DISTRIBUTIONS (EXTREME TAILS), MEANS, AND MEDIANS MATTER A LOT AND LIKELY EXPLAIN THE DEVELOPMENTAL STATUSES OF EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH TODAY AND WHY SOME HAVE DIFFERENT AVERAGE TRAITS THAN OTHERS.
As a result of all forms of historical selection effects and pressures (or lack thereof), we ended up with differences in trait curves and aggregate behaviors between continents and countries.
Many get confused because they’ll see successful Nigerians and/or Indians in the U.S. and erroneously assume that we should allow all Nigerians and Indians to come to the U.S. because they’d just replicate the successes we’ve observed in current Nigerian and Indian immigrants.
But this is not how life works. Brain-drain siphoning the top 0.5-1% of intellect from India and/or Nigeria is NOT representative of the average/median Indian and/or Nigerian. If were representative, India and Nigeria wouldn’t be as underdeveloped as they are… and people would likely be flocking to these countries (instead of fleeing).
Many like to play the stupid game of comparing ultra-selected Nigerians and Indians to average Whites in the U.S. or even the “Average American.”
The only fair comparison (even though it’s still not fair) is comparing the top 0.5-1% of other ethnic groups. (And what we see is different distributional rates of geniuses. Some countries need to churn out billions of people to achieve the same totals as other countries with far fewer people.)
Anyways, we don’t know the actual distributions (including tails) for traits like IQ, clannishness, etc. in Nigeria and India — but logically we’d surmise that for IQ they have bigger left tails, lower medians/means, and smaller right tails with more truncated upper bounds (fewer geniuses per capita and upper bounds of most elite genius could be lower).
For the intentionally retarded people… we could do a reverse hypothetical: Let’s assume the U.S. is a backwater shithole country and India is a paradise. The top 0.5% of Whites in intellect immigrate to India. Suddenly Indians start thinking that maybe all Whites are as gifted as the top 0.5% in intellect that are now in India.
A critical point to make is that none of the ethnic/racial IQ distributions are immutable. Distributions can change over time for a variety of reasons. Something like embryo selection may soon bridge any gaps we see between populations. However, right now most traits within racial and ethnic populations are relatively stable. Why? No major evolutionary pressures.
Random hypotheticals:
Imagine some virus spreads through Africa and renders all individuals with IQs below 100 sterile… Suddenly you’re left with only people who have IQs above 100 reproducing… and thus Africans end up with higher IQ medians/means than today; and at that point Africans may have the highest IQ means/medians on Earth.
Similarly, it’s possible that Whites/Euros could develop much lower median IQs. Imagine some virus spreads through the U.S./EU and sterilizes all individuals with IQs above 100. Suddenly you are left with mostly White morons.
Another key point: It is true that random immigrants to the U.S. benefit from enriched environments and gain 5-10 points (nutrition, less disease/infection, lower toxins, better medical care, etc.). But this is just maxing out the underlying genetic capacity. Even with a maxed out capacity, the medians/means for unselected Africans remain ~1+ SD below Whites/Ashkenazis/East Asians, etc.
To be completely clear: None of this should be perceived as “diminishing the worth” of anyone. It is just pure evolutionary/selection logic, facts, and raw observation of reality. Nobody is claiming that people with higher IQs are somehow all “better people under God” (or whatever) than those with lower intellectual abilities.
Sadly a lot of people on the right-wing and left-wing are morons.
Many right-wingers assume all people of certain races and/or from certain countries have low IQs (this is false). Some also think that high IQ immigrants come to the U.S., have kids, and the kids “revert to the mean of their country of origin” (also not true); reversion to the mean happens in their former country with a lower mean if mate is unselected (the U.S. has a higher mean).
Many bleeding-heart left-wingers are correct that environment matters to some extent (eliminating malnutrition/toxins)… but they often fail to realize that average/median IQ capacities differ in unselected populations as a result of evolution. And this matters a lot for safety, productivity, and fiscal health of one’s country.
We could lower the IQs of Whites by only allowing those with a low IQ to reproduce (dysgenics). After a couple of generations, Whites would be hurting.
This is just to explain how we could manipulate the IQs of various racial/ethnic groups unnaturally.
Now I’ve vomited out all that nuance… hopefully you can understand why I think Watson was correct about everything he stated related to race/intelligence even if he came across as a bit socially insensitive.
Recommended reading:
Racial Composition of the U.S. Predicts Voting Patterns & Political Preferences
Genetics of Corruption: Aggregate DNA as a Country-Level Predictor
Other socially volatile cheeky commentary & theories from Watson
Below are other comments from Watson that were met with backlash — sometimes from intentionally obtuse nutjobs.
Women in Science (2012)
Watson was accused of sexism stemming from public remarks at a 2012 ESOF science conference (Dublin):
“I think having all these women around makes it more fun for the men but they’re probably less effective.”
This is a double entendre wherein Watson could mean both: (A) women are less effective (diluting scientific productivity) and/or (B) men are less effective because women are around (distracted by attraction/flirting).
Is this sexist (i.e. stereotyping on the basis of sex)? Perhaps. Is it illogical? Not necessarily. It’s reasonable to think that it could be true.
Women have different IQ distributions (males have different tails and more at the extremes of each end).
It’s also common sense that having women working with men can be distracting for men — and vice-versa (women can also be distracted by men)… people like to flirt.
This does NOT mean that there aren’t brilliant female scientists or that all men are less effective with female colleagues.
Gay Genes & Abortion (1997)
On February 16, 1997 during an interview, Watson was smeared by the fake news media for suggesting women should have the right to abort fetuses with a “gay gene” (should one ever be discovered).
Is this true? Yes but context specific wherein a woman with a gay son claimed she felt her life had been ruined because her son couldn’t give her grandkids and then asked Watson his thoughts.
Watson then suggested: in a hypothetical situation wherein a gay gene can be detected in fetuses, women should have the option to abort. He did NOT state or imply that ALL FETUSES WITH GAY GENES SHOULD BE ABORTED!
“I simply said that women should have a choice. I didn’t say that fetuses found to have a gay gene should be aborted.”
In fact, after his wrongful smearing, Watson considered taking legal action against the Sunday Telegraph for its headline: “Abort babies with gay genes, says Nobel winner.”
Thin People, Fat People & Latin Lovers (2000)
In a July 2000 talk in London (UCL) — later published by The Observer — Watson stated:
“Thin equals discontent. Content people have weight on them. That is why we hire thin people, because they are discontent and will work harder.”
Later at a different talk in October 2000 at UC Berkeley, Watson stated:
“Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”
(This is funny as hell to me. I also do not share this belief but it is reasonable to think that someone with a healthy BMI will be less bogged down by health issues and thus more productive than someone who is obese. I’m also curious if Watson was just kind of joking around with loose beliefs… perhaps he thought maybe true, kind of funny. We do know that there’s a correlation between certain thin phenotypes and IQ… but there are still high IQ fat people.)
Also at the same October 2000 UC Berkeley talk, Watson commented on Latin lovers vs. English lovers:
“That’s why you have Latin Lovers. You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”
Not sure the context or direction he was going here… kind of comedic. Seems like unserious random commentary.
A Berkeley faculty member stated that Watson “crossed over the line.”
Pretty Girls & Stupidity (Lower 10%) (2003)
In a 2003 “DNA” documentary by PBS (Channel 4), Watson stated:
“People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”
(Who doesn’t agree with this? Bizarre thing to disagree with.)
In the same documentary, Watson suggested that "stupidity” was a disease that should be eliminated:
“The lower 10% who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what’s the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, ‘Well poverty, things like that.’ It probably isn’t. So I’d like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10%.”
Clearly it’s genes that cause the poverty… not vice-versa. So Watson is correct again. I won’t endorse any Nazi-esque eugenics here… but I do support giving as many people bioenhancement/embryo selection as possible to get IQ of everyone up — particularly those who are struggling.
Some Anti-Semitism is Justified & Pay Rich to Have Kids
In a 2007 Esquire interview, Watson stated:
“Some anti-Semitism is justified” and continued: “Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can’t be criticized, that’s very dangerous.”
(And where is he wrong? No group should be off-limits. And FYI I am not a Jew but usually find myself agreeing with non-woke Ashkenazi Jews on many topics.)
He also suggested that rich people should be paid to have kids:
“If there is any correlation between success and genes, IQ will fall if the successful people don’t have children.”
This is true and why I’ve argued that any serious country hedging against AI/robotics should focus on a combination of:
Paying everyone smart/healthy to have as many kids as possible (In China/NK govs could force people: give them the option to have kids naturally and give them subsidies OR start a government surrogate breeding program where they harvest sperm/eggs and raise kids for healthy/productive people)
Subsidized embryo selection for IQ/health: Give it to everyone for free if the economics make sense (I think they probably would)
Government breeding/fertility program: Get as many babies as possible under the care of elite caretakers (compensate well). Just start churning out happy/healthy kids to support your country.
Read my article: How to Fix Low Birth Rates
A random thought that came to mind was the Trump hat that says “Trump was right about everything”… but I replaced “Trump” with “James Watson.” (I don’t actually know if he was right about everything… but he was correct about most things and lambasted for speaking the truth on socially sensitive issues… perhaps in a crude manner.)
When Watson died many in the mainstream media portrayed him as a legendary scientist with major flaws (i.e. generated social controversy).
Dawkins et al. posted sanitized PR-filtered statements paying respect to James Watson without generating backlash… it makes sense for them to walk a social media tightrope. They don’t want to get canceled by the woke mob and lose influence and/or earning power.
The Reddit mob piled on… can just search “James Watson death Reddit.”
The magnitude of woke brainrot there is astronomical. I’ve summarized a few reactions/anecdotes which mostly just read like hate mail. I’m assuming most of these are completely fabricated for the effect of virtue signaling (this type of behavior generates a lot of upvotes and “social clout”).
I met a Pakistani grad student once who told me Watson said to her, “Oh we’re letting people like you in now?”
German grad student interviewed with him 2008, he asked her what age she had pubic hair. She asked me if it was a cultural or language barrier issue.
Watson is notoriously racist and a fan of bad pseudoscience. I believe he proposed malaria therapy to treat HIV.
He spoke at UChicago when I was a grad student but one of my classes conflicted with the speech… my prof said we weren’t excused to go to his talk because we wouldn’t be missing much.
Career advice given to grad students: “Buy his autobiography, get him to sign it, and sell for a profit when he dies.”
Hard to separate achievements from the man. Like thanks for helping establish the foundation of modern genetics but you can also fuck all the way off.
My old boss’ boss was a Nobel laureate and she met Watson and hated the guy.
Misogynist and racist who co-discovered the structure of DNA is dead at 97.
This should just tell you how prevalent the woke mind virus is on certain parts of the internet.
Do I know much about James Watson? Am I some kind of fanboy? Not really.
I will admit, the more I read about James, the more of his commentary I seem to agree with. I don’t know much about him other than he’s a Nobel winner, DNA pioneer, and underwent a public humiliation ritual for speaking the truth about race and IQ and the difficulties in Africa.
Sad state of affairs.
James Watson’s contributions to science & humanity
Below is a list of James D. Watson’s most consequential contributions & achievements to humanity, from greatest broad impact to more specific or honorific achievements. (Criteria: scope and durability of impact on science/medicine/society; originality; downstream influence.)
Elucidating the DNA double helix (1953). With Francis Crick, Watson proposed the correct double‑helix model with complementary base pairing, providing a physical mechanism for genetic replication and inaugurating modern molecular biology. The work relied on—and was published alongside—key X‑ray diffraction data from Rosalind Franklin and colleagues at King’s College London. (Nature)
Kick‑starting the U.S. Human Genome Project and building ELSI into it (1988–1992). As the first NIH genome program leader, he helped launch the National Center for Human Genome Research and embedded a dedicated Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) component—an unusual step at the time that shaped genomics policy and funding for decades. (Genome.gov)
Transforming Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) into a world‑leading research and training hub. As director/president (1968–2003), he redirected the lab toward cancer and molecular genetics and expanded its global Meetings & Courses program that trains thousands annually—an enduring infrastructure for scientific progress. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Pioneering large‑scale public genetics education via the DNA Learning Center (1988–). He championed CSHL’s DNA Learning Center—the first science center devoted entirely to public genetics education—helping bring hands‑on genomics to schools, teachers, and families. (DNA Learning Center)
Authoring the textbook Molecular Biology of the Gene (1965; many editions). This widely used, rigorous text trained generations of biologists and codified the field’s core logic during its formative years. (Google Books)
Mentoring future scientific leaders. His students include Mario Capecchi (Nobel, 2007), who credits Watson’s mentorship with shaping his career, and H. Robert Horvitz (Nobel, 2002), among others—amplifying Watson’s influence through their advances. (NobelPrize.org)
Early structural virology and phage radiobiology. Before DNA’s structure, Watson published significant studies on X‑ray inactivation of bacteriophage and X‑ray evidence for helical subunit arrangement in tobacco mosaic virus—work that honed the structural approaches later applied to DNA. (PubMed)
High‑profile advocacy against patenting human genes. He publicly opposed NIH attempts to patent gene fragments (a dispute that contributed to his 1992 resignation) and later filed a Supreme Court amicus brief arguing gene patenting is “lunacy,” influencing public and legal debate on access to genetic tests. (Los Angeles Times)
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1962). Awarded (with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins) “for discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material.” The prize recognized work that reshaped all of biology and medicine. (NobelPrize.org)
U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom (1977) and National Medal of Science (1997). These national honors acknowledged his scientific leadership—from the double helix to launching the genome project—and helped cement public support for molecular biology and genomics. (Ford Library Museum)
What was James Watson incorrect/wrong about?
Was Watson a perfect human or scientist?
Obviously not… and I think even he’d admit to being off on some hypotheses and/or making a few mistakes. (Nobody makes perfect predictions. Everyone makes some mistakes.)
Watson would be incorrect about some hypothesized DNA models and popularized an incorrect definition of the “central dogma.” He also apparently overestimated the human gene count (c’mon people, how would he have known exactly?) and allegedly undervalued sequencing the chip genome.
All of these are nothingburgers.
According to GPT-5:
Watson did get some important things wrong—notably his first DNA model and the textbook “central dogma” shortcut—and he updated when evidence arrived. He also accepted the smaller human gene count once shown.
On his race/IQ assertions, he did not move; the scientific community’s position is clear that his statements are unsupported.
Several big‑picture stances (antioxidants in cancer; how much “junk” DNA is truly functional) sit in a gray zone: parts are plausible and supported in specific settings, but broad, universal claims would be premature.
Note: His race/IQ assertions are obviously accurate despite being “unsupported.” We can simply look around and observe the world. Read adoption studies, twin studies, etc. Remember though, genetics of populations can change in the future… do not assume his commentary will accurate in the future with embryo selection for IQ.
“Antioxidants can promote progression of late‑stage cancers.” In 2013, Watson argued many tumors are buffered by high antioxidant capacity and that antioxidant supplements might worsen outcomes—an idea he called among his “most important” since the helix. Evidence is mixed: there are mechanistic and trial signals consistent with his caution, but no blanket clinical consensus to avoid all antioxidants in all contexts. Status: interesting, not settled. (PubMed)
“Most of the genome is junk.” Watson (like many molecular biologists of his era) used or echoed the “junk DNA” framing for large non‑coding regions. Today, some non‑coding DNA clearly has regulatory and other roles, but population‑genetic analyses still suggest the majority of the human genome is nonfunctional (estimates often ≤10–25% functional). In short, the slogan “it’s all junk” is wrong, and “it’s all functional” is also wrong; the live debate is how much is functional and by what criteria. Status: nuanced; not a binary refutation or vindication of the old term. (PubMed)
Aggressive timelines for curing cancer. Watson sometimes predicted rapid progress (e.g., implying that the vast majority of advanced cancers would become treatable soon). Cancer survival has improved, but by the most recent U.S. data the 5‑year survival across all cancers is ~69% for 2014–2020 diagnoses, and many metastatic cancers remain largely incurable—so his timelines were overly optimistic even if the general direction was right. Status: prognosis trend up; forecasted pace too rosy. (American Cancer Society)
My thoughts here?
Obviously true. Antioxidants can accelerate/promote cancer growth… but you cannot generalize to “all cancers” or "all antioxidants” and there’s likely a dose-response curve here. Also possible that many antioxidants prevent and/or attenuate cancer growth. Really depends on the: (A) specific cancer, (B) specific antioxidants/dosing, etc.
Can be argued either way. Depends how you define “junk.” I’d personally err on the side of caution in claiming that the genome is mostly junk… a lot of nuance here and can twist the facts to make a claim either way.
Nothing wrong with being an optimist. Tons of hype every day in the news and scientific literature. A lot of progress is being made… perhaps AI will speed things up with incremental improvements via new treatment permutations (e.g. drug repurposing added for adjunct treatment). (Read: AI Hype: Deep Mind Cancer Treatment.)