Open letter to Dr. Watson

Dear Dr. Watson.

The world we live is a in fact a wonderful world. And to prove it, I, a modest technologist, mostly ignorant on the mater of genetics, decided to try to lecture you on a science where your past contribution was so important.

As a technologist I starter to look for references on wikipedia - sorry, I'm definitely not a member of the scientific community. There I found out:

Researchers have reported differences in the average IQ test scores of various ethnic groups. The interpretation, causes, accuracy and reliability of these differences are highly controversial. Some researchers, such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Richard Lynn have argued that such differences are at least partially genetic. Others, for example Thomas Sowell, argue that the differences largely owe to social and economic inequalities. Still others have such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are cultural constructs that render any attempt to explain such differences (whether genetically or sociologically) meaningless.

The Flynn effect is the rise of average Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at varying rates. Scholars therefore believe that rapid increases in average IQ seen in many places are much too fast to be as a result of changes in brain physiology and more likely as a result of environmental changes. The fact that environment has a significant effect on IQ demolishes the case for the use of IQ data as a source of genetic information^[25][26].

Though not as decisive as my believes, and I believe that genetics has absolutely no correlation with intelligence, I was heading on the right direction. And even though in my opinion the article incorrectly made reference to race instead of population:

Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.^[3] Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.^[4] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs

Returning to the first article:

Some psychologists question the validity of IQ testing and say that aspects of intelligence is not reflected in IQ tests. Criticisms of the validity of IQ testing focuses on questions of test bias. Several conclusions about tests of cognitive ability are now largely accepted by intelligence researchers:^[56]

• IQ scores measure many, but not all of the qualities that people mean by intelligent or smart. (For example, IQ does not measure creativity, wisdom, or personality.)
• Especially in developing nations, there are many factors that may adversely affect IQ. See Health and intelligence.

Continuing on the some article:

The IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for the same group. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US.

From this articles I retained:

• the genetic studies that your work made possible, Dr. Watson, have contributed to bust the myth of the human races;
  

• the differences on IQ over populations are (mostly?/just?) environmental and cultural;

I was preparing for the conclusion when I asked myself: why does an intelligent geneticist like you rejects the results of the legacy of his work against what what most scientists consider common sense?

Is it because they weren't discovered by you? Is it because since the Nobel price you just haven't kept your contribution to that higher level? Is it just because you, Dr.Watson, are regarded to many as a racist, sexist, anti-homosexual quack in many ways (ex: you've suggested that women abort homosexual fetuses)?

Then it hit me, Dr. Watson, it's obvious: you are about to edit a book, and you needed some free marketing in order to sell it. And though the best thing we should do was just to ignore you, I can't. I admit it, I have a problem with people that try to perpetuate the injustice of our society, and above all when these people are people with high authority on these matters, as you should have. Hope this problem of mine is genetic, so I can pass it along to my young daughter. Just for sure I'll try to pass on her education :)

Finally a word of appreciation for the majority of the scientific community: thanks for your rapid response against Dr. Watson's last controversy, your authority as a community is very important to set Dr. Watson's authority on the right place.