Controversial comments taint Watson's legacy

— -- Inflammatory remarks on race and intelligence that led to the fall of one of the world's most pre-eminent scientists have stirred memories of a disturbing era in American history.

The lives of Nobel Prize-winning biologist James Watson and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a prestigious research and education institute in New York, have been linked for nearly 40 years, the histories of both laced with triumphs and controversy.

Watson, one of the scientists who discovered the structure of DNA, told The Sunday Times of London in October that he is "inherently gloomy" about Africa's future 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." While expressing the hope that everyone is created equal, he added, "People who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

The scientist, 79, also talked in a January 2007 Esquire interview about how "some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified."

Cold Spring Harbor has repudiated Watson's Africa comments and released a statement in January calling the Esquire comments "disturbing." Watson publicly apologized and resigned as lab chancellor Oct. 25.

Watson has a history of making controversial statements. In the past, for example, he has linked skinniness to ambition and skin color to libido.

But Steven Selden, an education historian at the University of Maryland, says Watson's recent remarks carry troubling historical baggage. He and other historians say Watson is echoing statements made by those involved decades ago in eugenics, the "science" of improving humanity that found a haven at Cold Spring Harbor.

Watson did not respond to requests for comment made via the lab and his publisher. One of his predecessors, Charles Davenport, a leader in the eugenics movement, stirred discord in 1929 for asserting that interracial marriage degrades the population.

Historians and ethicists say they fear that the greater effect of such statements may be the draining of public confidence in scientists.

First, some history

In the early 20th century, proponents of eugenics sought to restrict immigration, segregate the races and sterilize the "least fit," a group that included the mentally ill or handicapped, drunks and paupers.

By 1910, a Eugenics Record Office was established at Cold Spring Harbor. The prime movers were Davenport and administrator Harry Laughlin. In 1914, Laughlin produced a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law supporting sterilization of "feebleminded," epileptic, blind, deaf and poor people, among others, says historian Paul Lombardo of Georgia State University's College of Law.

This model law inspired state legislation that ultimately supported the sterilization of more than 60,000 Americans, Lombardo says.

By 1944, the tide of science and public opinion had turned, and the eugenics program at Cold Spring Harbor was disbanded. But involuntary sterilizations continued into the '70s and laws were in effect until 2003.

"Cold Spring Harbor was the Grand Central Station of eugenics in America," says historian Ed Larson of Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, Calif.

In 1948, Watson spent a summer at Cold Spring Harbor doing research. Five years later, he co-discovered the double-helix structure of DNA with Francis Crick, assisted by the work of Rosalind Franklin. In 1962, Crick and Watson won the Nobel Prize.

Almost 40 years ago

In 1968, Watson became the director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the first of several leadership positions he held there. During his tenure he approved the creation of a eugenics archive at the lab (www.eugenicsarchive.org) and lobbied Congress to fund investigations into the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic research.

In an essay in the lab's 1996 annual report, Watson wrote, "Never again must geneticists be seen as the servants of political and social masters who need demonstrations of purported genetic inequality to justify their discriminatory social policies."

So it would seem that Watson has worked to distance himself from the lab's controversial past, despite lobbing his "hot potato," as he called his recent comment, into this history. Bioethicist Eric Meslin of Indiana University calls Watson's words "more than a hot potato — it's a whole oven full of hot potatoes."

Asked whether he sees similarities between Watson's words and those of the eugenicists, Jan Witkowski, executive director of the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor, replied by e-mail, "No."

But Selden disagrees. "There's no question that they parallel exactly what the early mainline eugenicists would have said."

Lombardo expressed regret that Watson's words may taint his legacy. "But when you set yourself up as a representative of science to society, you have to take responsibility for what you say," he says.

Meslin worries about the impact on research. "It would be unfortunate if the comments Jim Watson made result in the public not supporting the very science he helped give rise to."