VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tue, Nov 11 2003, 7:41:17
Author: :P
Subject: Awards for you.

Stupidity should be cured — Watson

By Richard Ingham

The 50th anniversary of the unveiling of DNA was marked by controversy on
Friday after the scientist who co-discovered the "molecule of life" said he
backed genetic manipulation to make people more intelligent and
better-looking.

75-year-old James Watson, the American biologist who in 1953 shook the
world when he co-discovered DNA's structure with Britain's Francis Crick,
said he saw stupidity as a genetic disease that should be cured. "If you
really are stupid, I would call that a disease," he was quoted by The Times
of London as saying. "The lower 10 percent 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 percent."

Molecular biologists have a duty to identity the genes that affect low
intelligence and to develop gene therapies or pre-natal screening tests to
prevent it, Watson said. "It seems unfair that some people don't get the
same opportunity. Once you have a way in which you can improve our
children, no one can stop it. It would be stupid not to use it, because
someone else will. Those parents who enhance their children, then their
children are going to be the ones who dominate the world." Watson added
that he also supported genetic engineering to enhance people's
looks. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I
think it would be great."

Watson made the remarks in an upcoming documentary, due to be screened by
Britain's Channel 4 television on March 8, The Times said. Other experts
were aghast, respectful of Watson's reputation but eyeing the risk that
gene research could be plunged into a fresh storm about eugenics — the
Orwellian pseudo-science about selective breeding of humans to "improve"
the species.

Tom Shakespeare, a bio-ethicist at Britain's University of Newcastle, said
Watson "is talking about altering something that most people see as part of
normal human variation, and that I think is wrong." (...) I am afraid he
may have done more harm than good, his leadership of the Human Genome
Project and his discovery of 1953 notwithstanding."

"We are opposed to the eugenics element of the argument, but in terms of
carrying out research for a gene that identifies intelligence, and which
can help people, that is something we would support," a spokesman for the
British Medical Association (BMA) told AFP.

John Sulston, a British genetic professor who was co-winner of the 2002
Nobel Medicine Prize, said Watson was exploring an "extremely dangerous
area" but had not been wrong to speak out. "It is foolish put our heads in
the sand," he said, referring to the lure that human genetic engineering,
however abhorrent, would have for some. Watson is president of the Cold
Spring Harbour Laboratory in New York and helped launch the Human Genome
Project, the international effort to map mankind's genetic code. A draft of
the genome was unveiled in 2000.

DNA is the inherited template for life — a molecule that lies at the
heart of a cell's nucleus which provides the code for building, repairing
and destroying tissue. It has a structure of a double helix, joined by
chemical rungs called bases. It was that fundamental structure which Watson
and Crick cracked on February 28, 1953.

They published their discovery in the British journal Nature two months
later, setting down the foundations of genetic science today. From it have
flowed ground-breaking innovations in pharmaceutics; DNA fingerprinting;
diagnostic tools to determine susceptibility to inherited disease; and
therapies, still in their earliest experimental stages, to use stem cells
and replacement genes to reverse a disorder. But there have also been
fierce ethical storms about potential misuse, notably about the safety of
genetically modified crops and farm animals and the perils of human
cloning.

As for a gene or genes for "intelligence," that is an idea that divides
opinion. Experts say social factors, such as schooling and family
upbringing, clearly play a big but still unclear role in smartness, and in
any case it could be dangerous or even impossible to implant an
"intelligence" gene, even if one were identified.

Watson and Crick won the 1962 Nobel Prize for Medicine, along with a third associate, Maurice Wilkins.

Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of
its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a
genetic disease that should be cured. On 28 February 1953 biologists James
Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical
code for all life. The breakthrough revealed how genetic information is
passed from one generation to the next and revolutionised biology and
medicine. But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel
4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that
molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening
tests to tackle stupidity.

"If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now
president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10
per cent 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 per cent." Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that
genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be
terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Complex traits

But other scientists have questioned both the ethics and plausibility of
his suggestions. Nikolas Rose, a bioethics expert at the London School of
Economics, says such genetic engineering may not be possible: "These are
complex traits, with multiple genes interacting with the environment."
"These are characteristically casual and provocative statements by James
Watson," Rose adds. "I think they should be treated just as amusing rather
than as a serious account of what behavioural genetics or any genetics
should be doing, or will be able to do." Geneticist Steve Jones, at
University College London, dismisses Watson's comments about beauty as
"daft". "The concept of beauty is a subjective one," he told New Scientist.

But he adds: "The IQ suggestion is a little bit less silly, if you turn the
logic on its head. Watson likes to annoy - no question - but he's no fool."
Genetics could and does help people with severe disorders like Fragile X
syndrome and phenylketonuria, both of which affect IQ, says Jones: "The
problem is where do we draw the line?" Series producer David Dugan, of
Windfall Films, said the programmes also show Watson visiting a family who
greatly value their child with Down's syndrome, as well as their child
without Down's. "We were keen to confront Jim with this - he was genuinely
moved," but insisted that geneticists should work to eliminate the
disorder. Dugan believes Watson's views emanate from his own family's
experiences with his son, who has a mental illness resembling
schizophrenia.

Three men wielding knives tried to rob a
slaughterhouse. But when it comes to hand to hand combat with sharp
blades, butchers working in a slaughterhouse are more than a match for
your average thief. They stabbed two of the intruders to death. The third
man escaped from the angry butchers and fled in his car.

Police soon spotted him, and after a brief car chase, the would-be thief
pulled over and leapt from his vehicle. But instead of fleeing into the
underbrush, he tried to dodge heavy traffic and escape across the
highway. Perhaps he thought that threatening butchers with knives was
not a sufficient demonstration of his intelligence.

Within seconds, the natural justice system meted out his punishment in the
form of a large truck, which struck and killed him.

DarwinAwards.com © 1994-2003
Submitted by: Wieger van der Meulen, Eye Wiersema



Great?
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Awful?
Love it!











Hate it!








What Readers Think
What the heck are you going to steal from a slaughterhouse? It's more
likely they were bent on some other mayhem (it would be a good place
for murder) and lost.
hanzie - Sunday, October 12 at 23:13:18 PDT
Wow. Two delusional morons with equal intent killed in totally different
ways. Boy what a laugh. Robbing a slaughterhouse, too? That's a new
one. I can expect a liquor store, or maybe just a jewelry shop, but a
slaughterhouse? What were they stealing, raw slabs? And did they not
think some heavy sharp things were present there? This is almost as worse
as attempting to rob a gun store. Well... At least the 2nd guy got a nice,
quick death. I give this story a 10. I hope you can confirm it. :)
Josh Cobb - Monday, October 13 at 03:37:13 PDT
I'm reminded of the story of the Jogger who ran up to the police car
one hot day, Back before jogging was common, jumped in rolled up the
windows and locked the doors. As the police officer (who was on
crossing guard duty) was about to enquire what was up a man dressed in
white carring what appeared at first to be a sword, but upon closer
approach was revieled to be a very long knife explained that the 1st
jogger tried to rob his butcher shop... With about a 3 inch switch blade.
Shades of "Crocodile Dundee" "Now That's A Knife" as the theif tried to
rob him.
John Davis - Monday, October 13 at 06:02:22 PDT
I think being a crime victim does make winning a Darwin questionable -
I mean the first guy was murdered. But you do have to be dumb to rob a
slaughterhouse.
Chiral - Monday, October 13 at 08:18:00 PDT
I don't think this is real. Seriously, guys, ROB a
SLAUGHTERHOUSE? And with KNIVES? If true, this story is one of
the best DAs ever, and should be retitled "Welcome to the
meatgrinder!"...
Slicer - Monday, October 13 at 08:40:30 PDT

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:





Forum timezone: GMT-3
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.