James Watson--yes, that Watson--to discuss...how to train scientists better?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


I got an invitation today to a film screening of Naturally Obsessed, The Making of a Scientist. The documentary, by Richard and Carole Rifkind, asks the question, "What does it take to produce the scientists we need to keep America competitive?"

That seems like an important question, and one to which Scientific American readers would no doubt like to have the answer. So I took a look at the invitation, and found out that the screening, on February 25, would also feature a panel discussion on the "state of scientific training in the U.S." Also worthwhile.

Then I noticed a name on the panel.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


James D. Watson.

Yes, that James Watson, the Watson-Crick Nobel Prize-winning James Watson, the one who retired from his post at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories at the end of 2007 for comments he made about the intelligence of Africans. He told the Times of London's Sunday Magazine that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" as "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing [IQ and Standardized testing] says not really."

Yes, the James Watson whom, as I wrote in The Boston Globe just after the incident, "[savaged] Rosalind Franklin— from whom many say Watson stole ideas that led to the Nobel he shared with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins for figuring out the structure of DNA." Watson has said that we should use genetic engineering to "make all girls pretty," and that more melanin—dark skin—gives people greater sexual libido.

So Watson is now evidently a good source of information on how to encourage young scientists to stick with careers in science. The panel, moderated by journalist Garrick Utley, also includes a State University of New York Downstate postdoctoral fellow named Andrey Pisarev and Toni Hoover, senior vice president of global research & development, and director of the Groton/New London Laboratories, for Pfizer.

Hoover is an African-American woman scientist who is evidently involved with promoting diversity in science, at least according to this press release about a $300,000 Pfizer grant to Xavier University, a traditionally black Catholic university in New Orleans. I called Pfizer to ask to interview Hoover about what she thought of being on the panel and will update this post if I hear back.

I also asked a New York Academy of Sciences contact about the choice of Watson. "Word is that he's very committed to this subject and really focused when it comes to discussing it," he wrote in an e-mail.

Find out on February 25, at Academy headquarters in downtown Manhattan.

Photo of a young James Watson courtesy the National Library of Medicine

Ivan Oransky is editor in chief of Spectrum and a distinguished writer in residence at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. He is a co-founder of Retraction Watch and a volunteer member of the board of directors of the PubPeer Foundation.

More by Ivan Oransky

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe