This week has just come and gone. I didn't do a single experiment. As for the blog, I typed two measly entries. But I did finalize my PLoS paper, give journal club and prepare for the next New England RNA Data Club. It's taking place here at Harvard Medical School on October 30th.
So what else happened this week?
Yes, I heard about the whole Watson affair. (BTM do you have anything to say? I guess the last time Watson was served by a black waiter, our Nobel laureate didn't tip well ...) The latest in this story is that he just got reprimanded by the Board of Trustees at Cold Spring Harbor.
But enough of that. I read something strange in the NY Times this morning. You remember the whole FoxP2 story? Science journalists and over zealous "biologists" have called this factor "speech gene". I really hate the warped idea that a single gene encodes all the information needed for speech ... it encodes a freakin' protein!!! FoxP2 is a transcription factor .... in other words something that turns on a genetic algorithm composed of DNA elements and gene products. Argghhh!!
In a new paper, researchers have determined that neanderthals probably had our version of this gene and not the chimp version. People are upset because previously, it was thought that FoxP2 may have altered after the neanderthal/human split. Honestly the difference between the chimp and human versions is something like two nucleic acid changes .... this new finding has little or no implications for whether neanderthals could speak. So the whole debate is overblown. Way overblown.
This item is not something that I would blog about, but in the article there was a very interesting passage that you would familiar to anyone who wanders the halls of any academic institution, but never in the NY Times. From the article:
Why was such a striking result not presented to a better known journal such as Nature? [It was published in Current Biology] Dr. Paabo replied that he had done so, but that "Nature rejected it without review. I was surprised."
Current Biology is not so bad. I've even published there!
Have a nice weekend. I'm off to happy hour.
- Log in to post comments
That was Watson's pitiful attempt at an apology today. That he can't see how blatant the racism in his statement is, is just plain sad.
I just had a friendly conversation with some pretty senior people here at my institute and they are all appalled and happy to know that CSH took such quick action. That someone could say such a thing really proves how little our society has progressed. I suppose that Watson, as he gets older, will continue to have his honest opinions leak past his PC meter. To think that he has been involved in a senior position to many minorities and women worries me greatly. As a minority, one knows that these hurdles c ontinue to exist but it is painful to be blatantly reminded.
I suppose the harder question is how far should he be removed from leadership roles. Of course, as Chancellor this is unacceptable, but would it be okay for someone with controversial opinions to be a faculty member? Where is that line drawn? I'm uncomfortable saying that extreme views are unacceptable; however, as a faculty member one oversees graduate students, new hires and tenure decisions so any sort of prejudice would be a problem.
I agree, as someone who is responsible for the mentorship of junior faculty, it is unacceptable. Sad.
But with all the things he's said and done through out the years, deep down I knew that this would happen eventually.
Agreed Watson's comments are unacceptable.
Extreme quotes are one thing; has Watson ever shown prejudice or bias in hiring decisions or who he choses to train or interact with professionally?
I was hoping you'd comment on Watson, Alex. Thanks for that. I just heard the news from an undergrad in the lab. The last time I heard Watson speak on campus, he also made some uncomfortably condescending remarks about Rosalind Franklin, of all people. It made me wonder if the man is going senile, and if so, why he is given so many public speaking opportunities. And it's not just comments about women and minorities that are disturbing. His scientific comments can also be dubious. For example, I once heard him answer a caller's question on NPR, and with great authority stated that "junk DNA doesn't do anything". Since when is he an authority on "junk DNA"? And who these days really believes junk DNA does nothing?
I have heard that a biology professor here has, out of frustration over Watson's latest, started referring in lectures to the two strands of the DNA double-helix as the "Franklin and Crick strands" rather than the "Watson and Crick strands". Hopefully this will catch on. Watson has his Nobel. Franklin can at least get this posthumous honor.
In my postdoc, I worked with a rotation student who had applied at CSH for grad school. She interviewed with Watson when she visited, and he noticed that she was married. He proceeded to ask her if she didn't really just want to stay home and have babies.
I've heard a lot of nasty stories about Watson. We'd all be a lot better off if he just shut his pie hole.