>>30
I know you're just trolling, but I'll respond anyhow as though you weren't on the chance that you'll actually help make my point.
Saying you read most peer reviewed papers on intelligence says absolutely nothing as to the credibility of your arguments. Unless you're planning on citing them, don't bother trying to bludgeon people with the fact that you think you know a lot.
The article that was being considered was written by a blogger who had read Watson's books, which does not make him an expert on the subject, or at least not a credible expert on the subject of genetics, and more specifically what Watson was trying to say. The reason the scientific community at large shunned those remarks is because Watson was trying to say that being black had a causal effect on the intelligence of the individual. So far as I know, there is no such link, and none has been shown by any valid research. Scientifically this means that an important genetecist cannot get up and say, without negative consequences, that it's true, and that social policy should be formed around that fact, which is exactly what Watson did, and why he deserves to lose respect for it.
As per your last bit about the facts surrounding the modeling of the DNA molecule - I never said anything about his research, and I didn't know Franklin was a Jew (which isn't important unless you're a bigot). This is just knowledge I had off the top of my head about the history of the DNA molecule - it may be slightly innaccurate. I'm not trying to smear him, but I don't think his comments are defensible for someone in his position. I don't know anything about him being 1/8 black either, nor do I care if he's 100% black. What he said was opinionated gibberish based on innaccurate interpretation of data. That's bad science, and if he's going to say it's good science, then he's going to lose the respect of the scientific community.