In response to Joe’s post, I inferred that Watson was going beyond just Africans because the author of the Sunday Times article wrote, “[Watson’s] hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that ‘people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.’” It is possible that Watson was misquoted. Indeed, his statement to the Associated Press was, “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.” But so far he has stopped short of accusing the article’s author of outright fabrication.

Hear, hear! I like to read that scientists should avoid seeking to *silence* views that diverge from the majority. Put it to the test, as Joe (and many others) say. Although - to what test? Which intelligence were we talking about anyhow? I think it was a flippant, provocative comment by an old man. I have heard many such from other very bright people of his generation. Let it slide; what Jim thinks here is not frankly important nor will it change the reality of there being no such thing as intelligence-by-descent. On the other hand, politically speaking, it's smart for a number of scientists to condemn the import of these remarks, as has been done, so that non-scientists do not believe that Jim has indeed uttered a consensus opinion. It's not really silencing - and Jim's interview will do wonders if not for book sales, than at least for attendance once he takes up the book tour again.

"he suggested that Africa’s prospect is “gloomy” because blacks are not as intelligent as other races"

Did he? I haven't read the original speech, so I might have missed the details, but I was under the impression from all the actual quotes in the reports (including your own post here) that he said that Africans are not as intelligent, not that Blacks are less intelligent -- geopolitical, not racial groups. Indeed, it is taken for granted in every report I have seen that Watson is saying that Africans are inherently less intelligent – certainly a questionable thing to say – but I haven't actually seen Watson's words that explicitly state that. The actual quote that's going around – that Africans are less intelligent than the rest of the world – shouldn't be a surprising statement, considering the relatively poor economy, education, healthcare, nutrition, communications infrastructure, etc of that continent, compared to Europe and North America; it's only when one reads genetics into it that the statement becomes dubious.

If Watson really did say that Blacks are inherently less intelligent than other races, then (1) we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's advocating forced sterilisation or genocide (he is being patronising rather than evil); (2) he should be challenged to provide some evidence and justification for his claim. If he fails, we can treat his ideas like we treat other failed hypotheses (intelligent design, etc), and if he continues to promote the hypothesis, then we dismiss him as a senile old racist with a pseudo-scientific agenda. In the unlikely event that he succeeds, we can behave like adults and not decide that we all have to become racists because the data say we must, or that we have to deny the data as the only alternative to becoming racists.