Considering the genome

It’s a comforting thought that there’s nothing particularly special about the African Genome – or more particularly – that there is nothing particularly special about the social implications of genomics in Africa (see Part 1). I would definitely conclude that Watson’s ‘intelligent’ guesses as to the biological basis for intelligence have not shown up in my research (see Genes, Race and Brain Function). I do not want to say too much about the detail of Watson’s comments: to paraphrase one person I interviewed, “giving more oxygen to these comments may be counter-productive.” However, I do want to say something about how Watson’s comments provide a context for the social and ethical debates currently being held in Africa concerning the role of genomics.

So, in one sense I’m grateful that Watson’s outspoken (and predominantly speculative) comments have provided me with an opportunity to ask the same question – what’s so different about the Africa genome? – and answer it differently. Put bluntly, Africa as a continent, and Africans (however defined) have to work harder than other continents and populations to prove themselves to be equal to the task of creating knowledge out of the new information stemming from genetics.

I would argue that Watson’s comments highlight the need for the ethical, legal, and social debate surrounding genomics to be widened, to more sections of the population, and deepened, thereby taking in both the technological utility of genomics and issues of identity, morality, and the political implications of genomics. Indeed it has been strongly argued that all the human sciences makes political statements (Goodman and Leatherman, 1998). Watson statement is that he (and his colleagues) – experts in the field of genetics – should seek the answer to social disadvantage in genetics. This puts an onus Africa and Africans (referred to variously as Black, Brown, and Coloured within and outside of the African continent) to prove Watson wrong. For let us not allow ourselves that searching for the genetic basis to IQ is not a politically motivated search. If Watson – among others – is right (and he definitely isn’t) then – almost overnight – it would put an end to nearly all forms of social programmes that attempt to rectify the injustices of racially divided world – for what would be the point of such social programmes?

Fortunately, I am confident that Watson will have as much luck as biological scientists of previous generations who wanted to find biological causes for social inequalities (such as criminality in the ‘lower classes’). However, I also recognise that my own view is not universally held. So getting back to the issue of conducting as wide and as deep a debate about genetics and biotechnology in Africa – it can be argued that such a debate not only directly benefits the continent of Africa in terms of developing appropriate technology, it is also argued that such debates will help Africa in a less tangible way. For genomics and biotechnology is not only about science and technology, it is also about politics, economics, and the role of African states within the global economy. My understanding is that is that science does not stand outside of society or vice versa – thus Watson generates his need to search for innate causality from very mainstream views. This is strong stuff – but it is essential to understand that genetic science is a political science and thus evokes (as it should do) strong debate. If genetic scientists themselves – particularly those working in countries in countries that would feel the brunt of the social implications of Watson’s views on racial genetics - took on this political element to their work on board we might have the start of really productive socio-scientific debate.

In conclusion, returning to the purpose of stimulating a debate over genomics and biotechnology one can see two inter-linked but distinct reasons why such debate is important. The first – and most direct – is to make sure that genomics science and biotechnology produces as many positives to as many people within Africa as possible. If this was to happen – even partially successfully – I would strongly expect that the IQ gap between racial groups would be significantly lowered. The second – and equally significant – is to make sure that genomics and biotechnology are not seen to reconfirm the role of Africa and Africans in an already uneven playing field. Africa and African populations – it would appear from Watson’s comments – have prove themselves to be biological equals to non-Africans.