Is it fair to hold public figures to a higher moral standard?

The question is a difficult one, albeit in certain cases an irrelevant one. (The source of fame for some of Hollywood's finest is probably our infatuation with their repeated moral failings.)

Although, if an esteemed public figure's words or actions become unsavory, the swift loss of esteem that often occurs is probably fair. In fact, it is only logical; as respect can be earned, it can be lost, and we don't have the opportunity to become personally acquainted with our public figures as we do our friends.

What we see is what we get, and second chances are usually not deserved.

This is why the many noted academics, politicos and other commentators who have spent the better part of the last week raking James Watson, a brilliant world-renowned scientist and Nobel laureate, over the coals for making some of the most disgraceful comments someone of his stature has ever made, are completely justified.

Haven't heard the story yet? It's a doozie.

Watson is credited as the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA — he's the "Watson" in "Watson & Crick." His work helped lay the foundation for some of today's most important advancements in the biological sciences. For the past four decades, Watson has led the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.

Unfortunately, Watson has also had a knack for making controversial "scientific" statements with racist undertones. He implied in a 2000 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, for example, that sex drive is related to skin color. Attendees report that Watson said, "That's why you have Latin lovers," according to The Associated Press.

Most of these comments have been mainly overlooked as harmless — Watson is thought of by many as somewhat of an eccentric old man — but in an Oct. 14 interview with the Sunday Times Magazine of London, harmlessness was thrown out the window.

Watson was quoted as saying he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really."

Perhaps even more outrageously, Watson claimed he hopes we're all equal, but that "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true." He did note that he does not condone racial discrimination, because "there are many people of color who are very talented."

That is, to summarize, one of the most revered scientists of the 20th century implied last week that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. By extension, he implied, on par with some of the nastiest white supremacist propaganda out there, that such phenomena as the academic achievement gap in U.S. schools have a genetic basis.

Though he has apologized, Watson has not denied making any of the statements attributed to him, and the Sunday Times Magazine claims it has audio recordings of the interview.

Wow.

As many of his colleagues vocalized when the interview was first published last week, Watson was completely out of line in his claims. "All the testing" he refers to does not really indicate any separate intelligence of blacks and whites, and there is no good evidence to indicate that "black employees" are any more or less productive than employees of other races.

Beyond erroneous, his remarks are socially destructive. Gloominess about "the prospect of Africa" from a single loudmouthed — and likely racist — scientist is no doubt unneeded by the thousands of other scientists who are working tirelessly to assist that continent's struggling populations.

On that point, some of Watson's colleagues have attested they don't believe he's racist but only made racist remarks.

There is no doubt that it's possible for a person to say offensive things that he may not have intended to be offensive, and there is no doubt that in history certain individuals have been wrongly painted as racists.

This is where that public figure standard comes into play.

Only Watson knows whether or not he's actually racist. It's difficult to believe he could have accidentally made such abjectly racist statements without being so, but by now it does not matter — the damage is done.

He has rightly lost much of his former status and, for now, his New York laboratory post, along with the respect of the scientific community.

Inaccurate, inappropriate and racially motivated statements are unacceptable from any source, but coming from a source as esteemed and authoritative as Watson, they must be vigorously defeated, lest they be given credibility and used to further the agendas of decidedly racist organizations.

[Reach columnist Andrew D. Brown at opinion@thedaily.washingon.edu.]