If a scientist as important as James Watson can be immediately un-personed and cast into the garbage pile for stating this, I don't know if there's much room for open argument here. Science (TM) has decided that this science isn't open for discussion under any circumstances.
Whole medicine has know for years that diseases and treatment differ by race.
Saying that it does not matter will only make things worse for other races.
Several labs are actively pursuing black and other minorities as volunteer for their clinical trials for this reason. If that does not matter we will never see studies looking for African americans or Asians.
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives.
But if the group (G&T program, or whatever organization) benefits not only from the best and brightest, but also from diverse backgrounds, then both of those things should go into recruitment, right? You wouldn't want to form an org that excels at solving typical problems but then is completely stumped (in a way where other backgrounds could help, even if it brings down the average so-to-speak) in edge cases. This is why many companies do DEI even when they aren't compelled by moral high ground and virtue signalling. It's actually a net win for achieving the core goal.
As the head of DEI at Apple, since canned, for saying (paraphrasing) "I could have more diversity of _thought_ within one ethnicity than I could among a group of diverse ethnicity depending on the backgrounds of the individuals."
Of course, predictably, saying something true but anti-narrative was obviously a "counterrevolutionary activity" and got fired.