Or we could, instead of argument to authority, look at the actual research in the field, which doesn't support Watson's conclusions. (Neither does it strongly support their negation.)

And Watson's expertise is in the low-level mechanics of heredity; it's less relevant to broad population psychometry and the analysis of heredity of traits measured through such psychometry than is, say, a bachelor's degree in any of the social sciences.

> What about double helix? Is he wrong about that too?

By “he” do you mean Rosalind Franklin? But, no, of course that's not wrong, it's been extensively confirmed.