'Small, non-representive samples'? Maybe, (I am in position to judge) but looking through some of the published scholarly papers relating to this subject and from what you've said, it looks as if the peer-review folk who've approved a fair number of scholarly papers providing substance for Watson's ill-advised comments have done a lousy job in not pointing this out. Certainly for whatever reason be it environmental, genetic or simply a matter of inappropriate tests, the data indicates a consistent pattern. According to you, this is poor science. Please provide the evidence and note that I am not saying it does not exist! You may be right for all I know.