# Can the race of the fetus be determined prenatally? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 5, 2007, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504 "2007-08-05T14:16:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/61 "2007-08-06T14:36:59Z")
> [@](#): > > There are no racial divides under the category “human.” What evidence would falsify this claim? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/62 "2007-08-06T15:13:38Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] What evidence would falsify this claim? [/QUOTE] Evidence that humans meet the criteria generally used by biologists to denote a “subspecies” (race = subspecies). As it is, we don’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/63 "2007-08-06T15:21:54Z")
**brazil84** : I think it would be helpful if you read the wikipedia article on [subspecies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies). It should be quite clear that our species can’t be logically divided into distinct groups with clear boundaries. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/64 "2007-08-06T15:49:05Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Evidence that humans meet the criteria generally used by biologists to denote a “subspecies” (race = subspecies). As it is, we don’t. [/QUOTE] And what are the criteria for denoting a “subspecies?” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/65 "2007-08-06T16:02:25Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] And what are the criteria for denoting a “subspecies?” [/QUOTE] I beat you to it. 🙂 See post #63. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/66 "2007-08-06T16:41:12Z")
Well, just to back up **brazil84** (he doesnt seem to be getting much), and since y’all seem to be righting off his linked article: From the [American Journal of Human Genetics](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372): > [@](#): > > **Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers** produced four major clusters, which **showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories**. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. The article also states that America is a specially tough place to run this type of research, what with the “melting pot” and all. Anyone care to point out that article’s flaws? **John Mace** , I think you are moving the goal posts by saying race=subspecies. Racist and Enlightened alike believe that the races are the same species - well a modern racist anyway. It would be better to say race=breed (as in dog). ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/67 "2007-08-06T16:42:56Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I beat you to it. 🙂 See post #63. [/QUOTE] I don’t see where in the article you are referring to. Could you quote it for me? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/68 "2007-08-06T16:53:31Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] Well, just to back up brazil84 (he doesnt seem to be getting much), and since y’all seem to be righting off his linked article: From the American Journal of Human Genetics: [/quote] And that article was written about the US (and Taiwan), which lacks significant numbers of individuals from many of the world’s ethnic groups. If you tried to apply that study to a country like India or Afghanistan or even Russia, I doubt it would work. It would be incorrect to conclude that you can impose a world-wide racial categorization on the human species based on that study. Again, please look at the wikipedia article on subspecies. > [@](#): > > **John Mace** , I think you are moving the goal posts by saying race=subspecies. Racist and Enlightened alike believe that the races are the same species - well a modern racist anyway. It would be better to say race=breed (as in dog). No. Race, as it is generally applied to humans is a social construct. If you want to make it a scientific construct, then you’re stuck with race = subspecies. If you want to say that “race” is somehow even lower than “subspecies”, then you have to establish that there are subspecies to begin with. The traditional racial groups seen in humans are not at all like breeds of dogs, which are artificially designed to produce certain traits and which are then artificially kept separate from other dog populations to maintain those traits. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/69 "2007-08-06T17:01:58Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t see where in the article you are referring to. Could you quote it for me? [/QUOTE] There are several parts, but here is a good one: > [@](#): > > Monotypic and polytypic species > > A monotypic species has no races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways: > > ``` > * All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories. > * The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned. > * The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious. > > ``` We are characterized by bullet #3. If you want to look strictly at genetic variation (and forget for the moment about phenotype), look how humans compare to our close relative, [the chimpanzee (see figure 3)](http://www.bookrags.com/research/population-bottleneck-gen-03/), which generally has 4 recognized subspecies (races). We’re not even close. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/70 "2007-08-06T17:02:06Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] What evidence would falsify this claim? [/QUOTE] You’re not even trying to understand. Thanks for the exchange! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/71 "2007-08-06T17:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > And that article was written about the US (and Taiwan), which lacks significant numbers of individuals from many of the world’s ethnic groups. If you tried to apply that study to a country like India or Afghanistan or even Russia, I doubt it would work. It would be incorrect to conclude that you can impose a world-wide racial categorization on the human species based on that study. I think that’s grasping at straws, don’t you? I mean the United States has plenty of different “ethnic groups”. The abstract says “Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic)”, and the genetics backed them up. Do you have a similar study from Afghanistan or Russia that shows contrary evidence? I would think those countries would be different for sure being so close to or straddling continental borders, but I don’t think you can wave it away with a “I doubt it would work”. This criteria for a subspecies from your wikipedia article re-enforces to me that you should not be conflating race and subspecies: > [@](#): > > 1. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent. I doubt even the most ardent racist would think that. We’ve all seen Mulatto babies. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/72 "2007-08-06T17:08:17Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] You’re not even trying to understand. Thanks for the exchange! [/QUOTE] You are not doing anything other than sighing at his “ignorance” and re-stating your one line point. Not much of an “exchange” ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/73 "2007-08-06T17:12:31Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] You are not doing anything other than sighing at his “ignorance” and re-stating your one line point. Not much of an “exchange” [/QUOTE] If you can show me where I have sighed at his ignorance, please do. Otherwise, please check your facts first. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/74 "2007-08-06T17:19:30Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] If you can show me where I have sighed at his ignorance, please do. Otherwise, please check your facts first. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > (Sigh) There are no racial divides under the category “human.” It’s quite simple, really, unless you choose to misunderstand deliberately. Any more requests? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/75 "2007-08-06T17:20:08Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] You’re not even trying to understand. Thanks for the exchange! [/QUOTE] Actually, I am trying to understand. Part of the reason why I asked what evidence would falsify your claim was to force you to make it clear exactly what your claim meant. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/76 "2007-08-06T17:34:56Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] There are several parts, but here is a good one: We are characterized by bullet #3. If you want to look strictly at genetic variation (and forget for the moment about phenotype), look how humans compare to our close relative, [the chimpanzee (see figure 3)](http://www.bookrags.com/research/population-bottleneck-gen-03/), which generally has 4 recognized subspecies (races). We’re not even close. [/QUOTE] So again, my question: What evidence would falsify the claim that there are no races among humans? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/77 "2007-08-06T18:20:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The traditional racial groups seen in humans are not at all like breeds of dogs, which are artificially designed to produce certain traits and which are then artificially kept separate from other dog populations to maintain those traits. I would also disagree with this point. I would say the racial divide in humans is extremely similar to the breed divide in domestic dogs. The main difference only being that dogs were “artificially kept separate” and humans were, I suppose, “naturally kept separate”. This produces more distinct and wider variation in dogs but I don’t think it means they are essentially different. eta: And you accept the existence of distinct breeds but don’t suppose that these breeds are actual subspecies do you? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/78 "2007-08-06T18:34:22Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] I think that’s grasping at straws, don’t you? I mean the United States has plenty of different “ethnic groups”. The abstract says “Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic)”, and the genetics backed them up. Do you have a similar study from Afghanistan or Russia that shows contrary evidence? I would think those countries would be different for sure being so close to or straddling continental borders, but I don’t think you can wave it away with a “I doubt it would work”. [/QUOTE] Of course I can. If you’re making an assertion that you think this method would work in continental border areas, then you need to produce the data to show that it does. You simply cannot generalize from US data, which represents a diverse, but still small sample of the ethnic groups in the entire world. For instance, note that this study really didn’t tell us much about “Hispanics” at all, per the authors: > [@](#): > > Perhaps this is not surprising for the major groupings (whites, East Asians, and African Americans), since prior studies would suggest enough genetic differentiation between these groups to produce robust clustering. On the other hand, one prior study of Hispanics did not suggest a distinct cluster for this group, possibly because of the heterogeneous origins of that Hispanic sample (Stephens et al. 2001). From the genetic perspective, Hispanics generally represent a differential mixture of European, Native American, and African ancestry, with the proportionate mix typically depending on country of origin. Our sample was from a single location in Texas and was composed of Mexican Americans. Emphasis added. Reading on further, we find that “East Asian” is only an arbitrary group as well: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, in the analysis of the full sample, the two East Asian groups—Chinese and Japanese—did not emerge as distinct subgroups, likely because their distance from one another was too modest to be detectable in the context of the larger sample. However, when the East Asians were analyzed separately, two clusters—corresponding to Chinese and Japanese—did emerge, with only a small amount of discordance (6 [1%] of 567 subjects). So is there one “East Asian” race or two (or more)? The point is that you are predetermining what the groupings are and then fitting the data to it. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except that the predetermined groups are arbitrary, and they are selected from groups that are native to areas quite distant from each other (East Asia vs Western Europe vs Western Africa). They looked for “Asian” and found clusters that could determine “Asian” as opposed to European or African, but if they looked for “Chinese” and “Japanese” they would have found clusters to support that division, too. You could do the same thing in Europe, finding clusters that could separate, say, native Irish and Greeks, but are those meaningful distinctions? Another example would be Native Americans and Eskimos. Are they the same race or are they separate? You can find genetic difference between them if you look for that, but you could put them in the same group, too, if you were simply contrasting them from other groups. You could set up any number of divisions based on genetic data, and there just isn’t any good reason to select one over another. Everywhere you look you are going to find border areas where lots of people aren’t going to fit into whatever categories you choose. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/79 "2007-08-06T18:45:10Z")
[QUOTE=CarnalK] I would also disagree with this point. I would say the racial divide in humans is extremely similar to the breed divide in domestic dogs. The main difference only being that dogs were “artificially kept separate” and humans were, I suppose, “naturally kept separate”. This produces more distinct and wider variation in dogs but I don’t think it means they are essentially different. eta: And you accept the existence of distinct breeds but don’t suppose that these breeds are actual subspecies do you? [/QUOTE] Firstly, the term “subspecies” cannot properly be applied to domesticated animals. Breeds of dogs are kept separate from the general dog population, but the general dog population is constantly reabsorbing genes back from those breeds, too. And humans have not been naturally kept separate. If you look at central and South America, for example, we have more than an entire continent where a large percentage of the people are of mixed heritage (“mixed” meaning that they can trace their recent ancestry back to at least 2 different continents). Europe itself has always been a melting pot, with gene flow from the Mideast, Central Asia, and North Africa happening as far back as history can record. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504/80 "2007-08-06T18:59:18Z")
> [@](#): > > And humans have not been naturally kept separate. If you look at central and South America, for example, we have more than an entire continent where a large percentage of the people are of mixed heritage (“mixed” meaning that they can trace their recent ancestry back to at least 2 different continents). Europe itself has always been a melting pot, with gene flow from the Mideast, Central Asia, and North Africa happening as far back as history can record. Right, the less than total separation amongst humans means we have less diversity than dogs. It’s undeniable that during the development of “races” (i.e. long before European settlement in South America) travel between continents was difficult or at least very time consuming. That made for a weaker, but distinct, “breeding effect”. At least ISTM. It also seems to me that the existence of Aboriginal-European mixed race people in Central America is no more a denial of the concept of “race” than the Cockapoo is a denial of the concept of “breed”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-race-of-the-fetus-be-determined-prenatally/414504.md?page=5)