I agree, and it strikes me as bizarre to think that more targetted and precise analysis is not what is needed.
From my perspective in my end of the industry, the concept of targetting specific populations with certain traits is where we see the future for pharma applications. That’s perhaps on a 10 yr horizon, but it is still where we are putting research and planning dollars (or francs as the case may be).
Exactely. I can only think that the sooner medical researchers and population health folks abandon poorly supported categories for more precise ones, the better. The better to tease out, as you said, socio-economic issues/cultural issues from underlying genetic ones. Ending the confusion between the two is possibly one of the more important items on the medical agenda.
Better resolution of causes can only be helpful for targeted care.
Okay, must discipline myself or I’ll spend the next week on this topic instead of the rather pressing work I gotta get done.
Well, actually it came up in the context of something the OP said. Also, it was also the observation of a guy in the article who seemed familiar with the field, one “Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute”. But perhaps I should have been more considerate of your delicate feelings. So sorry, so sorry.
Anyway, as noted, the article is posted online, for members of that forum. Perhaps you will take a look.
After all these threads, I still just don’t get it. Somebody please explain this to me…
(from dictionary.com):
race1 (r s)
n.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
This makes PERFECT sense to me.
This does not:
What? You’re saying that there’s no such thing as:
“Humans considered as a group.”???
“A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.”???
“A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.”???
(bold mine)
These are three “… local geographic … human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.”
This *perfectly matches the definition of “race”, so what’s the problem? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I’m dead serious. Are you guys arguing some other definition? “Race” is only a word, but it has a definition, and the definition sets a criteria. When the criteria is met, the word is correct. What’s the big deal? Either you guys are arguing semantics or I’m really lost. I agree that it’s a relativly clumsy and useless term, but that’s completely different than “there is no such thing a race”
Genetically speaking. Sgt J, genetically speaking. The physical characteristics that we speak of as race when we talk of appearance are so jumbled and mixed that there is not a distinct genetic pattern to go by. In other words take my genes (white man) and those of a black man and analyse the two from viewpoint of the genes that define our appearance and you couldn’t tell which one is black and which one is white in a conclusive way. The scientist here examined goes for a different modus, he looks for pathological differences between population groups, which might or might not coincide with the percieved definition of race.
The problem is specifically there. By taking two unrelated concepts and equating them there is suddenly question to as what we are talking about. Dr. Risch makes it even worse by saying that this is specifically what he wants. That since it is possible that phenotype (characteristics we see) are indicative of origin, doctors should pay more attention to phenotype. It confuses matters scientifically, and in my quadrant of politics it runs the risk of opening a whole can of worms that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine or genetics.
First, please note that the phrase we tend to use is not “there is no such thing as race.” (I will not claim that the phrase has never been posted, but those of us in the “anti-race” camp generally do not associate with sjgouldrocks.) The statements generally made is that there is no underlying biological reality to race; there are no “race” genes (or alleles).
The cultural and sociological definitions and uses of “race” have been acknowledged and even used by several of us on the “anti-race” side of the discussion throughout that last couple of years.
As to my specific question regarding Risch: The earliest theorizers regarding humanity and race claimed that there were either three or five races. This held through most of the 19th century. Throughout the 20th century, as more people actually went into the field and studied genuine humans, they recognized that there were many differences within the five original “races.” They began parsing and segregating and redefining the groups they found until they eventually came up with approximately 60 “races.” One of the earliest recognized separations occurred in Africa, where it was very clear early on that the Negro, the Khoi-San, and the Pygmy groups are quite distinct in their physical features. Now, Risch wants to go back to using only five groups which would lump those three specific groups (to say nothing of all the various smaller groups within those three groups) back into one group. So, what does “race” mean in that context? We already know that two of the most popularly recognized genetic conditions, lactose intolerance and sickle-cell, are not found throughout the whole of sub-Sahara Africa, so what does lumping all those people into one group do for biology or medicine?
To an extent, this is a semantic discussion. Note, however, your charcterization: “it’s a relativly clumsy and useless term.” Now a term that is useless should generally be avoided in scientific discussions–and that is where we are limiting our discussion.
Does “race” exist?
-If you are tracing your Irish cultural heritage, you are certainly a member of the Milesian Race.
-If you are being denied housing or a job in the U.S. because the landlord or employer does not like dark skin and wiry hair, you are certainly a member of the (culturally defined) black race.
-If you are being examined for likelihood of disease, the evidence for the past 15 years has increasingly suggested that the only “race” to which you belong is human. (You may belong to a smaller population (the word preferred by the scientists) that is susceptible to various diseases, but there is no clearly defined “race” into which the doctor could sort you.)
It is this final point that Risch now appears to be challenging.
Now, barring actual revision of scientific evidence from Risch, how should we use the word “race” in a scientific context? If we claim that blacks are more susceptible to sickle-cell, we miss the fact that large groups of people in Africa are not susceptible. If we do not challenge the use in everyday speech, we will have a clumsy word that conveys misinformation. It most often shows up and is challenged on the SDMB when someone posts a question, “Why are [name-your-race] faster/slower/smarter/dumber/angrier/lazier/harder-working?” Such questions occasionally have a genuine sociological answer, but there are people (and posters) who will provide purported biological answers and it is more constructive to eliminate that error early on.
I agree that there is an element of the political in the “no race” position. In a previous thread, supporters of the “no race” position were unwilling or unable to offer a principled basis for their position.
In the absence of such a principled basis, it seems likely to me that the “no race” position is informed, at least in part, by more political considerations.
Wonderous, lucwarm comes to continue the big lie technique.
Or perhaps an alternative reading is that having given up on ever bringing the light to the dim, folks moved on.
The position is really painfully clear.
Distributions do not map in any coherent manner onto the classical race concept. Original science has been cited to that effect. This makes the concept unuseful for coherent, rigorous and above all enlightening inquiry into the biology of group genetics etc.
For a category to be of some use for general analysis there should be some statistically coherent covariation among a large body of relevant traits, at the minimium. One might also prefer that there be some clear differentiation, such as fixed differences. A fine example is men versus women. Fixed differences, ex of course rare defects etc. That is not to say, of course, that a more critical and rigorously scientific eye to what is truly biologically based in terms of differences between men and women and what is socially based (with or without reference to underlying fixed differences) is not in order. It is, it will make for better science.
If you want to know more, study some goddamned biology.
In the absence of a modicum of comprehension of the underlying concepts and analyses in an area of investigation or inquiry, the ignorant or uninformed might best refrain from pretending to judge what is a ‘principalled basis’ for a conclusion.
The principle for the position is pretty fucking clear then: poorly concieved categories make for poor fucking bullshit science. Discarding ill-supported (ex social categ.) analytical structures for the lazy mind and adhering to more rigorously defined ones will be a positive benefit – as Dseid rather clealry laid out already in this goddamned thread, for those with something approaching a modicum of an ordinary level of reading comprehension in the English langauge.
What sort of “principles” do you claim there should be? If, in a scientific context, a word provides confusion rather than clarity, it should not be used. Race has multiple meanings, some of which have no substance and none of which are unambiguous in meaning. It is not merely useless but harmful to continue to use a word in a biological context that will provide more confusion and error than it will provide meaning.
It is beginning to look as though you are making this up as you go along.
I don’t. I’ve quoted from that article several times in the past.
On the one hand, it seems (unless Risch demonstrates otherwise) that there are no groups both coherent enough and large enough to be called races.
On the other hand, we can, indeed, follow migration patterns and identify various smaller populations based on genetic information. It was the possibility of using DNA mapping to show that the Nacirema originally were related to the people of Rohan (in contradiction of all the legends of the Nacerima in which they were born as the direct progeny of Mana-Yood-Sushai and were never related to their eternal enemies from Rohan) that caused several “PC” groups to object to further studies by Cavalli-Sforza.
The subject is ticklish. I don’t think that there is anything to be gained by suppressing genuine information. In regards to the Human Genome Project, I would tend to support their initial reluctance to reveal which “genes” they associated with which “races.” They are using one self-identified individual from each group. Any feature that they found in an individual should not be extrapolated to a group of millions (perhaps billions) of people, but you know that the initial popular reports would do just that.
If Risch (or Goldstein or Cavalli-Sforza) finds actual genetic information that can be applied to large coherent groups of people, we should not suppress that information.
Well there is problem number one (or number one in that i am addressing it). Where is this Asian from? Japan? Northern China? Southern China? Siberia? Korea? Singapore? India? Pakistan? How about that Caucasian? Eurpean born, or European ancestored American? (the american will have a greater chance of cross breeding between countries) Is the Hispanic entirely Mexican Indian, and if so what tribes? Or is he a mix between the Mexican Indians and the Europeans, and if so, what concentration of each? The African-American? Pre or post slavery? What part of Africa does his ancestors hail from, Sub-Sahara or on Sahara? A good chunk of African americans have “white” genes in them due to their slave ancestors being forced to have sex with their masters (or willingly, that did happen too, at probably much rarer intervals, but i digress)
The problem is that “race” answers the question before it is asked.
The question is what groups have what markers and with what significance “for our understanding of history and for biomedical research.” Using the sociologic construct of race imposes an answer upon the data that seems to be at best crude and incomplete. It impedes rather than facilitates a more complete understanding.
OTOH, are the physical phenotypes that are the basis of “race” genetically based? Duh, yeah. My skin isn’t peach because I didn’t get enough sun.
I understood the section that I quoted to be saying the following:
Despite the fact that there are no large groups that are completely distinct genetically, some large groups are different enough to make it worthwile to organize them among “racial lines”. For which reason the NIH & Celera have made it their business to make sure to get DNA from each of these groups. However, to publicize this fact would be to give credence to those who would argue for larger differences than are actually extant - for this reason these facts are being suppressed. See also later in the article:
Seems again to be saying the same thing. All of which points in one direction: that there is political pressure on scientists to downplay the degree of differentiation that exists among the various “races”, so as not to give credence to the (false) notion that the races are completely distinct.
I’m not sure how you read this? You seem to be saying that it is solely due to scientific considerations - that the popular press will err in interpreting the results. I’m not sure if this is indeed your position, but I’m not convinced in any event.
(Again, I’m not focusing specifically on your position with regards to whether information should be suppressed or not - rather on whether political realities that exist are exerting greater pressure in the direction of the “races don’t exist” position or in the direction of the “races exist” position.
Tars Tarkas, I’m unsure of what your point is. Are you saying that the people running the Celera product are ignorant of the principles of genetics that you’ve laid out? Apparently they feel that these groupings have some likely relevance.
One of the amazing things about these debates is that people who know relatively little about the subject are so quick to call Stanford University professors idiots, and to triumphantly point out elementary mistakes made by one of the groups that decoded the human genome. Makes you wonder, that kind of thing…
Presumably, there is a reason why you reject racial categories. If that same reason, if applied to other, generally accepted, biological categories, requires rejection of those categories too, it suggests that your position is influenced by political concerns.
Now, in a previous thread, edwino made the following statement:
You added the following:
I asked the following question:
And here was your response:
The reason you said this was pretty obvious - you were reluctant to take the same reasoning you had applied to racial categories and apply it to other sorts of grouping.
The fact is, you are unwilling to apply your reasoning in a general manner. This suggests to me that you are under the influence of political considerations.
So are you now abandoning the position that race must be rejected because it lacks “hard and fast” lines?
Okay, listen up, “Izzy”, i characterize SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) based on three population pools (or “races” if you prefer) for use in spotting areas of higher frequency of variation in populations for use in tracking down genetically related diseases (among other things), so i think i know a little bit about the subject matter.
And you didn’t figure out what i meant, i was saying that the article quoted made a big deal about the “Asian” and “Hispanic” people being sequenced, based on their “races” but didn’t bother to answer what specific populations the sequencees are from, so those people could be from areas of high intermingleing, and have “unpure” genomes, and therefore are unusable as examples of what “pure” Asians are. The article seems has this wet dream that if we know what DNA sequences come from the Asian guy, we can see why Asians are so good at math, and find out why white people can’t dance. It’s not gonna answer anything, especially from only 5 people (we use groups of 42, and i bet Celera isn’t sticking with only 5 guys, despite what the article says.)
or try this…
okay…lets describe some genetic variances. the Black population pool (from African Americans of slave days order) has GTGGTGTGCCTGGTGAAACGTGAACGTGTGCCAAAAGTTGGGTGCCAAAGGTTTGGTCCCCCGGTTTTTGGGCCAAAGTGAACGAGATCTGTGTGTGGAACCGGGTGTTGGAAAAAACCGGTGTGGGGTTTGGCCCAAAGTGGTGCCGTGGTAACGTGTAACACGATATATATATATATATATATATATATATAT for 12% of the population and GTGGTGTGCCTGGTGAAACGTGAACGTGTGCCAAAAGTTGGGTGCCAAAGGTTTGGTCCCCCGGTTTTTTGGCCAAAGTGAACGAGATCTGTGTGTGGAACCGGGTGTTGGAAAAAACCGGTGTGGGGTTTGGCCCAAAGTGGTGCCGTGGTAACGTGTAACACGATATATATATATATATATATATATATATAT for 88% of the population on chromesome 17 , while the Chinese/Japanese population pool is GTGGTGTGCCTGGTGAAACGTGAACGTGTGCCAAAAGTTGGGTGCCAAAGGTTTGGTCCCCCGGTTTTTGGGCCAAAGTGAACGAGATCTGTGTGTGGAACCGGGTGTTGGAAAAAACCGGTGTGGGGTTTGGCCCAAAGTGGTGCCGTGGTAACGTGTAACACGATATATATATATATATATATATATATATAT for 34% and GTGGTGTGCCTGGTGAAACGTGAACGTGTGCCAAAAGTTGGGTGCCAAAGGTTTGGTCCCCCGGTTTTTTGGCCAAAGTGAACGAGATCTGTGTGTGGAACCGGGTGTTGGAAAAAACCGGTGTGGGGTTTGGCCCAAAGTGGTGCCGTGGTAACGTGTAACACGATATATATATATATATATATATATATATAT for 66%, how do you call that “fundalmentally different”? granted, this is not an example of population specific markers, but is what i deal with most of the time.
(please forgive the lack of color or bolding for the single base difference, i previewed 8 times trying to get it to work with no avail)
Yes, tomndeb is on W’s payroll, he makes a cool $1000 everytime he responds in a race based thread. You’re simply forcing you taxes to be raised by arguing with him…
I read it differently. NIH is looking at variants from different ethnic groups but withholding the conclusions until all the data is in. (There is no clear statement that they are looking at “races.” They are quite probably looking at Ashkenazim for Tays-Sachs, Hmong for some endemic conditions that they brought here from Vietnam, possibly various indian groups for susceptibility to alcoholism or resistance to Hansen Disease, etc.) Celera probably (my speculation) used samples from different individuals to prevent anyone claiming that any group was “left out” or “priveleged to be selected.” This is not the same thing as saying that the groups are actually coherent.
For example the comment that population geneticists could identify a source group by pattern matching appears at first glance to be a statement that “those people” are “all alike.” From my reading of the materials, it would seem more likely that the population geneticists could identify an individual’s population. So, we’re back to semantics. If we can identify 300 populations in the world (or 3,000), and we call them “races,” what happens when we make a public statement that the “race” living in the Congo basin between the Boyoma Falls and the headwaters of the Luvua have a median gestation period .47 days longer than the world median? How many people will immediately conclude that “blacks” or “Africans” have longer gestation periods than “other people”? Using the word “race” creates immediate confusion and error.
Remember Collounsbury’s mantra is not that “races do not exist” but that “populations do not map onto historically defined races.” We are seeing the same thing in the Times article. Risch wants to look at the “five races” (despite the fact that blacks in America are rather different even than their ancestors of 200 years ago and that it is a trivial effort to find peoples in Africa who are quite different in physical features or who are either susceptible to or immune from various genetic conditions)–meanwhile, Goldstein, looking at actual mapping points, comes to a different definition than Risch of who is in what group.
I do not deny that politics has influenced decisions regarding what and how to publish. I am not necessarily in favor of every decision that has been made. However, when these threads are interrupted by some drive-by post claiming that “races are real” and “denying races is just PC” I would say that both science and linguistics more strongly favor the “non-race” (in biology) side than the “races exist” side.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas *
Okay, listen up, “Izzy”, i characterize SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) based on three population pools (or “races” if you prefer) for use in spotting areas of higher frequency of variation in populations for use in tracking down genetically related diseases (among other things), so i think i know a little bit about the subject matter. [/uote]Yes, it would certainly seem like that. Please accept my humble apologies. :o
Still, I’m unsure of the significane of your point. I brought the article as evidence of a political input - it does seem to suggest that whatever groups Celera was taking it from they felt the need to tone it down due to political influences. (I did not see the “wet dream” that you describe in the article - the overall tone of the article was to downplay race genetics).
As for your DNA stuff, are you saying that African Americans have a sequence common to 88% of the population? What percentage of other groups contain this sequence? (Same for Asians, et al)
Bad assumption.
The actual reason that I replied “I dunno” was that I fully expected you to leap out with some abstruse example from Quantum Mechanics where they may not have drawn hard and fast lines and then claimed that I was clearly in error and here was your proof.
Had you asked “Is it your position that any grouping for which you “can’t draw a hard and fast line” around groups does not exist as a biological reality?” I would simply have answered “Yes.”
You do not actually have a position in this ongoing discussion except to claim that you dislike the positions laid forth by edwino, Collounsbury, Gaspode, and me.
So:
Do you believe that physical/biological races exist?
Can you name any and describe the characteristics that clearly separates them–in a biological or genetic way–from any other group?
(Or are you simply posting because you are comfortable with the cultural notion of races and don’t want to actually look at evidence that will disrupt your comfort? Or, more likely, you saw the word “PC” hurled in one of these discussions and are here to attack anything perceived as “PC” regardless of facts?)
Messed up the coding in my previous post - sorry. If a mod could add a “q” to the end-quote I’d appreciate it.
tomndebb
Your first two paragraphs seem to go along the lines of Tars’ preceding post - I can’t argue with you here.
Well they don’t match exactly. The question is if they match loosely. Risch seems to be saying that they do to a great enough extent as to be useful - I can’t imagine that he is saying that you can map every last African-American to an “African gene”.
I did not see this in the article - could you point to it (I see where Goldstein felt that using direct genetic markers was a better indicator drug response than using race)
That may well be. My observation is that “drive-by” posts are common from both sides in this debate - people are constantly popping in to add nothing more than to proclaim how their eyes have been opened and they have seen the light about “race”, and similar silliness.
As to whose side science supports, that would depend heavily on what the respective positions are. One of the things I have found frustrating is the constant tendency of many “non-race” debators to consistently reduce the entire debate to either “races can be clearly defined along the lines of the classic races” or “no genetic-based differences are possible along racial lines”. I have attempted in several threads to argue for a more nuanced position, but my attempts at changing the focus of the debate has met fierce opposition from various “non-race” people.
What is boils down to is that it seems to be an issue about which people have strong feelings about, one way or another.