Well, first of all, I already did. But more relevantly, the issue I’m interested in is not “what are sociological or cultural race definitions”. The issue I’m interested in is “take it as a given that there are sociological or cultural race definitions… while those definitions are clearly not defined by or based purely in biology, are they actually totally biologically meaningless, or might they have some correspondences, however weak, to biological meaning”. Which may not be precisely what this current thread was originally intended to be about, but is obviously vaguely related.
OK, that specific doctor did a bad job. But back up in time to when you showed up at the doctor’s office, and assume the doctor had done a bit more research, and knew that that condition was mostly found in South Africa; and then saw you showing up with whatever symptoms you had, and recognized that you were “black”. Now, clearly we all agree that the doctor should not have lept to any “Monstro is black, therefore I will instantly order test X” type conclusions. But what about “Monstro is black, therefore is vaguely likely to have South African ancestry, therefore I will bring up this condition and see if Monstro has any information about ancestry or family history that help us assess the situation better”?
At every point during the process of analyzing and treating a patient, a doctor has to be weighing all sorts of various possibilities of what might be going on based on all sorts of inputs. Ie, a patient who is old complaining of pain in the elbow is more likely to have arthritis, so you steer the conversation in that direction, but don’t instantly assume it’s arthritis; whereas a young patient with pain in the elbow might have arthritis, and if so you hopefully end up diagnosing it properly, but you probably discuss other, more likely options first. So is it ever reasonable for the patient’s perceived race to factor at all into the weighing of options in this decision tree?
I don’t mind discussing that here. But I’ve already stated how I see that in terms of actual things we know. There’s what I call Medical Utility that might fit what you are referring to. I’d say there isn’t meaning to apply to biology though. We can’t take the correspondences between a socio/cultural definition of race and genetics, and translate that to anything else in the field of biology. It doesn’t tell us anymore about how genes work. And as our ability to map a person’s genetic structure improves, the utility will disappear.
But I also stated before there was no way I could argue that it was impossible for this correspondence to be meaningful. I just don’t find anything but what’s been discussed already, to actually exist.
Are the various groups of Jews closer in ancestry to each other than they are to people that are not Jewish? Since the answer here is no, as far as I can tell, then it is not a meaningful biological classification. It may have efficacy in a specific social context (such as seeing a doctor in the US) but that relies on the environment for meaning, not in the intrinsic characteristic of the people involved. Remove them from that environment and the meaning goes away.
In an Ashkenazi ghetto in Poland would there be any reason to group those Jews with Jews from Morocco? If not, then it’s not a biological classification. It relies on social context to give it meaning.
Are you familiar with the usage of subspecies or race in non-human areas of biology? As you’re dealing with a continuum of variation there tends to be a vagueness or fuzziness with boundaries.
See page 13 of the Endangered Species Handbook.
Also, Cronin (Endangered Species Act: Arbitrary Application Rising Crisis, 2006)
If he had asked, “Do you happen to know if you have recent South African ancestry?”, I would have been fine with that. I would have said, “No, I do not know if I do for certain. I do know that the chances are really really low, however.” And if he had wanted to know why I was so sure, I would have gone into a little dissertation about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and explained how there were the very few numbers of South Africans who were shipped to the Americas. Hopefully, I would have been able to convince him that my chances of having a rare “South African” disorder are very very VERY slim, and that it would be wiser to either test for all the disease variants or the most common variant. Or better yet, none at all.
I have no problem with him using my physical features to move him in a certain direction. If I had come to him with symptoms consistent with sickle cell, it would have been appropriate for him to ask me if I or anyone in my family had ever been tested for that. Sickle cell is actually disproportionately found in African Americans, so it wouldn’t have been an unreasonable hypothesis. But that’s a little different than looking at me and assuming I am related to South Africans somehow, without ever asking me if this is the case.
One danger even with this approach, though, is that it can blind you to other diagnostic possibilities. If an African American shows up in your office with signs of a disease that’s found commonly among a small sub-set of Europeans but not Africans, it would still be crazy not to ask that person if they have recent European ancestry. A disorder that’s found predominately among one group does not mean it never appears in other groups. Furthermore, if an ethnic group is known for being an amalgam of other ethnic groups (like African Americans are), then it would be unwise to view an individual from that ethnic group as anything but a genetic mishmash. Throw the social identification stuff out the window at this point. Not doing so would be foolhardy. If you pick up a random white person, you know nothing about their chances of having cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, or Huntington’s Disease. But if you know that person is of Irish heritage, you can become a little bit more confident in your assumptions…although at that point we’ve stepped out of the “race” box to the more specific “population” group.
Even evolutionary biologists don’t talk of species, per se, but rather of populations. Two populations can be in the same species (able to produce fertile offspring), but if they aren’t exchanging genes with each other in any substantial way, then they might as well be on different planets. There’s a whole field of evolutionary biology called “population genetics.” There is no field, as far as I know, called “species genetics.”
There is a discussion of recent papers on this here and here. You’ll see in the first paper that Ashkenazi & Sephardic groups form a natural cluster, as do the Mizrahi Jews of Iraq and Iran. The Jews of Morocco seem to fall close to the Ashkenazi-Sephardic cluster.
Question, monstro - when it’s said the disease has a higher prevalence in “South Africans”, does it specify “Black South Africans”, because there are several South African subgroups that are not Black, and have somewhat reduced gene pools and so tend to pick up these higher incidences. It wouldn’t help the diagnosis if it turned out that the disease incidence is actually high for “South Africans with Portuguese ancestry” or “South Africans with some Malay ancestry”(the latter group, part of the “Coloured” ethnicity, would also crop up as “Black” in some social racial classification systems, such as the American one, and not others, like the local one - veeery helpful, I don’t think)
Here’s what I pulled from here:
Prevalence
HDL2 is rare. Information about HDL2 is limited by the small number of affected individuals so far identified (fewer than 25 pedigrees and 40 affected individuals).
Most individuals with HDL2 have been of South African ancestry, with the exception of one Mexican family (from a region originally colonized by survivors of a wrecked African slave ship) (monstro’s note: The authors are implying a connection that’s tenuous, at best. Why would we suspect that the mutation came from the African colonizers since it appears only in one family and there are tons of areas that were colonized by Africans where we do not see the mutation?), a family in Brazil, and an individual from Morocco.
In South Africa, individuals of African ethnicity (monstro’s note: I’m assuming the authors mean “black”. It appears that ethnic groups do not exist in Africa to the medical establishment) with an HD-like phenotype are almost as likely to have HDL2 as HD [Krause et al 2002].
Outside of South Africa, HDL2 has been identified in as few as 1% of individuals with clinically or pathologically defined HD who do not have an HD disease-causing mutation [Rosenblatt et al 1998, Stevanin et al 2003, Margolis et al 2004].
•Two individuals with HDL2 were detected out of 300 individuals referred to a large commercial diagnostic laboratory in the United States for HD testing. None of the 300 individuals showed evidence of an HD disease-causing gene expansion.
•In 74 individuals (60 of French origin) with a variety of movement disorders with and without dementia, and an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern in 36% [Stevanin et al 2002], only one case of HDL2 was detected (in an individual from North Africa). (monstro’s note: Last time I checked North and South Africa were no were close on the map. It would be like looking at a Finnish person and a Turk bearing the same genetic disease and saying, “OMG! They must have gotten it from the same source!”)
•In 1600 individuals who had no evidence of an HD disease-causing mutation (including 147 individuals with a family history of chorea) referred by neurologists in Germany and Austria, no JPH3 expansions were found [Bauer et al 2002].
•If the cases under consideration are narrowly defined, the frequency of HDL2 is much higher. For instance, of four individuals identified by Rosenblatt et al [1998] with HD-like autosomal dominant disorders, two ultimately proved to have HDL2.
•No cases of HDL2 have yet been detected in Japan, though only a small number of individuals have been tested.
And the Ethiopian Jews?
But do the Sehpardic have risk of Tays-Sachs? I’ve never heard that it is so. For the purpose of this type of testing there would be no reason to group them.
In point of fact, I have undergraduate and graduate level training as well as field experience in “non-human areas of biology” at the species and subspecies level. This being Great Debates, I feel qualified to hold a professional opinion.
This is not to say that working biologists will always agree about the taxonomic designations assigned, nor about the significance of the criteria chosen when making those assignations. Once upon a time our classification schemes were necessarily purely descriptive (‘a zebra looks kind of like a horse, they must be related’). Over time more and better tools have become available, now down to the genetic level. At the same time, our understanding of population dynamics at a macro level has also vastly increased. So today we find that some groups of organisms are exceedingly complex and are undergoing rapid evolution practically before our eyes (e.g., certain orchids and their Euglossine pollinators). A variety of structural systems including species, subspecies/races, and other taxa are being used in attempts to elucidate these relationships and their basis in ancestry. Researchers can legitimately disagree about the structure and the relationships of these groups, and indeed the present state of knowledge for many groups remains fluid.
Humans though are not nearly so complex. Genetic diversity of humankind is quite low (see multiple cites upthread) and the working consensus of actual biologists who understand systematics in a human context is flowing more and more strongly toward the conclusion that neither of the synonymous terms race or subspecies is applicable to modern humans. As with any sphere of knowledge, there are those at the cutting edge, those becoming educated and moving along with the general consensus, and some recidivists holding to antiquated, even disproven, beliefs. The belief in modern human races is one such. It is stuck in the purely descriptive age (skin color, hair texture, etc.), does not map accurately or consistently to genetic markers, and even in pre-selected groups frequently fails to predict what it purports to predict (see Monstro).
Your citation of the Endangered Species Handbook demonstrates, not a biological usage, but a legal one. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with it, since these two things are not in, shall we say, one to one correspondence.
Here’s one of many articles you can find. But again, this was in your own cites. In fact, new findings are that the bottleneck was not only abrupt or even within Homo sapiens. The bottleneck extended into Homo erectus.
People keep saying genetic diversity of humankind is quite low, but low compared to what? heatmiserfl notes there is less diversity than in other primates, but what about other species? For instance, dogs as less genetically diverse than primates like baboons, but have considerably varying phenotypes. Here are some tables comparing species:
Are you sure it doesn’t map consistently to genetic markers? How does that square with these findings? Or that self identified race appears to correspond very closely to those major clusters?
Within the U.S., of course, as noted in the linked article:
(bolding mine)
mmmm. The Krause paper makes it clear that it does occur in Black South Africans, but also in mixed ancestry families.
I’m not going to got through every cite in that table but I looked at cite [18] and cite [21]. I can’t find the number in the table in cite [18] for humans. In fact that cite was focused on two chimp subspecies, not really humans. One was at least 2 fold more diverse than a couple of human populations, the other subspecies was similar. Citation [21] was not focused on chimpanzees but “range-restricted” bonobos (which are practically extinct). Again, couldn’t find the numbers in the table. The bonobos were from yet another cite. Now, if you wanted to do direct comparisons, shouldn’t at least some of these come from the same cites? Why are the cites jumping around and why can I not find numbers. Nevertheless, when actually skimming through the cites, I find that the authors claim at least on subspecies is quite a bit more diverse.
Furthermore, this person is using ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ synonymously. Yet, the one cite specifically talks about two known chimp subspecies and doesn’t even mention human races. So what is the credentials of this John Goodrum and why would you post something from a cite in which its scientific validity is unclear? If we were all evolutionary geneticists we’d be able to discuss this but otherwise, we can’t.
The cite I gave was from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See the difference?
Do you not read your own cites? From your findings:
I am hard pressed to imagine anything more circular than defining race as a continental group, then concluding that continental groups prove the existence of races.
But apparently they don’t, really. Or something. From the same source:
Yeah. There is that whole pesky isolated breeding population thingy to worry about, isn’t there?
Oh, and what heatmiserfl said.
so obvious there is no need for proof…I guess just as obvious as the fact that a 10# lead ball will drop from the tower of pisa faster than a 1# lead ball, that women are deformed men, and there are only four elements.
- Man has been mixing it with others since day 1. What can race mean over tens of thousands of years of foolin’ around.
- For race to be anything, a scientist should be able to separate piles of bones into racial categories…consistently and accurately.
- It there are so many daggone races, how come doctors don’t have to adjust medicine to accomodate them? surgery? transfusions etc.
- Race is only a construct to separate me from thee. It is meaningful only when separation is the goal. Otherwise, the distinction is without a difference.