Last week on the Howard Stern show the cast got back the results of a DNA test they all took. One very interesting thing they found out was that one of them (Artie Lange), is one-quarter American-Indian.
I’ve been reading on this very board for a few years now, and by many many posters, that race is a “myth.”
So what gives? If race is a myth then how could they recognize it from a DNA test?
The short answer is that they can’t
The explanation is a little complicated, so hang on.
There is a camp that says race does not exist because humans all share most of their DNA, with only a tiny fraction accounting for all the various “racial” differences. Also, there aren’t any genes that can be identified as exclusively belonging to a particular race. As an example of a trait usually found in one race that occassionally turns up elsewhere - epicanthal folds are considered one of the definitive characteristics of the “Asian Race”. However, epicanthal folds appear in Ireland and in people of Irish descent with no known asian ancestory (President JFK had them, as an example). This position on race may or may not be teamed with a desire to eliminate all prejudice and achieve a colorblind world.
This is balanced by another camp who says, yes, it DOES matter who your ancestors were (which is what race comes down to, in many ways). They point to such things as various genetic diseases that are found predominantly in one “race” as opposed to others, for instance, or predispositions to various diseases. You may claim race does not exist, but it is still a fact that sickle cell anemia is found mostly in people of African ancestory, thallessemia in those with ancestory around the Mediterranean, Tay Sachs mostly among Ashkenazi Jews, babies born in Tibet tend to be smaller than those born at sea level except among women of Tibetan ancestory, and the body proportions of a Masai and an Aleut are strikingly different.
So far as I know, there is NO DNA test that will definitively identify someone as “1/4 American Indian”. First of all, “American Indian” does not identify a homogenous group but rather a large number of extremely divergent tribes. A DNA test MAY find genetic characteristics found mostly in Amerindians, but it is not proof of such ancestory any more than finding an Irishman with epicanthal folds “proves” he is half-Japanese (or 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16…)
I think I should also point out that the Howard Stern show has been known to stretch a point in order to make a point, or at least make higher ratings. Consider the source.
In Volume 298 of Science, December 20, 2002, there was an article by Noah Rosenberg et al.: Genetic Structure of Human Populations, in which they described statistical analyses of 377 markers in human genetics. They discovered that, while all the human populations studied had all the markers, by examining the collection of markers in each individual, they could arrive at a certain patterns that corresponded to different regions in the world. No group in any region could be identified by any single marker and members of the same groups could have different markers, but the patterns in which collections of markers appeared could be used to provide a statistical pointer to their place of origin. (Science requires registration to use, but the article can be looked up once one has registered.)
It is remotely possible that the Stern show actually paid to have a similar test done on each of the cast (although this would not give a “one quarter indian” result). More likely would be some of the cheaper tests available, such as blood typing or Y-chromosome or mtDNA testing. There is, for example, a specific allele in the Y-chromosome that arose in the Americas and occurs in roughly half of indian men. There are also specific blood types that are more prevalent among native Americans, so they could have gotten some sort of result and simply used “one quarter” as shorthand for what was found.
[ nitpick ]
The presence of Sickle Cell extends from Africa through the Mediterranean region of Europe, across the Middle East and well into India. Someplace between the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, the specific mutation changes a bit, so that the version in Africa and Europe differs from that in Southwestern Asia and India, but it is prompted by and maps closely to regions of endemic malaria in all cases. There are large areas of Africa where it does not occur at all. It does occur in large sections of Africa, but skin color is a worse predicter for its presence than malarial swamps. [ /nitpick ]
it is a matter of definition and how one cares to classify the DNA. in these politically correct times, one will not include in a study the dna samples that indicate color of skin or which determine the other aspects which have been traditional traits of what has been called race. stern’s guest probably/perhaps included those aspects in his study.
to say that race is a myth is a new myth.
how to characterize race in an acceptable way is a mystery.
The Y chromosome test could not have been used, by itself, to determine race (or more acturately, geographic origin). The Y is inhereted fully thru the male line only. If someone’s grandfather is Amerind, he will have a Y chromosome with 100% Amerind markers. mtDNA works that same way, except thru the female line.
If a person has Y chromosome markers indicating Amerind ancestry, but mtDNA markers more typical of Europeans, one might conclude that the person was at most 1/2 Amerind, but any amount less is equally probable.
As for all the chromosomal markers, I’m not aware that one could make predictions based on having “1/4 of the typical Amerind markers”. It might be that that combo of markers is also typical of other ethnic groups.
Oh, piffle. Can you actually identify these purported “dna samples”? We’re here to fight ignorance, not to make unsupportable assertions without evidence. (And if there were such “dna samples” as you claim, how would anyone be prevented from using them–as you claim they were used by whoever “studied” Stern’s crew?)
Race is (properly?) just a way of dividing people into organizable groups. Humans do that all the time, for whatever reason it has an importance to us. It’s a way to shorten our explaination of one person to a third party. (When someone is unusual in a general group, don’t you point out who you’re talking about by saying, “that white/black/asian/tall/skinny guy?”.)
As for looking for DNA evidence, I’m not saying it’s not there, but so far the evidence seems to show we’re far more mixed than outward appearances would indicate. Some even indicates that interracial differences are more extreme than that between races.
The problem I have with the whole PC thing is that if there were an actual genetic divide, say one that made it impossible for people of a certain area to mate successfully with people of another area, researchers might be too scared to release it, for fear of the backlash. That, aside from the social consequences, would be almost as interesting news as aliens landing, IMHO.
okay, I can’t seem to edit my post. I meant intraracial differences are often more extreme than differences between races.
Further to tomndebs citation, you can also see the work of Lev Zhivotovsky and Noah Rosenberg et al in a paper published in the American Journal of Genetics.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72:1171–1186, 2003
They were able to group human populations into the statistically significant groupings - Sub-Saharan Africa (2), Eurasia, Oceania, East asia and America.
Also, FWIW, a researcher in New Zealand recently determined that Maoris were related to indigenous Koreans through mtDNA. Can find cite.
This issue has been discussed a lot on these boards, and it is not entirely clear what folks mean when they make claims like “race is a myth.”
I’ve prepared a short FAQ on the subject here:
A not entirely unbiased FAQ, and one lacking in rigorous scientific discussions or proper references. It also seems to have difficulty perceiving a difference between the propositions “grouping people by race is morally wrong and therefore shouldn’t be done” and “grouping people by race is scientifically valueless and therefore shouldn’t be done”, and often conflates the two.
It’s true (as the FAQ says) that biology uses fuzzy concepts (e.g. “species”), but it doesn’t needlessly introduce fuzzy concepts. And that’s what’s wrong with discourse based on racial categories.
What claims are made that require references? I’m happy to try to supplement the page.
**
Disagree - want to give me a specific quote from the FAQ to consider?
**
Would you care to offer a definition or test that would distinguish between what categories are “needless” and which are not?
The short answer is that “race” is a social construct, not a biological one. Some people don’t seem to be able to accept this, and these are the people who claim that the concept of race is a myth.
Have you ever met an actual researcher, or are you basing your speculation on science fiction movies you’ve seen?
I can’t imagine a scientist not publishing any result solely out of fear of “backlash”. If the results hold up (are reproducible), it would be published. Whether or not someone, somewhere might be offended by the results doesn’t enter into the decision.
OTOH many scientists chose not to study certain subjects because of the controversy associated with them-stem cell research, for example-but I don’t think the relationships between different populations of humans is considered controversial by most clear thinking people anymore.
Hello. I’m a biologist. Give me the real research that backs up your assertion that these “dna samples” exist at all. I call you out. You are either a liar or a mindless parrot. I’m calling you out and calling your bluff. Cite the studies. Show the data. Where are these loci?
Put up or shut up. That’s all you have to do. Back up your dimwitted, dishonest claims.
lucwarm, how about another possibility?
When I say ‘race is a myth’ what I mean is that there is no scientific backing for our culturally-constructed ideas of ‘race’.
Though there are indeed some differing genetic distributions among different populations, they are relatively minor and dwarfed by intra-group differences. And these different genetic populations have almost no overlap with our typical ideas of ‘race’, which is based almost entirely on skin & hair color and native language (plus to a much, much lesser degree some facial features).
This is I think an important point, because it means that any statements about “race X is naturally <better atheletes, stupider, greedier, without rhythm, whatever>” are ridiculous. And there are still, unfortunately, a lot of those statements being made.
Didn’t edwino used to have a pretty comprehensive faq about the debate over the biological basis for race somewhere on the web? I can’t find it because the boards won’t let me search on “faq” and race turns up way too many hits to sift through.
I believe that you are thinking of the site that eponymous put up, referenced in the first statement of Lucwarm’s site: http://www.eneubauer.com/
As often happens with questions about race, this has turned into a debate, so I’ll move this thread to GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
You’re misusing the word ‘myth.’ A more appropriate word is ‘unscientific’ or ‘non-scientific’.
After all, there’s no scientific reason why we have to organize ourselves into nations, but you wouldn’t say that “The United States is a myth,” yould you?