Race and Genetics

by Gretchen956 8 Replies latest social current

  • Gretchen956
    Gretchen956

    This was in the editorials on the New York Times, but it poses some interesting questions, and the genetic testing part of this is not an opinion, but current science and technology. Editorial

    Debunking the Concept of 'Race'

    Published: July 30, 2005

    Black Americans who explore their family histories typically hit a dead end in the early 19th century, when black Americans who were slaves were not listed in the census by name. Now some black Americans are trying to fill in the gap with genetic screening tests that purport to tell descendants exactly where in Africa their ancestors came from. But, like most people, those who think of themselves as African-American will need to search well beyond Africa to find all of their origins.

    This point came through with resounding clarity recently at Pennsylvania State University, where about 90 students took complex genetic screening tests that compared their samples with those of four regional groups. Many of these students thought of themselves as "100 percent" white or black or something else, but only a tiny fraction of them, as it turned out, actually fell into that category. Most learned instead that they shared genetic markers with people of different skin colors.

    Ostensibly "black" subjects, for example, found that as much as half of their genetic material came from Europe, with some coming from Asia as well. One "white" student learned that 14 percent of his DNA came from Africa - and 6 percent from East Asia. The student told The Daily Collegian, the student newspaper, earlier this year: "When I got my results I was like, there's no way they were mine. I thought it was just an example of what the test was supposed to look like. Then I was like, Oh my God, that's me."

    Prof. Samuel Richards, who teaches a course in race and ethnic relations at Penn State, uses the test results to shake students out of rigid and received notions about the biological basis of identity. By showing students that they aren't what they think they are, he shows them that race and ethnicity are more fluid and complex than most of us think. The goal is to make students less prejudiced and more open to a deeper discussion of humanity. If the genetic testing fad pushes things in this direction, it will have served an important purpose in a world that too often thinks of racial labels as absolute - and the last word when it comes to human identity.

  • Mecurious?
    Mecurious?

    Good post! Most people would really be surprised if they did a little "background" research. Sadly, some people don't realize that they are "part" of what they hate.

    M'

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    nice article.

    it's true, the genetic differences in the human genome fall along non-racial borders. there is more difference in the genome within races, than there is between races.

    TS

  • Gretchen956
    Gretchen956

    I just thought it was interesting that this thing that has divided us for so long is such a crock! Race is the cause of so much bigotry and hatred, just goes to show you people judge by outward appearances.

    We're more similar than different.

    Sherry

  • FMZ
    FMZ

    White person's brain - (&&)
    Black person's brain - (&&)
    Asian person's brain - (&&)
    Racist person's brain - .

    FMZ

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist
    it's true, the genetic differences in the human genome fall along non-racial borders. there is more difference in the genome within races, than there is between races.


    Stuff coming out soon, by reputable scientists, possibly saying otherwise. Some ethicists say it's close to bigotry, but I haven't actually seen the papers he's going to come out with.

    http://www.news.utoronto.ca/inthenews/archive/2005_06_18.html#000521

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    hey class,

    thanks for the link. if it's established as scientific, peer reviewed fact, then i would say it is not bigotry at all. of course, this theory would have to explain previous data better than it has up to this point so far. it would also have to explain the observed nurture/environmental phenomenon of embryonic mutation. while i can see that it is possible, i will have to wait for it without holding my breath.

    in the end, of course, if there is a gene that produces faster runners, then great! if there is a gene that produces better IQ scores, then great! but, as far as i can tell, it's the same as saying that there is a religion gene, or a cross stitching gene. genetics has not worked like this in the past, and so i don't see why it would now. and it would not negate the moral responsibility to fight natural selection, as i have often ranted on about.

    anyhoo, hope all is well. gearing up for your next semester?

    TS

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist
    anyhoo, hope all is well. gearing up for your next semester?



    I should be, I'll start cramming all the things I've forgotten starting tommorow. How's things going w/your learning?

    thanks for the link. if it's established as scientific, peer reviewed fact, then i would say it is not bigotry at all. of course, this theory would have to explain previous data better than it has up to this point so far. it would also have to explain the observed nurture/environmental phenomenon of embryonic mutation. while i can see that it is possible, i will have to wait for it without holding my breath.

    As I only dabble in science, but if we take some examples of genuises, like the guy in Good Will Hunting, nuture and nature aren't there. It would seem, then, that genetics, perhaps a defective gene that produces more proteins that some how makes people smarter, do play a part. Of course, there seems to be little we know about how the brain works in terms of intelligence.

    Of course, for the argument against a genetic involvement is that intellectual gifts do not seem to pass on from generation to generation. I mean, look at Einstein's son. He was a professor in engineering, but not a genius.

    On the other hand, look at Bach. His children all (3/4ths) became accomplished musicians, but it can be argued that they did not have the same genius of composition that Bach had and that the play of music is a skill to be learned whereas composition is an art that comes naturally.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    but if we take some examples of genuises, like the guy in Good Will Hunting, nuture and nature aren't there.

    true. neglected as children, and yet geniuses in their field. like beethoven. i don't doubt it's possible, on an indivudual basis. some funky mutation. but within populations, it must be much harder to define, for these researchers.

    How's things going w/your learning?

    good. gearing up as well. it's all programming this autumn, so most of it will be easy to get ahead on.

    cheerio mate,

    TS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit