[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings [9-11]. As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate. Classification by racial and ethnic categories has, at particular moments in history, been used to further racist ideology [12]. In view of concerns that linking of emerging genetic data and race/ethnicity categories may promote racist ideologies, we emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another. Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14]. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17]. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns. Statement 3: We urge those who use genetic information to reconstruct an individual's geographic ancestry to present results within the broader context of an individual's overall ancestry An individual's 'geographic ancestry' or 'biogeographical ancestry' can be taken to mean the sum of all the geographic locations inhabited by an individual's biological ancestors. Often, however, genetic data reflect just a small subset of these ancestors. For example, knowing a person's Y-chromosomal lineage is at best a partial view of an individual's ancestry. We note also that in some cases individuals' or groups' self-identification differs from their biogeographic ancestry, depending on a range of historical, cultural and sociopolitical factors. We see value in recognizing both biogeographical and cultural ancestry that underlies an individual's and group's identity, particularly in the context of addressing health disparities. Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. Diverse populations identified as 'Hispanic', for example, are heterogeneous and have distinct ancestries and social histories [20]. We recognize that social experiences and conditions inform racial identity, making such identity a poor proxy for genetic ancestry. Statement 5: We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism Among the most pervasive and pernicious claims of genetically determined traits are theories on the racial ordering of intelligence [21,22]. Despite the weak scientific basis for such ordering, the consistent return to the rhetoric of racial hierarchies of IQ reflects the powerful role that science has historically played in promoting racist ideologies [23]. Current evidence suggests that for most complex behavioral traits, contribution of any one gene to normal variation is small and these traits may be more fully explained by variation in environmental factors. We therefore caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in a complex behavioral trait, where environmental and social factors clearly can and do play major roles [24,25]. Statement 6: We encourage all researchers who use racial or ethnic categories to describe how individual samples are assigned category labels, to explain why samples with such labels were included in the study, and to state whether the racial or ethnic categories are research variables A first step towards preventing the use of science for racial stereotyping is careful consideration of the use of racial and ethnic categories in the initial design of research. Researchers can assess the purpose and impact of using racial and ethnic categories in their research and investigate whether alternative approaches would be appropriate. The editorial boards of several flagship scientific journals have issued publication guidelines to their authors on the use of 'race' in reporting research findings [26,27]. Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group Although a broad range of associations between genetic markers and human traits - including diseases - is emerging, any accompanying correspondence with race or ethnicity is statistical. Although certain relatively rare genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, are found in higher frequencies in some human populations, the result of population bottlenecks or environmental pressure, these diseases are also found in other populations. Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30]. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group [31]. Statement 8: We encourage the funding of interdisciplinary study of human genetic variation that includes a broad range of experts in the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences Common human behaviors and diseases result from the interaction of genetic, cultural, linguistic, economic, social and behavioral factors; genetic differences underlying behavioral or health status differences between groups are especially difficult to identify [32]. Medical research is most likely to be successful when genetic studies proceed in tandem with studies of environmental and behavioral factors that include geneticists, epidemiologists and social scientists as members of the research team. Statement 9: We urge researchers, those working in media, and others engaged in the translation of research results to collaborate on efforts to avoid overstatement of the contribution of genetic variation to phenotypic variation Scientific data are often quickly politicized and incorporated into specific policy agendas without extensive explanation of the scientific research and its details [33-35]. Often lost in the announcement of scientific findings is discussion of the limitations of the research. Our hope is that scientific data about human genetic variation might undermine spurious popular beliefs about the existence of biologically distinct human races and beliefs that support racist ideologies. Statement 10: We recommend that the teaching of genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and programs for secondary and undergraduate education Education is critical in providing both the foundation - basic scientific literacy - and the historical context through which to understand human genetic variation as data from studies are released. We believe that expanded public education at all levels will enhance understanding of human genetic variation and interpretation of any correspondence with categories of race and ethnicity. We recommend that the teaching of genetics include what we recognize today as past uses of science in promoting racism. Finally, we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and educational programs that focus on the social impact of scientific discoveries as well as the impact of social values and beliefs on the conduct of science. In conclusion The 'gene' remains a powerful icon in the public imagination and is often misunderstood as deterministic and immutable. Furthermore, history reminds us that science may easily be used to justify racial stereotypes and racist policies. Our discussion at Stanford University resulted in part from a desire to try to minimize the chances that scientific research inadvertently contributes either to inequities between groups or to the abuse of human rights. Disagreements did arise during these discussions. For example, biomedical scientists tended to accept that such labels could be used as neutral descriptors of groups of individuals, whereas scholars in the social sciences and humanities tended to question whether such labels could be stripped of embedded sociohistorical meaning. However, dialog and the discovery of language that worked across disciplinary boundaries enabled us to clarify our perspectives and find many points of agreement. This workshop statement constitutes one step in an ongoing, open dialog that takes into account the potential for misinterpretation or misuse of research in human genetic variation. More specifically, this statement looks to shape future use of categories of race and ethnicity in biomedical research. Source: www.newscientist.com/arti...-and-genetics-issued.html 'Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued Even with the human genome in hand, geneticists are split about how to deal with issues of race, genetics and medicine. Some favor using genetic markers to sort humans into groups based on ancestral origin - groups that may show meaningful health differences. Others argue that genetic variations across the human species are too gradual to support such divisions and that any categorisation based on genetic differences is arbitrary. These issues have been discussed in depth by a multidisciplinary group - ranging from geneticists and psychologists to historians and philosophers - led by Sandra Soo-Jin Lee of Stanford University, California. Now the group has released a set of 10 guiding principles for the scientific community, published as an open letter in this week's Genome Biology. 1. All races are created equal No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. Equality is a moral value central to the idea of human rights; discrimination against any group should never be tolerated. 2. An Argentinian and an Australian are more likely to have differences in their DNA than two Argentinians Groups of human beings have moved around throughout history. Those that share the same culture, language or location tend to have different genetic variations than other groups. This is becoming less true, though, as populations mix. 3. A person's history isn't written only in his or her genes Everyone's genetic material carries a useful, though incomplete, map of his or her ancestors' travels. Studies looking for health disparities between individuals shouldn't rely solely on this identity. They should also consider a person's cultural background. 4: Members of the same race may have different underlying genetics Social definitions of what it means to be "Hispanic" or "black" have changed over time. People who claim the same race may actually have very different genetic histories. 5. Both nature and nurture play important parts in our behaviors and abilities Trying to use genetic differences between groups to show differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment. 6. Researchers should be careful about using racial groups when designing experiments When scientists decide to divide their subjects into groups based on ethnicity, they need to be clear about why and how these divisions are made to avoid contributing to stereotypes. 7. Medicine should focus on the individual, not the race Although some diseases are connected to genetic markers, these markers tend to be found in many different racial groups. Overemphasising genetics may promote racist views or focus attention on a group when it should be on the individual. 8. The study of genetics requires cooperation between experts in many different fields Human disease is the product of a mishmash of factors: genetic, cultural, economic and behavioral. Interdisciplinary efforts that involve the social sciences are more likely to be successful. 9. Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions Policy makers should be careful about simplifying and politicising scientific data. When presenting science to the public, the media should address the limitations of race-related research. 10. Genetics 101 should include a history of racism Any high school or college student learning about genetics should also learn about misguided attempts in the past to use science to justify racism. New textbooks should be developed for this purpose. The Stanford group didn't always agree when coming up with these ideas. Predictably enough, the biomedical scientists tended to think of race in neutral, clinical terms; the social scientists and scholars of the humanities argued that concepts of race cannot be washed clean of their cultural and historical legacies. But both groups, according to the letter, recognise the power of the gene in the public imagination and the historical dangers of its misrepresentation as deterministic and immutable. Poster Comment: If these were 100% true, there would be no need to announce them as axioms. There is a real tone of zealotry and desperation in these 'Ten Commandments', but I'm not even sure how many people would perceive it that way in a time when so many Westerners accept the unacceptable.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
And there we have it. Danes are not tall. Pygmies are not short. Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population... Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. That's progress. Statement 3: We urge those who use genetic information to reconstruct an individual's geographic ancestry to present results within the broader context of an individual's overall ancestry An individual's 'geographic ancestry' or 'biogeographical ancestry' can be taken to mean the sum of all the geographic locations inhabited by an individual's biological ancestors. Often, however, genetic data reflect just a small subset of these ancestors. For example, knowing a person's Y-chromosomal lineage is at best a partial view of an individual's ancestry. There are no black people. Along with holistic college admissions, we'll have holistic genotypes. Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Yeah, fine, but they still got rhythm, raging libido, and moral imbecility, as has been noted by every other people that has encountered them in the past. The question of course is not whether these things change in time at all, but whether they change at a rate that is at all meaningful to any parent who wishes to raise their family in a safe, stable, and friendly environment. Yes, there are no more Goths or Vandals. Perhaps there will some day be no more niggers. What of it? Statement 5: We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism Like Richard Pryor said, who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes? I'll grant them epigenetics. But whether it's genetic or not is not the point. The point is whether we can do anything about group differences, assuming one wants to. Probably everyone can agree on reducing violence for example. But genetic is not synonymous with intractable, and environment is not synonymous with tractable. Individual human behavior is probably somewhere between 60% and 80% genetic. Genes probably account for about 1/2, maybe 60% of group differences. Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group Fine, provided that actually results in better care! In order for it to do so, we need better cheaper diagnostic genetic information about individuals than is available at present, in most cases. Statement 10: We recommend that the teaching of genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and programs for secondary and undergraduate education These guys are still in denial. No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. By definition, since nature knows nothing of values, and does not rank people. But the races still do not all have the same average intelligence. If you value intelligence, you might (depending on other values as well) consider some races superior to others. Trying to use genetic differences between groups to show differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment. Now that's interesting bit of deceptive legalism. Most people will read this is as "showing differences in intelligence, violent behaviors, etc." is wrong. But what it actually says is "trying to show these things using genetics is an oversimplification". It's also deceptive because they are claiming far more than they actually know. They could have learned much more in the last 100 years than they have, except for their bonkers religion. 9. Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions That is true. Like global warming and the irrelevance of race to governance, economy, and civilization. There is a real tone of zealotry and desperation in these 'Ten Commandments' There is. Their day is over.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||