BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research

Subject: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:49 AM

This racist undercurrent in the tide of genetic research (commentary in the GUARDIAN)

Over the years, the denial of race became almost absolute. Differences were only skin-deep, it was said - despite the common knowledge that certain groups had higher incidences of genetically influenced diseases. It became a taboo, and as the taboo starts to appear outdated or untenable, the danger is that unreflective denial will be replaced by equally uncritical acceptance.

I consider this a very good and thought provoking article. It provides a fine critique of a knee-jerk denial of the very concept of race I have read often in Mudcat and at the same time it points to the danger of the new tide.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 07:01 AM

Interesting how in the last few days, there has been media mentions her in Oz about how geneticists can find no trace of any genetic markers consistent with the concept of 'race'...

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 07:40 AM

There is no question that there are differences between population groups. To give two of many examples, the same Ashkenazi Jews mentioned in the Guardian article are subject to a couple of devastating diseases not often found in the human species at large. Individuals descended from certain population groups in Africa are much more likely to come down with a condition commonly known as sickle-cell anemia.

However, these predispositions have nothing much to do with the more common use of the word "race", which is based primarily upon skin color and certain facial features and includes certain assumptions. For example, an individual in the US with a very minute percentage of African descent is usually considered to be "Black" (normally some shade of tan-brown) or "African-American", regardless of his or her physical appearance or cultural orientation. There is only one race - the Human one.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 08:45 AM

Viva La Raza!

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM

I agree with Art there are black African looking people in South America who's genetic makeup is 70% Amerindian and more genetic diversity amongst black Africans than the rest of us put together.
This and other evidence are not wishful thinking but facts that show that the concept of race in Humans has no scientific meaning.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: GUEST,Darwin Fan
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:32 AM

There are great dangers in confusing social concepts with science. This has happened often enough in the past two centuries to be worth bringing up again and again. Darwin made some great steps in understanding biological development. The science of his work was then perverted as it was co-opted to make upper classes feel they were inherently 'winners' in the game of life. Thus the phrase 'social Darwinism' describes some of the negative excesses of the robber-baron economy.
Not to be outdone, a great deal of the non-Capitalist world took the non-scientist Karl Marx was at one breath assumed to be scientist and philosopher in the perversion known as Soviet Marxism.
The Nazis and the Soviet Communists took such concepts to extreme in order to create rather nasty worlds with the same fervor of the worst of the religions that they claimed to be replacing.
The new hope (and fear) is that with enough genetic information we can aid a person, a family, a 'tribe' that suffers from some obvious unpleasant tendencies, a marker for breast cancer, Tay-Sachs disease, Alzheimers. Some real human benefits can come out of this work. The down-side will be a very human tendency to define down or limit an individual's potential by referring to what's 'in their genes'. It can become a very proper form of racism: "oh, your genes tell me you have excellent rhythm!" "you should be in the army, you're selected from a warrior race" "don't try to make me laugh! you don't have the chromosomes!"

It was ever thus. Human nature will out because it has in it that which can not be defined.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:45 AM

Personally, I think we can learn more from studying how different societies and groups of people measure intelligence than we can from the results of those tests.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:52 AM

Wolfgang -

I agree that the article you linked discusses some rather significant issues, and that there will be some real disputes about how they should be handled.

For the (4?) subsequent posters who didn't read it, or who had not had sufficient exposure to the questions with which it dealt, the comment about the recently approved "medicine for blacks" might be instructive, so to paraphrase from another more specific article:

A pharmaceutical firm tested a new medication on a typical diverse population, and the results indicated that it had no significant therapeutic value.

When one of their analysts isolated the "black" members of the study group, it was discovered that within that specific subgroup it had highly beneficial effect.

Additional tests were done, and at the last report I've seen, no direct/specific "genetic markers" had been found to identify who would potentially be helped and who would not, but the evidence was clear that - based on the available statistics - prescribing that medication to "black" patients, but using other treatments for non-blacks, would likely benefit the black patients. Using that drug for all patients would result in giving it to many (non-black) who would get no benefit from it.

FDA approval to market the drug specifically for "blacks" appears to have been held up for more than a couple of years just because of questions of whether it was "politically correct" to differentiate between patients in this way. I have not seen the "fact sheet" for this medication, but if reports are to be believed they probably do not tell prescribing physicians how to tell "who's black" and who's not.

The researchers, so far as I've seen, did not discriminate as to who was black and who was not-black by any particular specifc "marker" or even by any history of ancestry. It appears that they merely correleted effectiveness with an "observed characteristic" of a subgroup of the test population, or perhaps with the "Race" indicated by the test subject on check-in forms.

The question here is between "when is it appropriate to recognize a broad genetic characteristic" and "when is it not appropriate." Quite possibly, some rules need to be made, distributed, and understood.

But first we need some agreement on what is an acceptable "broad genetic characteristic" in terms that can be usefully applied. Of course some will say we shouldn't create such definitions. They could be right too.

It's quite apparent that "race" or "color" are not very good description, if only because these classification are vague and have "loaded" meanings that differ for many people. Creating new "categories of people" based on their treatment responses seems to be what's needed, but the potential for misuse and abuse of classification of persons by any such "categorizing" is, or should be, apparent.

[If the above is a bit vague, I'll plead that more coherent interpretations have not appeared in print - that I've seen.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 03:00 AM

I guess all we need to do to determine who is Black and who isn't, is to give the medicine to everyone and see who it helps. If it helps them, they're Black. If it doesn't, they're not Black. Seems simple enough to me.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 03:48 AM

This is what I think about different groups and perceived intelligence.

In Asia, both the spoken and written forms of the languages are incredibly intricate. It makes sense that, culturally, people who have had the kind of mental stimulus throughout their lifetimes that comes with those kinds of languages and ways of writing would develop, collectively, certain capacities for certain kinds of mental functions.

In the case of African, Jewish, and Irish people (and any number of other groups), there is a long tradition of having rich and complex oral histories. In those contexts, it makes sense that, culturally, people who have had the kind of mental stimulus throughout their lifetimes that comes with those kinds of traditions would develop, collectively, certain capacities for certain kinds of mental functions.

I have been told by various people that I have a well developed mental capacity for debate. I know which influences in my developmental years contributed to this capacity and why.

Stimulus is the most important factor in how people develop, mentally. We know this from seeing the difference in people with Downs Syndrome who receive appropriate mental stimulus in their early years as compared to those who are not given much mental stimulus because of prejudices about what people with Downs Syndrom are capable of.

So we see that even in contexts where nature has asserted itself in the genetic makeup of an individual, the nurture factor can still override genetics to a significant degree.

It doesn't follow for people to assume that because one group of people may be more prone to certain illnesses, that would have anything whatever to do with how their brains work.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Grab
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:44 AM

John, you're right that a more detailed analysis of what definition of "black" the drug helps is worthwhile. However, virtually all black ancestry in the US derives from West Africa, which I believe is a fairly well mixed group due to significant movement within the tribes/nations, so the genetic variation is probably no more than amongst white Europeans varying from blond-and-blue-eyed Scandanavians to brown-eyed-and-swarthy Mediterraneans. Checking whether someone is black or not is therefore a reasonable (and cheap!) test in the US.

In Africa though, it'd be a different ballgame!

And as for the article, I still disagree with anything that tries to give an inherent genetic predisposition to "intelligence" (whatever that means), simply because that's made up of far too many elements. If they can identify the elements that cause "intelligence" then they'd have a stronger case, but their theory on Jews is full of holes.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:02 AM

CarolC makes the suggestion of using the result of the drug's use to determine whether the patient is black or not.
This is a beautiful example of the sort of logical fallacy that bedevils 90% of discussions about race, and also about medical things like "what causes cancer".
The clearest example (often quoted) of this fallacy is
1) People with measles tend to have a high temperature.
1) Therefore, people with high temperatures have probably got measles.
Unfortunately,(2) does not follow from (1), though a huge proportion of the arguing classes seem to think it does.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:37 AM

A pity you don't have the Britishpersons' capacity for irony that I keep hearing about, greg stephens. Otherwise, you would have understood my pot as it was meant to be understood.

I will explain it to you... my post was intended to point out the fallacy in the idea that it is possible to biologically define who is Black and who is not.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:39 AM

my *post*

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:05 PM

Grab -

Although the particular drug cited in the original link, and reviewed in other articles I've seen recently, happened to have potential only for those who were - by whatever definition was used in the studies - "black," it may be assumed that similar limits and potentialities for the usefulness of other medications may need to be based on their use within specific target populations and on their not being used in other populations. The determination of "who's in which" is still an area of very real uncertainty for those in medicine.

Unfortunately, political correctnes, politics, and prejudices do intrude on making "clinically appropriate" decisions; but fortunately there does appear to be some recognition that there is a problem. Thus far, the defining of what the specifics of the problem may be is still in contention, so it's very difficult to evaluate any proposed "solutions."

There is the difficulty of deciding whether one should trust those who are most likely to come up with "solutions," especially if they do so before we know what the question(s) really is/are.

With respect to the nonsense (IMO) about genetic (racial) bases for intelligence - no one has demonstrated that it's a survival trait for any large group. Intelligence above the norm may have value to individuals, but with only a bit of t.i.c. its easy to observe that those who's intelligence is absent (or concealed) do seem to be more prolific (and successful?) as members of the herd. It's quite possible that a successful "culture" (Darwinian sense) depends on having most of its members not-too-bright.

John

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:47 PM

Sickle cell is not found only in blacks. Although rare, it has been found in others. When I was a boy, it was said that only blacks get it and that it only manifests in men although women can pass it on genetically. We now know that this is all hooey.

Sickle cell is not the result of race but on natural selection. One component of the red blood cell is different than what is found in normal blood cells which is what causes the sickle shape. In West Africa, where malaria has always been a major health threat, it was dicovered that sickle cell fights off malaria. Malaria is a bacteria that attacks red blood cells but cannot tolerate the sickle cell and hence once sickle cell made its way into the gene pool, it stuck around because it is actually beneficial.

Unfortunately, it can also be a horribly painful ailment to offspring born of parents that both carry it. If only one parent carries it, it's not likely to cause problems in the children.

If sickle cell were race-related, we would expect blacks in America, descendants of West Africans mostly, to have it in as high a number as ever. The reality is that it has declined significantly in the U.S. which is what we'd expect to see if it were merely a product of natural selection. Once the cause of the proliferation of sickle cell, malaria, is no longer a factor in people's lives, it begins to recede from the gene pool. Hence, it is not race-driven.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:00 PM

Did someone say that sickle cell trait is found only in the "black" segment of the US population? Sorry, I missed that. This is an inherited genetic trait, but I have been unable to find any statistical data that supports the statement that the presence of this gene is declining in the US population; please provide a link.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:05 PM

The original comment was:



and is entirely accurate.

ar282, re-read something before taking offense at it.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Grab
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:36 PM

Yep, it's good that at least people are cottoning onto the issue existing. I guess the problem at the moment though was that the original study only recorded simple groups, so take it from there. And you're right, it's going to be very difficult to do any grouping like that and stay clear of all the traps of terminology and cultural no-no's laid by the bunches of bastards who last did that...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Gurney
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 03:37 AM

Long ago, I read that certain African peoples cannot tolerate dairy products, seemingly because their ancestors had never been that kind of farmer. This is opposed, of course, to tribes like the Masai, who largely live on the stuff.
Here in NZ, many polynesian immigrants and their offspring display a distressing tendency to Gout when they live on the western diet, particularly American-style fast-foods like Kentucky Fried and the Big Mac's which they love so much.
Just another red herring in this Irish Stew.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Gurney
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 03:37 AM

Long ago, I read that certain African peoples cannot tolerate dairy products, seemingly because their ancestors had never been that kind of farmer. This is opposed, of course, to tribes like the Masai, who largely live on the stuff.
Here in NZ, many polynesian immigrants and their offspring display a distressing tendency to Gout when they live on the western diet, particularly American-style fast-foods like Kentucky Fried and the Big Mac's which they love so much.
Just another red herring in this Irish Stew.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Grab
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 03:56 AM

Gurney, they're not the only ones. Japanese are often lactose-intolerant for the same reason.

Japanese are also often more susceptable to alcohol, and the hypothesis here is that Europeans spent a millennia or more using alcohol for providing a bug-free source of water (drinking "small beer" or wine), whereas the Japanese found tea and so purified their water by boiling. Europeans therefore bred a tolerance to alcohol which the Japanese never had to do. This is only a guess - telling a story to try to explain it - but it's a popular hypothesis for that genetic feature of the Japanese.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:02 AM

Grab, I'm not certain that hypothesis could hold up, considering China has been brewing and drinking fermented beverages for at least 9,000 years.

I would think the production of saki probably reached the islands of Japan with the first cultivation of rice, if not before.....of course it could have been limited by exactly who was permitted to drink the stuff, as was the case in the Indian subcontinent.

Subject: RE: BS: racist undercurrent in genetic research
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Jan 06 - 05:04 AM

One concern here stems from the rapid progress recently in ability to isolate identifiable genetic markers that correlate to specific health issues, and that potentially correlate to treatments specific to those issues. Identification of a particular genetic characteristic that aids in a more specific treatment seems like a very good idea, since it could greatly improve the specificity of treatments that could be used for treatment or management of the related health issue.

A concern is that, since generally you must allow a private insurer to access your treatment records and history, presence of a particular marker could be used by insurers to restrict or deny insurance coverage for the condition for which you sought treatment - and for any other conditions that they might believe to be associated with the same genetic characteristic. Even in the absence of an existing complaint, under existing laws/regulations, it is conceivable that private insurers might reject persons for whom specific "genetic background" is discovered, on the basis that it's a "pre-existing condition" which they generally are allowed to exclude from coverage.

Since in the US the majority of employer-provided (or recently, employer "assisted") policies are with private insurers, having a specific known genetic "defect"(?) that precludes you being insured by their insurance carrier would generally preclude one's being hired by the company, and in some cases could prevent continuing an existing employment.

This has begun to place some in the situation of "I could be better treated if I knew, but if I knew they'd know, and I'd lose my job and my insurance and I'd not be able to afford any treatment." In other words, treatment is not in the hands of the medical practitioner, it's controlled by business and politics.

There obviously is a need to balance the patient's right to appropriate treatment, and privacy regarding personal medical information, against the insurer's "right" to know what risks are incurred in writing a policy. Unfortunately we know which side in this balancing act has the better paid lobbyists.

Lest anyone think this is a "remote concern" for patients, forty years ago I was informed by one of my physicians that "what's on the lab order isn't what I want to test for but if I wrote what I want to know having it in your record might affect you if you change jobs." That was long before "genetic profiling" was possible. Results on that test were negative, but just that the physician wanted to know could have been a factor in my future insurability and employability.

John