Posted on 10/27/2004 3:46:52 PM PDT by neverdem
A difference of opinion about the genetic basis of race has emerged between scientists at the National Human Genome Center at Howard University and some other geneticists. At issue is whether race is a useful signpost to tracking down the genes that cause disease, given that certain diseases are more common in some populations than others.
In articles in the current issue of the journal Nature Genetics, scientists at Howard, a center of African-American scholarship, generally favor the view that there is no biological or genetic basis for race. "Observed patterns of geographical differences in genetic information do not correspond to our notion of social identities, including 'race' and 'ethnicity,' '' writes Dr. Charles N. Rotimi, acting director of the university's genome center.
But several other geneticists writing in the same issue of the journal say the human family tree is divided into branches that correspond to the ancestral populations of each major continent, and that these branches coincide with the popular notion of race. "The emerging picture is that populations do, generally, cluster by broad geographic regions that correspond with common racial classification (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas)," say Dr. Sarah A. Tishkoff of the University of Maryland and Dr. Kenneth K. Kidd of Yale.
Although there is not much genetic variation between the populations of each continent, write Dr. Joanna L. Mountain and Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, new data "coincide closely with groups defined by self-identified race or continental ancestry." The data is based on DNA elements outside the genes with no bearing on the body's physical form.
The pattern reflects the fact that once humans dispersed from Africa, the populations on each continent started breeding in isolation and developing their own set of genetic variations.
Two years ago Dr. Risch, a population geneticist, plunged into the long-taboo subject of race and said that these geographic patterns correlated with the popular conception of continental-based races - principally Africans, East Asians, American Indians and Caucasians (a group that includes Europeans, Middle Easterners, and people of the Indian subcontinent).
These categories were useful in understanding the genetic roots of disease, many of which follow the same geographic pattern, Dr. Risch said. His article was provoked by editorials in medical journals suggesting there was no biological basis for race.
The articles in today's issue of Nature Genetics represent a second round of the debate. The Howard scientists agree that there is a geographic pattern in human genetic variation but favor the approach of going directly to the underlying genetic causes of disease without taking into account any possible correlation with race.
"We don't have to use race as a surrogate for the biology when we can identify the underlying biology," said Dr. Georgia M. Dunston, founding director of the Howard genome center. "By removing the barriers implied by the racial classifications we can more effectively study population differences in disease distribution."
Geneticists generally agree that the underlying genetic variations, not race itself, are the key to understanding disease. But short of being able to sequence everyone's genome, many contend that race is often a useful, if imperfect, way of identifying the disease-causing variations.
"Race still remains a proxy that has some potential value," said Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health. "I would love to see that ended, but we are not there yet." Supporters of the genome project say gene-based remedies should be tailored to genetically identifiable groups, to make sure no one is denied the benefits of genetic medicine. But linking diseases to race is an "explosive issue," said Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University. "Once you enter this realm of saying some diseases are more common in this or that group, the popular imagination will ask what else is more common," like behavioral differences, Dr. Duster suggested.
I see. So, given that there is no biological or genetic basis for it, there would be no good reason why two caucasian parents couldn't conceive a Asian or black child, or vice versa.
My sister had a friend, (white), a few years ago who had a black baby, (ok, 1/2 black). I believe her husband, (also white), divorced her shortly afterwards. He was probably the ignorant type who didn't realize that there was no biological or genetic basis for race.
If nothing else, we're all of the same species. But only an idiot would argue that there are no genetic differences.
This makes me think of Linneaus's taxonomy system. How does it go?
species
genus
sub family
family
order
class
phylum
kingdom
'dat right?
My high school biology teacher, coach Johnson was such a redneck that he thought that if your parents didn't have any children that you probably wouldn't either. He couldn't grasp the simple concept of generation skipping genes.
Why are so many babies born black in Africa? Maybe they prefer black babies.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
If they don't have any ancestors who are of a dark skinned people, they probably won't. There are a lot of white people, esp. in the South, who are in fact not white at all but very mixed with American Indian and also African black. So either your friends had ancestors who were dark skinned, or she had an affair.
No such thing as race, but there adaptive variation. I don't think using race in diagnosing disease is wise esp. when people are so mixed anyway.
I strongly suspect it was the latter. Apparently her husband did too.
When I was in biology class, my professor had a news clipping of a story about a man who visited a prostitute then went home to his wife. When she was adamant that she didn't have an affair that was thought to produce a baby with the olive skin tone, he admitted he slept with a prostitute that had previously entertained a black customer. Bizarre!
My guess would be that homosexuality would not be genetic. Obviously homosexuals can and do have children, but I think it's safe to say that they do not reproduce as effectively as heterosexuals and the trait would tend to eliminate itself were it genetic.
Regressive gene?
Thanks for this post. Coincides with articles I've been reading about DNA.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Note: this topic is from 10/27/2004. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.