Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
science.org
science.org
From the abstract of the paper: Throughout The Journal’s 70-year history, “ancestry” and “ethnicity” have increased in use, appearing in 33% and 26% of articles in 2009–2018, while the use of “race” has decreased, occurring in 4% of articles in 2009–2018. Although its overall use has declined, the odds of “race” appearing in the presence of “ethnicity” has increased relative to the odds of occurring in its absence. Forms of population descriptors “Caucasian” and “Negro” have largely disappeared from The Journal (<1% of articles in 2009–2018). Conversely, the continental labels “African,” “Asian,” and “European” have increased in use and appear in 18%, 14%, and 42% of articles from 2009–2018, respectively.
Am I missing something? Is it not more accurate in genetics to describe populations based on their originating location rather than the color of their skin?
Why is that? Does it feel plausible that Science fixated on the Biologically Correct racial classification of humans over a century before Mendelian genetics and the germ theory of disease became widely accepted?
Or is it perhaps more plausible that racial classification came into vogue for other, more unfortunate reasons, which are now well-known and documented, and then persisted by mere inertia and conventionalism/conformism?
The article is about race, so there's all these comments who already know what the article says without reading it, what their pre-established attitudes are, and why they are superior.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Race is a cultural term, not scientific. No one doing this research thinks there's no difference in genetic makeup between groups, it's that how we use and thinK about the word race doesn't line up with those groups and differences.
It's just not accurate for scientific publications, not just the cultural and historical baggage it has. Like down anyone thing that white, black, or asian describe narrowly defined genetic groupings?
Now for cops, or social workers, or everyday speech, race may be just the perfect term - morphology is important to their work, and will remain important. But geneticists are concerned with more than morphology, or appearance.
I don't believe there is a linguistic threat here to everyday speech, or a threat to how we refer to each others appearance. But in genetics, race as a scientific term is in need of improvement - and that is what the article is acknowledging.
I'm not sure I would impute a "woke" angle here.
On top of this subjectivity we have the historical baggage and oppression, so it would be best to move away from race as currently used. We are all part of one race, the human race. We need to stop splitting ourselves into in/out groups because that only holds us back.
One interesting aspect of these clusters is that the higher the resolution, the more clusters you can find, up to the point that neighboring towns can have slightly different distributions.
> "Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.h...
> "Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race."
> "Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may never have been found outside of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa."
Basically, in genetics today it's about phylogenetics, which "utilizes cladistic methods to construct phylogenetic trees based directly on morphological and molecular data." From this viewpoint 'African' is not a meaningful group relative to 'Asian' or 'European', which may themselves not be very meaningful groups either, in terms of biological descent and actual genetic relatedness within and without these supposed groups.
Another truly fascinating aspect of that study is this suggestion, pigment alteration:
> ""Our results suggest there must be some kind of as-yet-uncharacterized form of cross-talk between lysosomes and the melanosomes that make eumelanins," Marks said. "Figuring out how this works might provide new ideas for ways to manipulate skin pigmentation for therapeutic means."
Imagine the consternation and issues surrounding the introduction of something like retroviral gene therapy which altered an individual's pigmentation. People who suffered sunburn easily might benefit greatly, but I can imagine certain controversies arising from such technology.
Edit: It seems my suspicion was correct, and at least Chinese anthropology does not share the Western aversion to 'race':
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/on-...
And the biggest thing is that race corresponds to generic ancestry with 99.86% accuracy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Such as determining that a person who is ~75% "white" and ~25% "black" is in fact, "black"?
If "race" is a "genetic term" it is certainly not only a "genetic term".
I don't see how cloaking or censoring ideas of race benefits humanity. I know there's specific problems that are more common in my race. I WANT doctors and scientists to acknowledge that and use that information to improve treatments.
I don't feel outraged, just sort of confused as to what the incentives at play here are.
not that hard, to me, let me know when you get there though
its not supposed to be new information, its supposed to deconstruct that people in the largest continent on the planet have the most genetic diversity and only chose/were forced to group together for shared representation after noticing they all got a shitty parallel experience in some other continents
the same concept applies to other groups that happen to overlap in some unique phenotypes
Consider running a PCA on a matrix of everyone's alleles < actually, this is legit interesting, has anyone done it? >. Hypothesis: A bunch of the top few components will correspond to commonly understood racial groups that people have created based on observable phenotypic clusters. In this sense, it's a real physical thing. Duh.
However, at the same time, the components are an abstraction, and the common conceptualization of what these components mean and how they relate to reality is somewhat of a mental construction. There will be other high variance components that don't relate to racial categories. We probably don't even notice them. And our racial categories probably don't map that cleanly to the actual underlying components.
Edit: To the replies claiming the categorization is arbitrary and mostly cultural - that does not appear to be the case. In fact, it almost perfectly corresponds to genotype principal component plot clusters, as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29669918 noted:
I.e. the categorization corresponds to what you get when you consider all/many genes, and not a few arbitrarily chosen ones, like those that determine eye or hair color.
The racial distinctions (at least today in the west) are associated with biological traits, and specifically the ones that are visually obvious. But, I think those biological traits are used socially to distinguish groups that are considered different for other reasons (values, beliefs, etc.).
There is, AFAIK, only one sentient primate "race" on the Earth, Homo Sapiens.
And the members of that species are, genetically, incredibly closely related.
Differences in melanin content, bodily proportions and other immutable traits don't rise to the level of a different species for Homo Sapiens.
As such, referring to disparate groups by their geographic locus, ethnicity or ancestry is much more precise than using outdated terms like "race."
It's not about "wokeness" or "political correctness." Rather, it's about precision and more useful groupings of individuals.
1. "Black" is a not especially useful categorization as there are multiple genetically distinct strains of ancestry within Africa. It's likely that there's a greater difference genetically between an African-American (who is likely of Western African origin mixed with European genetics) than, say, a recent immigrant from South Africa or East Africa.
2. As a sociological term, most people would consider Indians and Europeans to be of different races, but it turns out that genetically they're very similar (which should not be surprising to anyone who's made it through a 100-level course in anthropology or linguistics).
3. That said, the peoples of the Indian sub-continent are also genetically diverse within themselves as there were multiple waves of in-migration there (so you might find some Indians who are not genetically similar to Europeans, and yet, they would end up being treated as the same race as their neighbors who are genetically similar to Europeans).
4. Many of the markers of race end up being selected out in a surprisingly short period of time. Lactose tolerance, for example, evolved in just 2,000–20,000 years and it's likely that a lot of things that we consider fundamental to race similarly appeared in relatively short time frames like this.
[1] -https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyo...
It reminds me of this example of life immitating satire:
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/142161970031280947...
I'm starting to see my faith in these institutions erode at an alarming rate. The other day I rewatched an old episode of Bullshit, and it turns out smoking bans in the early 2000's were predicated on bad science. There was no significant evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer. Throw in COVID, political correctness, Omicron and the reproducibility crisis hitting cancer research and I'm suddenly feeling really fucking alone on the plane of authority.
Maybe you are in fact alone on a plane you call authority.
Relativism The misconception that statements cannot be objectively true or false, but can be judged only relative to some cultural or other arbitrary standard.
Instrumentalism The misconception that science cannot describe reality, only predict outcomes of observations.
Justificationism The misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Fallibilism The recognition that there are no authoritative sources of knowledge, nor any reliable means of justifying knowledge as true or probable.
>But alternative terms that have gained popularity, such as “ancestry” and “ethnicity,” can have ambiguous meanings or aren’t defined by genetics, suggesting researchers are still struggling to find the words to accurately describe groups delineated by their DNA, according to the study.
>In the 19th and 20th centuries, many geneticists embraced the idea that there were races, such as “Negroid” or “Caucasian,” that were distinct biological groups; such “race science” helped perpetuate discrimination and inequality.
Which part of this is absurd, exactly?
Source?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832348
>>Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored. I investigate contemporary scientific thinking about race by interviewing more than 40 biologists and anthropologists at four northeastern universities. Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint. Moreover, this research shows that the usual “constructionist” versus “essentialist” dichotomy a blunt tool for characterizing the debate about race; a third platform—“antiessentialism”—must be taken into account. Recognizing antiessentialist discourse calls for a reevaluation of prior research that emphasizes socioeconomic status and professional affiliation as influences on interviewees' concepts of race; this project demonstrates that such tectors do little to distinguish essentialist from antiessentialist veiwpoints.
The very fact that this satire account repeatedly predicts the course taken by the scientific and academic establishment tells us that ideology is the dominant guiding force of the process:
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/133997795950822604...
Unrelated, I have no idea wtf a tector is.
That satire account is hilarious but I'd hardly base my world view on it.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380237.2007.10... -- I think you may have linked the wrong thing? I can only find the abstract
"Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint."
This supports the theory that the "the science says race is a social construct" started primarily with sociologists, who naturally see everything through the lens of social constructionism, and falsely attributed this belief to the harder sciences, to create an appeal to scientific authority for the viewpoint. Fast forward to today, where this view is now the official position of the scientific establishment as a whole, despite it being a minority position just 15 years ago.
Not seeing how you can't see how the paper supports my position, that this opinion is a result of social pressure to conform with an ideology, and not objective science. Claiming "scientists see race as a social construct" is exactly the kind of social pressure tactic that would be used to bring other scientists into the mold. No one wants to be seen as contradicting a conclusion of the scientific establishment, especially one that superficially, would appear to promote a more equitable world.
>>I still have no idea how you see the state fitting in here.
This victimhood ideology, that contains within it the idea that racial is a social construct used to perpetuate oppression, rationalizes a set of government policies and laws, e.g. civil rights law, that empowers special interests, and thus ties their economic interests to the perpetuation of these government interventions.
Thus this ideology is aggressively pushed by those whose interests are dependent on left-wing-ideology motivated state intervention. See the websites/social-media-pages of the labor unions for the New York Times and Washington Post for just a quick sample:
Sociology majors, incidentally, tend to work in government-funded institutions (e.g. as guidance counselors, social workers, etc), or in professions that largely arose as a result of government intervention (e.g. anti-discrimination lawyers, human resource representatives), etc.
Who? Dr Morning is the only sociologist here. And you're using her to support your argument.
You've obviously thought about this a lot and have some pretty strong opinions but I don't see how that aligns with the original article or anything geneticists are talking about?
Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race *was* a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology.
Genetics are still important. Groups of related ancestors are, too. Take a personal example - I did "23 and me" maybe 10 years ago. I'm half Swedish and half Mexican (mestizo, basque and native). I have genetic markers that predispose me to having high iron in my blood. This is pretty common among Swedish ancestory.
How does attributing that to "white" help anything here?
And what the hell am I? Am I latino? Am I white?
Does any of that fucking matter? Who cares what the hell Johann Friedrich Blumenbach thought about the subject. My ancestory - my mix of Swedish and Mexican ancestors - is really only useful for explaining what I look like. The concept of "race", historically, takes it further to attempt to explain who I am. Am I lazy? Am I superior? Am I worthy of passing on my genes? From there it's a historical slided to the worst parts of our history: that maybe the world would be better off without certain people. Or that some were meant to be superior.
According to the paper:
The title:
"“Everyone Knows It's a Social Construct”: Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race"
The first line of the abstract:
"Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored."
I assume Dr. Morning's characterization is accurate, and could be easily corroborated.
I don't see how it's constructive to continue responding to you when you are being obtuse in assessing what I'm providing.
Just to clarify: are you claiming that the following assessments of Dr. Morning's, are not credible, or are incorrect:
* the dominant viewpoint amongst sociologists, as of 2007, was that "scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed"
* as of 2007, most biologists and anthropologists did not, indeed, see race as socially constructed
?
>>Ignoring for a second the idea that "race is a social construct", will you at least concede that race was a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery? And that perhaps we shouldn't be cavalier about attributing scientific observations about genetics to something like a 'race' of people? Because that's the discussion that's happening in the scientific community. It seems very divorced from your assertions about victimhood ideology.
All of this is nonsense. It wasn't a social construct, and its emergence as a recognized concept wasn't motivated by a desire to justify doing horrible things to people. This is just standard victimhood narrative, to give the political left in the academic/scientific establishment moral authority.
And using race categories doesn't imply ignoring its limitations, or preclude the use of other ways of categorizing people.
This is very different from saying "race being a social construct is an idea of social justice ideology, not of science". She is arguing that the perceived consensus or widespread acceptance of the idea is wrong. You're asserting that "social justice [ideologists]" or sociologists (you seem to be using them interchangeably) themselves came up with the very idea.
We're 15 years later. Is it still a minority position? I honestly don't know. Based on OP, it seems like no, but maybe we're in the same position. But it was clearly never "an idea of social justice ideology, not of science"
> It wasn't a social construct, and its emergence as a recognized concept wasn't motivated by a desire to justify doing horrible things to people
So if our understanding of race was never a social construct, do tell what is the science behind this:
> Finally, I am of opinion that after all these numerous instances I have brought together of negroes of capacity, it would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy; and on the other hand, there is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro."
I'm not asserting, either, that reasoning around races was used to justify things before the act, but rather that by attributing ideas like "genetics explains people" carries historical consequences. Like that some genes are superior to others. I don't know how you can deny this took place in our history.
You're being disingenuous, in not fully describing Morning's assertion. The assertion, fully described, is that "race is a social construct" is a minority position, and one that sociologists claim is a universally held among scientists at large.
This is deeply mistaken claim by the sociologists, and to me it's evident why the consensus emerged within the sociology field around this erronuous belief: it's a manipulation tactic, to give the "race is a social contract" claim an appeal to scientific credibility.
And it worked! Only 15 years later, and the main scientific institutions are now arguing for a broad exorcism of the concept of race.
>>But it was clearly never "an idea of social justice ideology, not of science"
Given the following facts, I think there is a preponderance of evidence that it is an idea of social justice ideology, not science:
* the well-documented extreme-left wing bias of the sociology field
* the economic interests those with sociology degrees have - due to the occupations that sociology degrees are amenable to - to propagate left-wing political ideology and the government programs that are associated with it
* the lack of rigor in sociology, which makes it less scientific, and more political/ideological, than other scientific disciplines. This lack of rigor is reflected in the pervasiveness of the erronuous belief about "race is a social construct" in sociology field, that Morning references
* the until recent general rejection of the "race is a social construct" idea in the harder sciences for which race is relevant: biology and anthropology
The best explanation for the coincidence of all of these facts, is that "race is a social construct" originated in the left-wing grievance ideology promoted by the political left, and that the sociologists, due to their alignment with this ideology, created a dogmatic commitment to this belief in the other scientific disciplines, by linking the rejection of this belief with vices like racism.
>>that reasoning around races was used to justify things before the act, but rather that by attributing ideas like "genetics explains people" carries historical consequences.
The answer is not to pretend race doesn't exist and/or has no usefulness as a category. The attempt to extirpate race from the sciences, in an attempt to minimize racism, is just delusional utopianism, that in its neuroticism, totally ignores the collateral damage to various scientific frameworks, of such a drastic and far-reaching conceptual re-engineering.
And that "race is a social construct" idea is part of a victimhood narrative is totally obvious. See how the idea is nested here for instance:
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct...
>>Americans bought into this idea, too. Why was it so appealing? "Americans of European descent invented race during the era of the American Revolution as a way of resolving the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery," historian Barbara J. Fields explained in a presentation to the producers of PBS's series Race: The Power of An Illusion (which is worth checking out for more detailed information on all this).
The journalists at Vox are fully unionized by the way.
Any way, this kind of victimhood/injustice framing is extremely common, and was even posited by the other commenter in this very discussion!
>>will you at least concede that race was a social construct? And that it predated our understanding of genetics and was used to, among other things, justify slavery, eugenics and other human misery?
But now you want to gaslight people into believing that this victimhood narrative isn't the main context in which the concept appears?
>>more deluded than your "the news is a union conspiracy" posts.
Your pithy response to my argument that unionized news staff have an economic interest in promoting left wing political ideas - when I've elaborated at length as to why I believe this is the case - suggests you're approaching this issue very emotionally, and not in a good faith attempt to open-mindedly explore what I'm saying to see if it's true.
Soooo…a biological category.
The ironic part of all this is that it would be very easy to put the ultimate kibosh on any racial superiority claims by simply acknowledging race and then studying the hell out of racial intelligence and physique gaps.
I don’t want to fall prey to confirmation bias but it seems abundantly clear from the evidence so far that there are definitely gaps between races…but not gaps large enough to make any sort of useful difference to anyone.