Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Inconsistency of "Race"
In class on Tuesday, a fellow classmate questioned whether, over an extremely long period of time, a separated group of people could physically change and develop specific genetic distinctions within that group itself. Although many studies have found no differences in the genetic makeup between separated groups of people we classify into races (proving that we are all a part of the same species) , this made me think of some rare distinctions and physical phenomena that could justify some other way to classify certian groups of people. For example, many studies throughout the twentieth century have tried to make some sort of physical tie with Native Americans and a possible predisposition to Alcoholism. Dr. Ting-Kai Li of Indiana University's School of Medicine ad her colleagues have identified two genes that help protect against the harms of alchohol. In their studies they have found that these two protective genes are most prevalent among Asians and almost nonexistent in Native Americans, thus making one group of people much more physically susceptible to alcoholism. Dr. Li herself said that "when I was doing postdoctoral research, I found that there were different forms of alchohol dehydrogenase and that there were genetic variants that one could identify in different races." Well, in respect to some of the works we have read in class so far wouldn't that statement ruin the validity of the research? I am not trying to deny the claims of this research, however, in respect to Montagu's view that the word "race" is an artificial term that does not hold any specific and consitent definition, wouldn't this skew the foundation for which this research was done? In this light, the only valid results of this research would be the overwhelming statistical evidence of the numbers of alchoholics on Native American reservations.If a Scientist cannot fully define their terms before research was conducted, then how the rest of the results of the experiment be validated? I agree with Montagu's view that the term "race" is too inconsistent and broad and therefore a word that I wish was not relied on so heavilyto classify people in so many different ways. I find this to be a very tricky situation in which there is obvious evidence that certain groups of people actually can have varying physical susceptibilities due to both genetics and the environment, however, due to the fact that the term race has been proven to be such an ambiguous term, I wish there was some other consistent classification that could further justify the results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When you say the genes "protect against the harms of alcohol" do you mean they protect against addiction or against physical damage? This is important for your statement because it connects alcoholism to a genetic basis. Also I would like to know if these genes are actually absent in certain people or just not expressed. This is important because it allows us to say that certain groups of people are actually genetically different from other humans. However, if the alcoholism results from a repression of expression of these genes than there is not a genetic difference but only a difference in expression of those genes.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post, and raises a topic that I have worried about often myself. Another example is Sickle-Cell Anemia, which is widely reported to disproportionately effect black populations. Does that mean Sickle-Cell Anemia is a "black" disease? And, thus, that there must be some genetic basis to "race"?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me skeptical of assuming too much about "genetic" race from these studies is the way that they identify the sub-populations who are studied. To choose another example, we could look at diabetes, which disproportionately effects Native American/Indian, African-American and Latino/a populations in the United States. However, closer examination of the phenomenon shows that what all of these sub-populations have in common is increased instances of poverty and not simply a greater predisposition to the disease.
What medical science has neglected to acknowledge (too often) is that no matter what color you are, being poor is likely to make you sick.
This is definitely an interesting topic. It seems to indicate how all people, even rational scientists, take for granted the idea of classifying by race. I dont actually know too much about Sickle-cell anemia but there are many other diseases that get the claim the be racially specific diseases. Whats interesting is that most affect more that one racial group, for example a disease that affects jews and south american indians alike. What does that say about racial diseases when they affect mass populations of two (or more) greatly different racial, cultural groups.
ReplyDeletethough to be completly along the lines of Montagu's theory a disease should affect all racial groups similarly. (not taking into consideration conditions like poverty)
I can see how certain races being more likely to contract a disease or develop alcoholism could disrupt the theory that race and genetics are unrelated. It seems that these groups being genetically susceptable to certain ailments is do to environmental factors and not necessarily genetic factors. Native Americans may lack these protective genes because their ancestors had less exposure to alcohol or had the lack of a certain element in their diet. Also, isn't sickle cell anemia an evolutionary disease that actually helps protect against malaria? I think that these possible genetic differences between races are due more to environmental factors than actual genetic differences. If a race lives in a vastly different climate than another race for centuries, do they develop genetic differences to cope with their environment?
ReplyDeleteThis is a problem I've had throughout our discussions of whether or not race existed as a meaningful term. There are myriad studies that indicate a propensity for various races to achieve various things or be susceptible to others. While Doctor Johnson makes a valid point with regard to the important effects on poverty, one cannot simply ignore, for instance, the populace of the National Basketball Association, wherein the vast majority of the best basketball players in the world are African-Americans. It seems difficult then to deny that African-Americans are more likely to have a genetic makeup suitable to playing basketball (specifically with regards to height, jump capacity, wingspan, hand size, speed). Even if one found these observations invalid, the almost exclusive presence of Tay-Sachs in the Jewish population, one that is less afflicted by poverty generally, seems indicative of a racially significant propensity.
ReplyDelete