|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:13:33 GMT 1
annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=718877The Practitioner's Dilemma: Can We Use a Patient's Race To Predict Genetics, Ancestry, and the Expected Outcomes of Treatment? Donald A. Barr, MD, PhD [+] Article and Author Information Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(11):809-815. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-143-11-200512060-00009 Text Size: A A A Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed. Requests for Single Reprints: Donald A. Barr, MD, PhD, Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Building 120, MC 2047, Stanford, CA 94305-2047; e-mail, barr@stanford.edu. Article Tables References Comments (0) Recent research has identified genetic traits that can be used in a laboratory setting to distinguish among global population groups. In some genetic analyses, the population groups identified resemble groups that are historically categorized as “races.†On the basis of these associations, some researchers have argued that a patient's race can be used to predict underlying genetic traits and from these traits, the expected outcomes of treatment. Others have questioned the use of race in this way, arguing that racially defined groups are so heterogeneous that predictions of individual characteristics derived from group averages are bound to be problematic.Practitioners today face the dilemma of translating this scientific debate into clinical decisions made 1 patient at a time. Is it or is it not appropriate to use a patient's self-identified “race†to help decide treatment?In contrast to the global population groups identified by genetic studies, the U.S. population has experienced substantial genetic admixture over time, weakening our ability to distinguish groups on the basis of meaningful genetic differences. Nonetheless, many researchers have suggested that these differences are still sufficient to identify racially specific uses for pharmaceutical and other treatments. A review of recent research on the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure finds that race-specific treatments of this type carry a substantial risk for treating patients—black or white—inappropriately, either by withholding a treatment that may be effective or by using a treatment that may be ineffective. Only by moving beyond historical concepts of “race†to examining a patient's individual socioeconomic, cultural, behavioral, and ancestral circumstances can a practitioner select the treatment that is most likely to be effective and in doing so, can best serve that patient's needs. So, "Only by moving beyond historical concepts of race.....can a practitioner select the treatment that is most likely to be effective"
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:15:25 GMT 1
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201457ABSTRACT ABSTRACT | CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RACE AND POPULATION STRUCTURE | GENETIC RISK FACTORS FOR COMMON DISEASES AMONG POPULATIONS | VARIED EFFECTS OF GENETIC RISK FACTORS AMONG POPULATIONS | CONCLUSION | ARTICLE INFORMATION | REFERENCES Race is frequently used by clinicians and biomedical researchers to make inferences about an individual’s ancestry and to predict whether an individual carries specific genetic risk factors that influence health. The extent to which race is useful for making such predictions depends on how well race corresponds with genetic inferences of ancestry, how frequently common diseases in different racial groups are influenced by the same vs different gene variants, and whether such variants have the same effects in different racial groups. New studies of human genetic variation show that while genetic ancestry is highly correlated with geographic ancestry, its correlation with race is modest. Therefore, while data on the correspondence of race, ancestry, and health-related traits are still limited, particularly in minority populations, geographic ancestry and explicit genetic information are alternatives to race that appear to be more accurate predictors of genetic risk factors that influence health. Making accurate ancestry inferences is crucial because common diseases and drug responses are sometimes influenced by gene variants that vary in frequency or differ altogether among racial groups. Thus, operationalizing alternatives to race for clinicians will be an important step toward providing more personalized health care Relevant part highlighted in blue.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:17:19 GMT 1
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8385054&fileId=S002193200002321XRace, genetics and growth Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Eugenics Society, 5th, London,. D. F. Robertsa1 a1 Laboratory of Human Genetics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Much of our understanding of the biological differences between races has come with the development of human genetics. Surveys have established the frequencies of genetic characters known to be under the control of single genes and independent of environmental modification; comparisons of these frequencies in different populations have led to the resolution of many of the earlier outstanding problems of affinities between races and, with the support of experimental and associated investigations, to the identification and measurement of the processes that have given rise to race formation. With this information we can begin to appreciate the extent to which apparent differences are due to racial heritage and to environmental influences From 1969.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:19:50 GMT 1
www.palgrave-journals.com/biosoc/journal/v2/n2/abs/biosoc200718a.htmlRace and Genetics: Attempts to Define the Relationship Duana Fullwiley Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: dfullwil@hsph.harvard.edu Top of page Abstract Many researchers working in the field of human genetics in the United States have been caught between two seemingly competing messages with regard to racial categories and genetic difference. As the human genome was mapped in 2000, Francis Collins, the head of the publicly funded project, together with his privately funded rival, announced that humans were 99.9 percent the same at the level of their genome. That same year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began a research program on pharmacogenetics that would exploit the .01 percent of human genetic difference, increasingly understood in racial terms, to advance the field of pharmacy. First, this article addresses Collins’ summary of what he called the ‘vigorous debate’ on the relationship between race and genetics in the open-access special issue of Nature Genetics entitled ‘Genetics for the Human Race’ in 2004. Second, it examines the most vexed (if not always openly stated) issue at stake in the debate: that many geneticists today work with the assumption that human biology differs by race as it is conceived through American census categories. It then presents interviews with researchers in two collaborating US laboratories who collect and organize DNA by American notions of ‘race/ethnicity’ and assume that US race categories of classification largely traduce human biogenetic difference. It concludes that race is a practical and conceptual tool whose utility and function is often taken for granted rather than rigorously assessed and that ‘rational medicine’ cannot precede a rational approach to addressing the nature of racial disparities, difference and inequality in health and society more broadly. Relevant part highlighted in blue.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:26:27 GMT 1
nternational Journal of Health Services Issue: Volume 36, Number 3 / 2006 baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,13;journal,34,176;linkingpublicationresults,1:300313,1 Pages: 557 - 573 URL: Linking Options DOI: 10.2190/8JAF-D8ED-8WPD-J9WH REIFYING HUMAN DIFFERENCE: THE DEBATE ON GENETICS, RACE, AND HEALTH Lundy Braun Abstract: The causes of racial and ethnic inequalities in health and the most appropriate categories to use to address health inequality have been the subject of heated debate in recent years. At the same time, genetic explanations for racial disparities have figured prominently in the scientific and popular press since the announcement of the sequencing of the human genome. To understand how such explanations assumed prominence, this essay analyzes the circulation of ideas about race and genetics and the rhetorical strategies used by authors of key texts to shape the debate. The authority of genetic accounts for racial and ethnic difference in disease, the author argues, is rooted in a broad cultural faith in the promise of genetics to solve problems of human disease and the inner truth of human beings that is intertwined with historical meanings attached to race. Such accounts are problematic for a variety of reasons. Importantly, they produce, reify, and naturalize notions of racial difference, provide a scientific rationale for racially targeted medical care, and distract attention from research that probes the complex ways in which political, economic, social, and biological factors, especially those of inequality and racism, cause health disparities. I hope you understand what this is saying: that the popular press and some scientific literature is promoting the idea that genetics will back up the historical idea of race but, it goes on to say, this is a problem for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they naturalise NOTIONS of racial difference.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:29:27 GMT 1
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=525752&fileId=S1745855206003036Can Science Alone Improve the Measurement and Communication of Race and Ethnicity in Genetic Research? Exploring the Strategies Proposed by Nature Genetics Andrew Smart a1c1, Richard Tutton a2, Richard Ashcroft a3, Paul A. Martin a4 and George T.H. Ellison a5 a1 Department of Sociology, Bath Spa University, Newton St Loe, Bath BA2 9BN, UK Email: a.smart@bathspa.ac.uk a2 Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society (IGBiS), University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK a3 Queen Mary, University of London, Barts and the London Medical School, Institute of Health Sciences Education, 38–40 New Road, London E1 2AX, UK a4 Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society (IGBiS), University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK a5 St George’s, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK Abstract The long-standing concerns about the measurement and communication of race and ethnicity in genetic research have spilled over into the editorial columns of a growing number of biomedical journals. Nature Genetics has played a prominent role in this debate with a series of editorials published between 2000–2004, culminating in the publication of an open-access Special Issue (Genetics for the human race) in November 2004. The Special Issue brought together contemporary research on the relationship between race, ethnicity and genetic variation, and a range of views on the social and ethical implications of this research. In this article we analyse interviews with each of three the editors in charge of Nature Genetics during this period to show that scientific concerns related to the measurement and communication of race and ethnicity in genetic research had been responsible for making this a ‘special issue’ for the journal. Two broad strategies for tackling these concerns were identified from an analysis of contributions to the Special Issue: continuing to use racial and ethnic categories until such time as these become obsolete; or replacing racial and ethnic categories with alternatives based on socio-cultural and geographical ancestry. We also identified additional suggestions for improving the communication of genetic findings disaggregated by race or ethnicity, which were: developing guidelines for measurement and interpretation; and greater ‘community engagement’. We argue that neither of the broad strategies and neither of the suggestions for improving communication can be wholly effective. We suggest that this is because these proposals do not adequately confront the notion that race and ethnicity are difficult concepts to operationalize or examine in scientific research precisely because they have meanings and uses which exist beyond the domain of scientific practice or control. Relevant part in blue.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:34:59 GMT 1
www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1456.htmlAssessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups Joanna L Mountain1, 2 & Neil Risch2, 3 1 Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2117, USA. 2 Department of Genetics, Stanford Medical School, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-5120, USA. 3 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California 94611-5714. Correspondence should be addressed to Joanna L Mountain mountain@stanford.edu Descriptions of human genetic variation given thirty years ago have held up well, considering the substantial accrual of DNA sequence data in the interim. Most importantly, estimates of between-group genetic variation have remained relatively low. Despite the low average level of between-group variation, clusters recently inferred from multilocus genetic data coincide closely with groups defined by self-identified race or continental ancestry. This correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained between-group phenotypic variation. Current understanding of the contribution of genes to variation in most complex traits is limited, however. Under these circumstances, assumptions about genetic contributions to group differences are unfounded. In the absence of detailed understanding, 'racial' and 'ethnic' categories will remain useful in biomedical research. Further, we suggest approaches and guidelines for assessing the contribution of genetic factors to between-group phenotypic differences, including studies of candidate genes and analyses of recently admixed populations. So, in the absence of detailed understanding of the terms, these unscientific ideas of "racial" and "ethnic" groups can be used in biomedical research.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 14, 2015 23:37:42 GMT 1
revalence of Migraine Headache in the United StatesRelation to Age, Income, Race, and Other Sociodemographic Factors Walter F. Stewart, PhD, MPH; Richard B. Lipton, MD; David D. Celentano, ScD; Michael L. Reed, PhD JAMA. 1992;267(1):64-69. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480010072027. Text Size: A A A jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=394233Article References ABSTRACT ABSTRACT | REFERENCES Objective. — To describe the magnitude and distribution of the public health problem posed by migraine in the United States by examining migraine prevalence, attack frequency, and attack-related disability by gender, age, race, household income, geographic region, and urban vs rural residence. The results of this study: "17.6% of females and 5.7% of males were found to have one or more migraine headaches per year. The prevalence of migraine varied considerably by age and was highest in both men and women between the ages of 35 to 45 years. Migraine prevalence was strongly associated with household income; prevalence in the lowest income group (<$10 000) was more than 60% higher than in the two highest income groups (≥$30 000). The proportion of migraine sufferers who experienced moderate to severe disability was not related to gender, age, income, urban vs rural residence, or region of the country. In contrast, the frequency of headaches was lower in higher-income groups. Attack frequency was inversely related to disability." NO mention of race. The conclusion of this study:"A projection to the US population suggests that 8.7 million females and 2.6 million males suffer from migraine headache with moderate to severe disability. Of these, 3.4 million females and 1.1 million males experience one or more attacks per month. Females between ages 30 to 49 years from lower-income households are at especially high risk of having migraines and are more likely than other groups to use emergency care services for their acute condition.(JAMA. 1992;267:64-69)" NO mention of race.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 9:34:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 15, 2015 9:46:49 GMT 1
The only one of those articles that says anything like what you want it to say was written in 1953, PA.
You'll have to do better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 10:28:32 GMT 1
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html“Race is a biological concept, an d races are biological units,” an- thropologist Stanley Garn observ ed. “Races, moreover, are natural units and not artificial assemblages created by selecting ‘types’ out of a population.” 7 He added, “Natural populations of man clearly exist below the species level. They need labels, and the labels must distin- guish between the large geographica l or continental collections and individual population isolates. Stanley Marion Garn Ph.D. was a human biologist and educator. He was Professor of Anthropology at the College for Literature, Science and Arts and Professor of Nutrition at the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan. If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of con- tinuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are con- nected by unbroken se ries of intergrades, bu t an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, in termediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usu- ally possessing some common charac teristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Colum- bia University Press, Columbia Classics in Evolution Series, 1982), 308. This is a re- print of the 1937 first edition. George W. GillSlightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racia l lens." I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations. .....the "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. .....Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence. ......at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship.
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 10:45:02 GMT 1
Historical Racial Taxonomies
Linnaeus identified man as an anim al (controversial at the time), and was the first to classify the species he named Homo sapiens with monkeys and apes in the Order “Anthropomorpha,” later renamed Primates. Beginning with the very first edition (1735), he divided Homo sapiens into four subspecies: Homo sapiens americanus (Amerindi- ans); Homo sapiens europaeus (Europeans); Homo sapiens asiaticus 23 Nicholas Hudson, “From ‘Nation’ to ‘Race’: The Origin of Racial Classification in Eighteenth-Century Thought,”
A notable recent work utilizing th e three-race model is J. Philippe Rushton’s masterful Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Per- spective: For the past twenty years, I have studied the three major races of Orientals (East Asians, Mongoloids), Whites (Europeans, Cau- casoids), and Blacks (Africans, Negroids). An “Oriental” is any- one most of whose ancestors were born in East Asia. A “White” is anyone most of whose ancest ors were born in Europe. And a “Black” is anyone most of whos e ancestors were born in sub-Sa- haran Africa. In the main I have not addressed other groups and sub-groups. J. Philippe Rushton Born John Philippe Rushton December 3, 1943 Bournemouth, United Kingdom Died October 2, 2012 (aged 68) London, Ontario Citizenship Canada Fields Psychology, Psychometrics Institutions University of Western Ontario Alma mater Birkbeck College London School of Economics University of Oxford Known for Race, Evolution and Behavior, Race and intelligence
Numerous racial taxonomies have b een proposed in addition to the original three-race and five-race mo dels. Examples from physical an- thropology include Carleton Coon ’s (1904–1981) five “subspecies” (Australoid, Mongoloid, Caucasoi d, Congoid [including Pygmies]and Capoid [Hottentots and Bushmen])
and John R. Baker’s six races (Australasid, Europid, Negrid, Kh oisanid [Hottentots and Bushmen], Mongolid, and Indianid [Amerindians])—which he further divided into twenty-six “subraces. Carleton S. Coon Anthropologist Carleton Stevens Coon was an American physical anthropologist, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, lecturer and professor at Harvard, and president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Wikipedia Born: June 23, 1904, Wakefield, Massachusetts, United States Died: June 3, 1981, Gloucester, Massachusetts, United States Education: Harvard University, Phillips Academ
Local races,” sandwiched between geographic and “micro-races,” correspond to natural breeding populations, and are the true units of evolutionary change. Largely endoga mous, the small amount of gene flow that occurred historically ca me primarily from contiguous, re- lated local races. Although Garn en umerates thirty-two local races in his book, he emphasizes that they actually number in the thousands: “No one can make an exact count . . .” Some are large (Forest Negro, Turkic, North Chinese, Hindu), some isolated (Lapps, Eskimos, Pyg- mies), some marginal (Ainu, Bushmen, Hottentots), some hybrids of recent origin (American Negroes, South African Cape Coloreds), some ancient and tiny (Samaritans). Finally, “ Micro-races , though not iso- lated geographically or by extensive cultural prohibitions, still differ from each other in numerous ways.” Stanley L Garn
As a taxonomic unit, race is used to denote different levels of classification. Some workers restrict the term to the la rger geographical unit or subspecies— i.e., Europid, Mongolid, Negrid—whose members possess a large number of traits in common and inhabit or originate from a specific geographic area. Be- low the level of geographical race, classical morphological anthropologists seek to identify anthropological elemen ts or nuclear racial types defined by centers of concentration of anthropological traits. Robert E. Kuttner, “Introduction,” in Kuttner, ed., Race and Modern Science: A Collec- tion of Essays by Biologists, Anthropo logists, Sociologists and Psychologists (New York: Social Science Press, 1967), x
Robert E. Kuttner Robert E. Kuttner was an American biologist. Born: March 10, 1927 Died: February 19, 1987
Population geneticists Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata : There are indeed different levels of grouping within H. sapiens , which are the result of population history, genealogical patterns, geography, cultural diffe rentiation, and other factors. Smaller groups can be clustered into larger ones and these into larger ones still, as is apparent from any phylogenetic tree drawn for human populations. . . . [E]ven in Europe, with its long tradi- tion of intermarriages and easy opportunities for mixing, Guido Barbujani and Robert R. Sokal co uld uncover a patchy distribu- tion of allele frequencies and zo nes of sharp changes in genetic variation, and attribute them to physical and cultural barriers to gene flow. The hierarchical nature of the groupings, of course, begs for an answer to the questi on: which of the groups should be called races? It could be: all, none, or any, according to one’s preference. The name is not import ant. What is important is to acknowledge the existence of differentiation and its significance for the reconstruction of human history Jan Klein Jan Klein is a Czech-American immunologist, best known for his work on the major histocompatibility complex. He was born in 1936 in Stemplovec, Opava, Czech Republic. Wikipedia Naoyuki Takahata Born: 1936
The Graduate University for Advanced Studies Miura, Japan
Arthur R. Jensen (b. 1923) per- suasively argues that biological ta xonomy and population genetics are: . . . simply different ways of viewing the concept [of race], and both of them are completely comp atible. . . . All [the] different methods of analysis and the different data sets to which they have been applied produce essent ially the same picture, which pretty much agrees with the racial classifications of the old-time anthropologists and the man on th e street. It is highly unlikely that a “mere cultural construction” would show such consis- tency across time, characteristics studied, and methodology. Arthur Jensen Author Arthur Robert Jensen was a professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. Born: August 24, 1923, San Diego, California, United States Died: October 22, 2012, Kelseyville, California, United States Education: Columbia University (1956), San Diego State University, University of California, Berkeley Awards: Guggenheim Fellowship for Social Sciences, US & Canada
Neil Risch’s five continental races: Africans, Caucasians (Europe, the Middle East, and the Indian subconti nent), East Asians (China, Japan, the Philippines, and Siberia), Pacifi c Islanders, and Native Americans Neil Risch Neil Risch is an American human geneticist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco. Wikipedia Education: University of California, Los Angeles
Arthur Jensen states: I have studied the tome by Cavalli-Sforza and his co-authors [ The History and Geography of Human Genes 62 ]. His position on [race] is substantively no different from my own. In fact, his work has shaped my own view of the concept of race as much as, or more than, anything else I’ve re ad. The book is a mine of infor- mation . . . While the term “race” is assiduously avoided, the au- thors use the term “population” to mean the same thing . . Arthur Jensen ibid
Kuttner writes: Population geneticists define race as a Mendelian or breeding population and concentrate on traits with a known mo de of inheritance. While this has greatly advanced our understanding of the dynamic processes of race forma- tion in man, there are apparent limitat ions in its applications. The anthropo- logical traits whose exact mode of inheritance is known are few. Classical morphological anthropology, therefore, still has its place in stud- ies of race. . . . The application of newer mathematical techniques, such as multivariate analysis, and the availability of computer facilities enable work- ers to accommodate a large number of morphological variables in an accurate and objective research program. Kuttner Biologist
Arthur Jensen observes: Given that perhaps as many as 50 percent of the genes in the human genome are involved with the structural and functional aspects of the brain, it would be surprising indeed if populations that differ in a great many visi ble characteristics and in various genetic polymorphisms did not also differ in some characteris- tics associated with the brain, the primary organ of behavior. . . . So we shouldn’t be surprised if these races, or population clus- ters if you prefer, differ in a numb er of behavioral characteristics, including abilities, both physical and mental as well. Arthur Jensen ibid
Unfortunately, none of the genes controlling skin color, hair color and texture, or lip and nose shape have been identi fied. These characters are determined by multiple, interacting genes, so their identification is not easy. But in the near future, the genes will undoubtedl y become known and it will then be possible to establish whether there is a correspondence between their distri- bution and any of the classification schemes that anthropologists have de- signed for the human species . . . (Klein and Takahata, Where Do We Come From? , 385) George Klein, Georg Klein or Klein György (July 28, 1925) is a Hungarian-Swedish biologist who specializes in cancer research. Klein has also authored a dozen of non-scientific or wide ranging books, of which several are collections of essays.
SJ Gould cites one of greatest British geneticists RA Fisher thus..... racial mixing provides a powerful way to increas (genetic) variation and Fisher acknowledged the potential benfits.... SJ Gould Dinosaur In The Haystack R. A. Fisher—twice Professor of Genetics: London and Cambridge, or‘A fairly well-known geneticist
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 15, 2015 17:34:39 GMT 1
Tell me you're not serious, PA. I note you give no source for the information you relay in your last post, and I'm not exactly surprised. Just one example: A notable recent work utilizing the three-race model is J. Philippe Rushton’s masterful Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective... Masterful? Leading race “scientist” dies in Canada
Jean Philippe Rushton's death marks the end of an era of academic racism
Jean Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor and probably the most important race scientist in North America, died of cancer Tuesday night in Canada. The man who sparked a firestorm of controversy and protest in the late 1980s with his theories about the correlation between genital size and intelligence, and in later years was the head of a right-wing fund that has long supported the research projects of academic racists from around the world, was 68.
“He’s the end of an era of academic racists of his style and notoriety,” Barry Mehler, professor of history and director of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism at Ferris State University in Michigan, said today. “I don’t think we’ll see that again."
That’s not to say that academic racism has died, only its most prominent elder.
Rushton taught psychology at the University of Western Ontario for 25 years and began his academic career investigating the basis of altruism – why one person sometimes aids another, even at personal risk. But it was in the fields of biology and genetics, academic disciplines unrelated to his training, that Rushton made his biggest mark — and left his largest stain.
Rushton’s infamous theory about race and intelligence can be summed up in two words: size matters.
He postulated that brain and genital size are inversely related, implying that whites are more intelligent than blacks and that Asians are the smartest of all.
Saying that Rushton’s ideas were “monstrous” and “simply do not qualify as science,” David Suzuki, an actual geneticist, debated Rushton on the Western Ontario campus in 1989 before 2,000 students and more than 100 reporters and television crews. Security was tight inside and out of the auditorium.
“I did not want to be here,” Suzuki told the audience. “I do not believe that we should dignify this man and his ideas in public debate.” A few minutes later, he added, “There will always be Rushtons in the world. We must be prepared to root them out.”
Brian Timney, dean of social science, which includes the psychology department where Rushton actually worked, said Rushton’s legacy “was not a great one.” “His research was not highly thought of,” Timney said. “I work in neuroscience and I expect some academic vigor. He was not vigorous.”...
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 18:07:33 GMT 1
.Human genetic diversity A.W.F. Edwards* Article first published online: 18 JUL 2003 Abstract References Cited By Abstract In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example. BioEssays 25:798–801, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract;jsessionid=9D626F5CAD9148637BA0E80D067173C2.f04t04
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 15, 2015 19:30:03 GMT 1
The only one of those articles that says anything like what you want it to say was written in 1953, PA. You'll have to do better than that. Well at least he has learned the lesson that he needs to back up his arguments with some evidence. The evidence he has found is wanting, but at least he has done some work looking for it! I still say that modern science does not divide humanity into races. There is though Jean a case for at least identifying populations within humanity. Animals of the same species but of different appearance are very often classified as populations (which I think is synonymous with races) if they are isolated from each other. With modern communications it is not necessary that people in the world be isolated, but the fact is, most are, in the sense that, in large parts of Africa, for example, the people there almost never even see a white person. The black people in Africa have a distinct appearance from white people, and this is maintained because there is not much interbreeding between these two populations. And it must be genetic differences that cause these phenotypic differences. (The environment will not account for it, as blacks and whites living in the same country eg Kenya, do maintain their differences because they mostly don't interbreed). If there was species of bird that inhabited Europe and Africa, though the one in Europe had a white appearance, while the African one was black, naturalists would readily describe the 2 varieties as "populations", and I think it probable that they would classify them both as subspecies. On the other hand, I know the situation is not so, shall we say, black and white, across most of humanity, when you consider Asians and also Southern Americans (who are a mixture of Blacks and Latinos etc). Suppose a murder took place in the US and the police found the blood of the murderer at the crime scene. I would have thought, given the fact that the most obvious aspects of appearance such as skin colour are governed by genes, I would have thought that a genetic test on the blood would tell the police the skin colour of the murderer. Yet when I search on the internet for that information, it appears they cannot do that.
|
|