Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
sciencebulletin.org
Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#2Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has hindered medical advancements once again.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#3Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
Actually the genetic differences between races are far smaller and more blurry than most people would imagine (based on differences in appearance).
The Atlantic had an article about exactly the kind of thing you're taking about, and how this kind of pseudoscience is being pushed by neo-nazis and the alt-right: http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510962/
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#4Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
How did you come up with that? Did you even understand the article? It is quite literally saying social/cultural changes leave an impact on genetic transcription of DNA through methylation and epigenetic markup. In fact, this proves just the opposite. That social factors are intricately tied to genetic output. What this proves false are the hardliners of each side of the debate that espouse race is a purely social construct, and the other end that naively call race a simple set of genetic traits.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#5Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
How did you come up with that? Did you even understand the article? It is quite literally saying social/cultural changes leave an impact on genetic transcription of DNA through methylation and epigenetic markup. In fact, this proves just the opposite. That social factors are intricately tied to genetic output. What this proves false are the hardliners of each side of the debate that espouse race is a purely social co…
I am not a geneticist, so perhaps I misunderstand, but the conclusion I formed seems to be reinforced by the quotes from the authors in the article. That is, there are specific gene expressions which are relevant in a medical context affected by cultural factors that are genetically transmitted. Genetic transmission at least to me implies that a person receives these things from their parents at birth, regardless of their own specific upbringing, because of cultural factors of their parents upbringing, and so on. As in, cultural differences can be expressed over time as genetic differences.
“These data suggest that the interplay between race and ethnicity as social constructs and genetic ancestry as a biological construct is more complex than we had realized,” said Noah Zaitlen, PhD, a UCSF assistant professor of medicine and co-senior author on the new study. “In a medical context both elements may provide valuable information.”
Setting aside the fact that this is such a touchy issue that the authors are carefully couching their language, it looks like there may be ways in which this new information can help people by tailoring medical treatments. I'd love a ELI5 explanation of this if I'm somehow misunderstanding, but the conclusion I formed seems to be supported by the article to my reading of it.
Note, I'm not taking a hardline stance. That's why I said "race is not just a social construct" in my conclusion.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#6Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
Biological populations certainly do exist, it's just that they don't correlate well with prevailing concepts of "race". The average western African is more similar to the average European than to the average southern African.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#7Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
How did you come up with that? Did you even understand the article? It is quite literally saying social/cultural changes leave an impact on genetic transcription of DNA through methylation and epigenetic markup. In fact, this proves just the opposite. That social factors are intricately tied to genetic output. What this proves false are the hardliners of each side of the debate that espouse race is a purely social co…
To pick a nit, technically this article demonstrates race is a social construct, but social constructs affect gene expression.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#8Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
Actually the genetic differences between races are far smaller and more blurry than most people would imagine (based on differences in appearance). The Atlantic had an article about exactly the kind of thing you're taking about, and how this kind of pseudoscience is being pushed by neo-nazis and the alt-right: http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510962/
Thanks for once again proving that nobody can ever have a serious discussion about science related to ethnicity because someone will always jump up, point at them, and scream "racist". I wonder if it's occurred to you how many people suffer from medical conditions because they're either untreated or treated poorly because we don't bother studying and reporting on things like this, specifically and exactly because there's a hundred people just waiting in the wings to call you a racist for studying it?
Nothing in the article is racist, nor is anything in my statements. Please take your ad hominem elsewhere.
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#9[deleted]
Re: Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA
#10Looks like the TL;DR conclusion is that "race" is not just a social construct, but actually has genetic markers which are expressed beyond ethnic heritage. As the authors conclude, this could be extremely important in tailoring medical treatments for people for differences in their genetic makeup based on their race. In other words harder sciences are proving that social sciences obsession with identity politics has…
I feel like biological populations can be reduced down to one individual and up to all of humanity. You can attempt to make logical decisions about where to draw these lines in between, but you'll get overlapping populations at different levels given different traits. These epigenetic flags are not dissimilar to genetic traits in that no one, nor group of them unequivocally define an individual into a biological group except if that group is "organisms that express this trait". It definitely won't square cleanly with our social macro-constructions around "race".