Quoted post unavailable.
Maybe that leveling is itself justice.
Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
11–20 of 92 posts
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#12Quoted post unavailable.
What science in particular is not getting done now, due to the replacement of the term race in scientific papers? Be specific. You seem deeply passionate about this issue, so I'm sure you have plenty of examples.
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#13Quoted post unavailable.
did you read the article?
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#14Quoted post unavailable.
Is this change in scientific language really a matter of political correctness? It seems more like an attempt to increase precision.
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#15Quoted post unavailable.
What science in particular is not getting done now, due to the replacement of the term race in scientific papers? Be specific. You seem deeply passionate about this issue, so I'm sure you have plenty of examples.
Any sort of science which may suggest differences among ethnic groups, regardless of how useful it may be to study those differences.
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#16Quoted post unavailable.
How is this making science worse? It is replacing an objectively broad and misleading word with more precise language.
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#17Quoted post unavailable.
while countries like China overtake us.
It makes one wonder who is really behind this movement. That said, it seems to come from only one direction of the political spectrum, so it's not like there isn't any opposition.
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#18I don't understand how the criticisms in the comment section here are at all related to the actual journal article.
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 (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?
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#19Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers
#20> The decline in usage of “race” reflects how geneticists slowly came to understand race as “a social category with biological consequences,” the team writes in its paper, published today in AJHG.
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.