Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#41

Post by ofTheFountain »

nharada wrote: post #18

I 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…

Yea as a biologists who's done some genetic research this isn't about wokeness (though I don't think that's necessarily bad anyway).

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?

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#43

Post by adolph »

nefitty wrote: post #22
CryptoPunk wrote: post #4

Absolutely absurd, and shows how politicized by the state, and its official ideology, science has become. It reminds me of this example of life immitating satire: https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/142161970031280947...

This is sort of like when doctors prescribe ibuprofen without explaining the research backing their decision. Are these decisions based on research or purely ideology? 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…

> suddenly feeling really fucking alone on the plane of authority.

Maybe you are in fact alone on a plane you call authority.

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#44

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Maursault wrote: post #33
kenneth wrote: post #6

Quoted post unavailable.

It has nothing to do with political correctness or wokitude, science bra. There's simply no genetic basis for "race." All humans today have 99.9% identical DNA, with an extraordinary lack of genetic variation compared to that in other species. There is no person on the planet that is a further relation to you than about 37th cousin. Ever seen race used for differentiation in other animal? Race is a recent invention,…

Plus race is malleable, and the definition of ‘whiteness’ has shifted over time. https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/noel-ignatievs-lon...

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#45

Post by wrp »

civilized wrote: post #26
nharada wrote: post #18

I 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…

Yeah, I'm really not following all the talk of "wokeness" here. Race is a social category that often says something about your ancestry, and about certain traits like skin color and statistical predisposition to certain genetic diseases. But ancestry is the actual genetically meaningful thing. So why would we want researchers to use the outdated concept of race? Is it woke to prefer oxygen to phlogiston?

"Race" when referring to humans is equivalent to "breed" when referring to animals. Both terms, as used in biology, refer to groupings of heritable traits. Is "breed" an invalid concept because a Poodle can mate with a Labrador?

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#46

Post by [deleted] »

nharada wrote: post #18

I 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…

[deleted]

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#47

Post by subroutine »

When I was a pd in a genomics lab, I took notice of these debates on twitter. I was curious to understand why "race" was a term some people were adamant should be recognized in almost all contexts except for genetics. From what I've gleaned, it's because people loath the idea of biological factors setting constraints on personal identity. I get it. The same debate has transformed scientific vernacular wrt. sex/gender. And I'm ok with changing the verbiage to whatever people are comfortable with, and if it adds more precision to what scientists are referencing. The terms do not change what is observed in the lab- People with certain genotypes tend to cluster into very distinct observable phenotypes, with regard to ancestry and sex. For example, here are the first 3 principal components plotted from one of the largest genomic data repos available...

https://youtu.be/iegYpOG6mQI

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#48

Post by CryptoPunk »

bytelines wrote: post #27
CryptoPunk wrote: post #4

Absolutely absurd, and shows how politicized by the state, and its official ideology, science has become. It reminds me of this example of life immitating satire: https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/142161970031280947...

>Human geneticists have mostly abandoned the word “race” when describing populations in their papers, according to a new study of research published in a leading genetics journal. That’s in line with the current scientific understanding that race is a social construct, and a welcome departure from research that in the past has often conflated genetic variation and racial categories, says Vence Bonham, a social scient…

Race being a social construct is an idea of social justice ideology, not of science. Race as a category is incredibly useful for science, and using it is standard practice in forsensic investigations for example.

Re: Human geneticists curb use of the term ‘race’ in their papers

#49

Post by nefitty »

vmception wrote: post #25
nefitty wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what confuses me. Some people say race is a construct, but then why do ads for sickle cell medicine only have black actors in them? 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 a…

what they're trying to convey is that certain phenotypes have correlations to an overly broad construct, and with your example it is only showing that certain debilitating evolutionary paths are correlated or exclusively within a subset of people with those phenotypes not that hard, to me, let me know when you get there though

You're being unnecessarily condescending when my comment was sincere and inviting of new information. I'm not really sure what you intended to accomplish with that last line, except making yourself feel superior to a stranger online who hasn't read some book or taken some class you have?
Post reply on HN