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

61–70 of 92 posts

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

#61

Post by nefitty »

adolph wrote: post #43
nefitty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To clarify, I meant that as a figure of speech. As in, there's different contexts of reality that individuals can look to, for example family, work, etc. On my personal view of the context of authority figures, it seems to be more and more vacant as time goes on. I did not mean I'm physically in an airplane. Sorry for the mix up.

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

#62

Post by _od5n »

sbelskie wrote: post #59
_od5n wrote: post #50

Quoted post unavailable.

From your link: > However, a large genome-wide association study has failed to find any large or statistically significant effects of the MAOA gene on aggression.[47] A separate GWAS on antisocial personality disorder likewise did not report a significant effect of MAOA.[48] Another study, while finding effects from a candidate gene search, failed to find any evidence in a large GWAS.[46] A separate analysis of human…

From the same link:

>In humans, an association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found. The VNTR 2R allele of MAOA has been found to be a risk factor for violent delinquency, when present in association with stresses, i.e. family issues, low popularity or failing school.[36][37][38][11]

If any experts in this field are available to explain the discrepancy, I'd love to hear from them.

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

#63

Post by cheese_van »

ofTheFountain wrote: post #41
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, no…

Yes, "race" for geneticists is an imprecise term and in that field there is a growing need for a better descriptor.

Now for cops, or social workers, or everyday speech, race may be just the perfect term - morphology is important to their work, and will remain important. But geneticists are concerned with more than morphology, or appearance.

I don't believe there is a linguistic threat here to everyday speech, or a threat to how we refer to each others appearance. But in genetics, race as a scientific term is in need of improvement - and that is what the article is acknowledging.

I'm not sure I would impute a "woke" angle here.

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

#64

Post by nefitty »

vmception wrote: post #51
nefitty wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

yeah you’re right, so without that last line what do you think its not supposed to be new information, its supposed to deconstruct that people in the largest continent on the planet have the most genetic diversity and only chose/were forced to group together for shared representation after noticing they all got a shitty parallel experience in some other continents the same concept applies to other groups that happen…

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks for acknowledging my criticism of your comment and clarifying your idea.

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

#65

Post by _od5n »

rectang wrote: post #56
_od5n wrote: post #50

Quoted post unavailable.

"Created equal" doesn't mean cloned. Even in the 18th century nobody would have thought that. It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are. With a different version of "created equal…

>It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are.

What does "an equal share of governance" mean? The question right now isn't enfranchisement, it's whether racial groups-- or ancestral groups, or ethnic cateories-- should have forced proportional representation in things like college admissions, med school admissions, or criminal arrest rates. The assumption put forth by self-labeled antiracists is that disproportionate representation is by itself evidence of racism. That's their core axiom, and it totally ignores signficant heritable (or cultural or environmental) differences between groups. It's an inherently disingenuous ideology, as nobody complains about the overrepresentation of NFL players with African ancestry, for example, but it's an idea with a whole lot of capital behind it.

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

#66

Post by CryptoPunk »

bytelines wrote: post #60
CryptoPunk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Race being a social construct is an idea of social justice ideology, not of science. Source?

From 2007, when this dogma was still not dominant across the scientific disciplines:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832348

>>Sociological literature frequently claims that scientists across the disciplinary spectrum have arrived at the common conclusion that race is socially constructed, not biologically anchored. I investigate contemporary scientific thinking about race by interviewing more than 40 biologists and anthropologists at four northeastern universities. Contrary to sociologists' expectations, racial constructionism is revealed to be a minority viewpoint. Moreover, this research shows that the usual “constructionist” versus “essentialist” dichotomy a blunt tool for characterizing the debate about race; a third platform—“antiessentialism”—must be taken into account. Recognizing antiessentialist discourse calls for a reevaluation of prior research that emphasizes socioeconomic status and professional affiliation as influences on interviewees' concepts of race; this project demonstrates that such tectors do little to distinguish essentialist from antiessentialist veiwpoints.

The very fact that this satire account repeatedly predicts the course taken by the scientific and academic establishment tells us that ideology is the dominant guiding force of the process:

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/133997795950822604...

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

#67

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

I suppose the article is well-intentioned but in terms of genetic diversity and skin color, the actual history of human evolution on the African continent is far more complex than that indicates. There's a fascinating paper using modern DNA methods about this, from 2017, published in Science. It's behind a paywall as is the associated perspective but this is a good discussion with the links:

> "Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.h...

> "Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race."

> "Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may never have been found outside of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa."

Basically, in genetics today it's about phylogenetics, which "utilizes cladistic methods to construct phylogenetic trees based directly on morphological and molecular data." From this viewpoint 'African' is not a meaningful group relative to 'Asian' or 'European', which may themselves not be very meaningful groups either, in terms of biological descent and actual genetic relatedness within and without these supposed groups.

Another truly fascinating aspect of that study is this suggestion, pigment alteration:

> ""Our results suggest there must be some kind of as-yet-uncharacterized form of cross-talk between lysosomes and the melanosomes that make eumelanins," Marks said. "Figuring out how this works might provide new ideas for ways to manipulate skin pigmentation for therapeutic means."

Imagine the consternation and issues surrounding the introduction of something like retroviral gene therapy which altered an individual's pigmentation. People who suffered sunburn easily might benefit greatly, but I can imagine certain controversies arising from such technology.

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

#68

Post by alphabettsy »

_od5n wrote: post #65
rectang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Created equal" doesn't mean cloned. Even in the 18th century nobody would have thought that. It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are. With a different version of "created equal…

>It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are. What does "an equal share of governance" mean? The question right now isn't enfranchisement, it's whether racial groups-- or ancestral…

I’d prefer if people like yourself were forthcoming with what you’re ultimately advocating for instead of pretending to entertain honest intellectual discussion using tired “scientific” propaganda.

From my experience people belonging to a certain group of concerned citizenry seem to be complaining about over-representation of black people in the NFL quite regularly.

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

#69

Post by rectang »

_od5n wrote: post #65
rectang wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Created equal" doesn't mean cloned. Even in the 18th century nobody would have thought that. It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are. With a different version of "created equal…

>It means that regardless of whether you are an athletic prodigy, someone with developmental disabilities, or anybody else, you are deserving of equal share in governance — in contrast with aristocracy where some are considered more worthy to rule over others by dint of who they are. What does "an equal share of governance" mean? The question right now isn't enfranchisement, it's whether racial groups-- or ancestral…

> What does "an equal share of governance" mean?

To use the Enlightenment terminology of the time, it's that each person has the same "Natural Rights" per John Locke. Another popular way of putting it was "Equal before God". Again, this is in contrast to e.g. the divine right of kings. And it was practically expressed (for white male land owners) at the dawn of the U.S.A in terms of an equal franchise.

> It's an inherently disingenuous ideology,

Well, you're starting from the bogus notion that "created equal" meant genetically equivalent ("more or less"); you might consider grappling with that before worrying about whether others are disingenuous.

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

#70

Post by netizen-936824 »

cheese_van wrote: post #63
ofTheFountain wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, no…

Yes, "race" for geneticists is an imprecise term and in that field there is a growing need for a better descriptor. Now for cops, or social workers, or everyday speech, race may be just the perfect term - morphology is important to their work, and will remain important. But geneticists are concerned with more than morphology, or appearance. I don't believe there is a linguistic threat here to everyday speech, or a th…

Does the color of an organism fall under the study of morphology? I don't believe it does. Nor do I believe race is a good term for anyone to use, partially because its entirely subjective. A good example of this is that in the US, a person can be considered black if they have African (or otherwise considered black) ancestry anywhere in their genetic history, even if the rest of their ancestors would have been considered "white"

On top of this subjectivity we have the historical baggage and oppression, so it would be best to move away from race as currently used. We are all part of one race, the human race. We need to stop splitting ourselves into in/out groups because that only holds us back.

Post reply on HN