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

National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#31

Post by FabrosoFernan »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #6

“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…

That doesn't even make sense. Nobody believes that "race" is the cause of phenotypic differences between groups, it's the outcome of it. It's a useful, albeit broad, term to distinguish distinct populations of people who, over many generations, have genetically converged within their own group and genetically diverged from others.

Why must they lie?

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#32

Post by klodolph »

tomp wrote: post #24
drewcon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I defy you to describe race in certain terms.

try googling " person face" where is "white", "asian" or "black" and you get pretty representative results of what people mean by "race". (same if you do "dog breed" for example)

That’s not useful in a scientific context. Kind of like trying to come up with a test to see if someone is “crazy”. “Crazy” is not a diagnostic term, you wouldn’t split crazy and non-crazy people in a scientific context. What you would do is, for example, consider a group of people who have experienced psychotic episodes, or people who experience persecutory delusions. Those terms, while not perfectly precise, are at least repeatable and well-understood.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#33

Post by dekhn »

tristor wrote: post #21

> Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. Would it not be correct to state that "race" is a social construction intended as a stand-in to identify sets of interconnected factors which impact a particular population, such as historical, social, and biological? Is the issue that the word "race" has too much bagg…

Race is a proxy measure that weakly correlates with genetic history. Seems easier to just use the direct measure which can be determined with high accuracy (identity by descent through DNA sequencing).

I think the problem is that race is so deeply embedded in people's minds that even scientists who try to be objective struggle to disentangle theories from their preconcieved notions.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#34

Post by ZeroGravitas »

For such a flimsy concept, race is surprisingly stubborn and resilient.

Already a few people saying yeah it's not perfect but it's a rough approximation.

No, that's the whole point, it's not. It's astrology level science. There's no there there.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#35

Post by sjducb »

This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups have different risks and complications.

This article describes how members of different ethnic groups have different complications in pregnancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7290488/

Here is a review about how race affects Adverse Drug Experiences (In response to commonly prescribed drugs), published in the journal of ethnic and racial health disparities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-015-0101-3

Sure it would be better to sequence each person's genome to accurately place them on the spectrum of human genetic diversity, but that's not practical in a hospital or emergency setting.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#36

Post by klodolph »

FabrosoFernan wrote: post #31
dr_dshiv wrote: post #6

“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…

That doesn't even make sense. Nobody believes that "race" is the cause of phenotypic differences between groups, it's the outcome of it. It's a useful, albeit broad, term to distinguish distinct populations of people who, over many generations, have genetically converged within their own group and genetically diverged from others. Why must they lie?

That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups.

There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which makes it very difficult (at best) to come up with some kind of genetic criteria for defining race.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#37

Post by naasking »

klodolph wrote: post #18
naasking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.

“Race” is significantly more fuzzy than “species”. There are edge cases where people will argue where to draw lines between species. However, it’s profoundly challenging to draw lines between “races” in the first place.

Can you quantify how significant the fuzziness has to be before it should not be subject to analysis? Species is a lot fuzzier than you think.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#39

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

pessimizer wrote: post #25
naasking wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.

If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?

If we go with this argument how much of biology becomes humanities?

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#40

Post by blahblah1234567 »

This is a classic, textbook example of entryism. It's happening to tons of institutions, including science & medical institutions, in the USA.

"Entryism (also called entrism, enterism, or infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism

Post reply on HN