61–70 of 100 posts
>The report offers a decision tree to help researchers choose whether race, ethnicity or indigeneity, geography, genetic ancestry, or genetic similarity are most appropriate for their work.
So, "We can't define 'race' so stop using it in science" is a factually incorrect description of the report and is instead click bait journalism intended incite controversy where none exists.
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 j…
> This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups.. Emphasis added. Race != ethnicity; TFA argues against using the former and suggests using the latter (with other things). > Some of the key recommendations focus on getting rid of the use of race and instead focusing on what the report terms "population descriptors." These can be things like ethnicity, region of residenc…
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.
If you do any kind of clustering on genetic expression data, all kinds of categories much more detailed than racial categories jump out - a good example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_genetic_structur... which shows not only that there are extremely distinct genetic clusters between locations like Europe, China, and America, there are actually highly distinct genetic clusters for each individual European nation - in fact there are even moderately distinct genetic clusters for different geographical areas within a single European nation.
To use the astrology metaphor, the scientific critique would be something like “we need to do away with astrology because months don’t capture the differences - there’s actually significant differences on the level of individual days of birth, even on the level of morning/afternoon/night time of birth”. We take the wrong message from these announcements when we conclude that there’s no differences at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's probably not all that easy to sequence the DNA of study participants when they number in the thousands. Although I guess you only have to do it once per person.
Turn back, lest this comment section become a graveyard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 make…
That sounds like contrived rubbish me. Yes we can pluck a dozen Germans off the street and you might find 5 different eye colours, 6 hair colours, a range of 30 IQ points, a priest and a thug, and over a foot between the tallest and shortest. Yet show me a picture of any of them and I am confident I could roughly point to the region in Europe where their ancestors have toiled for the last thousand generations. Put th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups.. Emphasis added. Race != ethnicity; TFA argues against using the former and suggests using the latter (with other things). > Some of the key recommendations focus on getting rid of the use of race and instead focusing on what the report terms "population descriptors." These can be things like ethnicity, region of residenc…
Image you've got a black patient in front of you and you're choosing between two drugs. One of the drugs has a greater risk of nasty side affects for the black patient. Which drug do you give the patient? Should the research that tells you which drug to give be banned?
Such research is not being banned or proposed to be banned- in fact, there's a lot more interest now in understanding the relationship between genetic history and response to disease, but the work is still fairly primitive.
we can't define "night" either.
comments like yours don't add much value to discussions about race.
we can't define "night" either.
Where does a color stop being yellow and start being green? This is the classic lumping and splitting debate. It's obvious that the mere existence of multuple options for lumping and splitting doesn't imply there are no meaningful distinctions to be made. I dislike this obvious and offensive dishonesty. We can define race quite easily: A race is a largely endogamous extended family group. But but but that means you c…
_PC_analysis.png){kind=link}