So-called “biological” conceptions of race make for bad science, Watson’s genes edition September 7, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Science, bigotry, race.trackback
[For context on this post, you should check out here and here.]
I’ve repeatedly argued that the biological conception of race has almost nothing in common with the social conception of race, and therefore that trying to apply scientific concepts to human populations is at best a flawed endeavor, and at worse a flimsy justification of racism.
But while I do know a lot about social constructions of race, I’m no expert on biology. So it’s wonderful to hear from my favorite pit bull loving science blogger, ERV:
Venter compared his CYP450 genes to James ‘Africans are dumb’ Watsons CYP450 genes.
Two white guys.
Venter has the ‘white guy’ alleles.
Watson has, ahem, ‘not white guy’ alleles. heh.
Venters point? Prescribing drugs based on ‘appearance’ of race is stupid. A ‘white’ person like James Watson can have ‘Asian’ CYP450 genes. ‘Black’ people from Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe can have different CYP450 profiles.
Read the whole thing. Amazing, isn’t it? Some people look white, yet have genetic markers not associated with white people? Other people look black and don’t have typically African genes. It’s almost like what we mean when we say “race” is based on factors other than biology.
All of which is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
For applying the concept of race, especially from a genetic perspective, I was impressed when I came across Lewontin’s fallacy and its refutation. To me, this supports the idea that different human subgroups are distinct on some level, even though those differences may be minuscule.
Of course, these distinctions are being erased with the advent of global travel (the world becoming smaller and all), and so-called interracial marriages. And many people make the false assumption that because others are different from them, they are inferior. But, strictly speaking, genetic differences appear consistent in native populations of humans when you consider multiple loci and/or multiple traits collectively.
But, strictly speaking, genetic differences appear consistent in native populations of humans when you consider multiple loci and/or multiple traits collectively.
Yes. Absolutely. My point is that genetic differences do not correspond to what people mean when they say “race” in our societal conversations. Variation between populations definitely exists. It just doesn’t correspond to our understandings of race.