Molecularizing Race - Problems with words

                It is comforting to think of language as a tool we use for communication, a vessel that takes the shape of whatever thoughts we fill it with and allows us to more easily pass those thoughts from person to person. It is comforting, but I suspect it is also wrong. The Party in Orwell's 1984 has the right of it: language controls the way you think, not the other way around. It's much harder to think about concepts that you don't know the word for. Conversely, the words you use to present a question can often shape how you interpret the responses.

                The question that Duana Fullwiley seems most concerned about in her article The Molecularization of Race: Institutionalizing Human Difference in Pharmacogenetics Practice is one that we've all undoubtedly seen before, on standardized tests and census forms. "What is your race?", with the general available options being Caucasian, Latino, African American, Native American, Asian American, Other. She's interested in this question in the context of genetics research. Specifically, she looks at how researchers studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the genes for cell membrane transporters use race as “a natural conveyer of human distinction”¹, and why they do so when the belief that there are intrinsic biological differences between races is such an unpopular one.

                To summarize: From these researchers' point of view, there are clearly defined genetic differences (based on SNP frequencies) between groups that self-identify as Caucasian or African American or Asian. This isn't racism; it's just the data they have. Instead of trying to follow political correctness gone mad, acknowledging these differences will allow for the creation of more specific and effective medications for each different genetic profile.

                Through interviews with the researchers themselves, Fullwiley shows that there are issues with their perceived objective use of "race". She notes that, depending on the data set used, the variation of SNP frequencies within racial groups (in this case, Caucasians) can be greater than the differences between racial groups. One researcher observes that, when comparing the statistics from a new data set to those of the previous one, the gene frequencies "have completely changed to the opposite race. Ones that were African American are now Caucasian, and ones that were mostly Caucasian are now African American." Implicit in this is statement is that 1) members of a race should be homogenous with respect to its gene frequencies and 2) there is such thing as an "opposite" race. Both indicate ways of thinking about race that suggest that the researchers are, on some level of consciousness, still operating on the old, non-scientific way of thinking about race.

                Personally, I initially agreed with my summary of the researchers' reasoning. However, after reading Fullwiley's article, I agree that 'race' is probably not the best way to go around categorizing these different groups. The word and the meanings behind it are far too socially determined to be used in a scientific setting. Despite their best efforts, scientists are still subject to the same social biases as everyone else.

¹Fullwiley, Duana (2007) 'The Molecularization of Race: Institutionalizing Human Difference in Pharmacogenetics Practice', Science as Culture, 16:1, p4

²p16