This post is an expansion of a previous comment of mine concerning another post addressing the questions raised by Duana Fullwiley in her article "The Molecularization of Race."
In her article, Dr. Fullwiley discusses what she believes to be an alarming trend in the fields of biology and biomedical science. She discusses the recent biological evidence that disposes of many popular conceptions of race as well as many racist beliefs in innate differences between individuals of different skin tones and outward morphological appearances. This research pertains to analysis of genetic variance within populations and between populations via study of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). She further describes new research into pharmaceutical inventions tailored to meet the requirement of different races. As such, she interprets this new trend as a re-racialization of science rather than a progressive step in treatment of illness, because, in her interpretation, assuming that race plays a role in biology is to assume that there is biological merit to the concept of race.
While I do share many of her concerns, I think that Dr. Fullwiley is mistaken in her views that this research is damaging and in her interpretations of different conversations she has had with researchers. I shall begin with her views on researcher's classifications, their perceived simplicity, and with what I believe to be a misconception on the part of Dr. Fulliwiley (which arrises not because of any particular motive, but because of her background in anthropology rather than population genetics). Dr. Fullwiley determines that researchers make race simplistic by their construction of broad categories. This is true. Humans do not fall into distinct racial categories such as "white," "black," "Asian, "African American," and so forth. She discusses how scientists lack an understanding of historical events (such as slavery) and, by mis-categorizing subjects, fall back into racist ideals. I think that Dr. Fullwiley points out a valid weakness of categorizing humans. However, over simplification is inherent in science. The concept of species in an over simplification. Individuals are unique. These researchers make oversimplifications not malice, but our of necessity. This is not a justification of racism, but a fact of research. Future research could be improved by more extensive questioning of subjects concerning their background, but that is beyond the scope of these initial studies.
Next, I believe that Dr. Fullwiley makes a mistake in assuming that the admission of race is a bad thing. Race exists. It is a cultural phenomenon, not a justification for prejudice. Biologically speaking, race (as defined by differences in morphology, especially concerning skin color) is the result of human occupying different environments and adapting as needed (consider elevation, UV light, etc.). The danger of this admission is that certain people would seek to use genetics to suggest that different populations are superior based on genetic differences. This is wrong, and is accepted as such as variation of genes not specific to skin pigment and other outward phenotypic traits is highly variable within populations defined under racial terms, even more so than between those populations.
With these considerations in mind, I think Dr. Fullwiley, as a cultural anthropologist, misinterprets population genetics ideas. She assumes that the admission of race gives credence to racism, even if the scientists themselves have no motives to such. She further uses these scientists' lack of knowledge on race as evidence that they are misguided. I think that researchers have difficulty articulating concepts of race as race is such a confusing, arbitrary and misunderstood concept, one which people secretly think about but never dare discuss. These scientists, in my understanding, use race in a population genetic sense. That is to say, race is used as a means of creating systems of mating, which, in term define population demes. Within demes, different genetic traits will arise and spread. This will lead to differences between sub-populations, perhaps defined by outwards appearance. However, this would be the same result of individuals living in different areas. Admission of race as it pertains to human mating is not scientifically correct. Using it to justify hatred is. However, these scientists are not saying that certain populations are more deficient than others. They are attempting to characterize different demes. It just so happens that humans outside the lab happen to choose mates within their so called race more often than not.
The fact that different populations may have have higher prevalences of certain alleles is not to suggest that racism is justified. Nor does if re-racialize biology. Even with overall variation higher within groups (perhaps defined by cultural standards of race, but more accurately define by systems of mating), specific alleles may be more prevalent. As such, targeted medicine is beneficial. Medicine itself acts on the individual. The research Dr. Fullwiley surveys is the beginning of a movement of medicine that might use genetics of individuals to tailor treatment. It mist be said at this point that correlations between skin color and disease mean nothing to the individual. Either the individual has the disease and the genetics surrounding it or she does not. However, if statistically categorizing a person as being more likely to have a specific trait is beneficial to her treatment, it is the right thing to do. But, as correlations between skin color and disease mean nothing to the individual, genetics and race cannot be used for prejudice.
Dr. Fullwiley fears that using race is dangerous. This is true. People can certainly be bigoted. They can misuse facts to justify fiction. However, the fact is that race is involved in our lives, even if it is originally merely a cultural construct. This is true culturally and biologically. There is no justification for racism, but there is use for the knowledge that humans use race to make choices about reproduction. This affects the genetics of our populations and our diseases. However, statistics never affect the individual. They merely allow scientists a means to direct future research and treatment for when the individual does fall within the statistically determined category. In no way is this inherently evil. The only evil is in how people with motives decide to spin facts to meet their agenda, which is not a problem with science but with people.
No comments:
Post a Comment