The Molecularization of Race

The history of the field of anthropology was scattered with individuals who had a strong desire to classify human beings.  At the time, political correctness was essentially a non-issue and so in creating different racial groups, anthropologists were trying to use these classifications to justify racial superiority.  However, as times have changed and genetic technology has demonstrated the nearly identical genetic patterns between humans regardless of race, so has the use (and importance) of racial categorizations in scientific study.
The Molecularization of Race, by Duana Fullwiley takes readers to the modern day, supposedly light-years away from times when racial classification was deemed as critical amongst respected scientists.  Fullwiley welcomes readers into the world of scientists whose work challenges the idea that racial categorization’s use in the scientific realm is part of our country’s past.  These scientists specifically study people of different races in order to look for genetic variations outside of populations.  Multiple problems arise with this.  First is the issue of: what is a race, and how many are there?  Scientists interviewed in the article seem to struggle with agreeing on a solid definition and ways to best categorize race in their laboratories.  Even within their own personal lives, there was discomfort regarding the subject- as one scientists said, she did not like having to classify herself as one pure race on documentation.  A second major issue is: how does using racial constructs in laboratories influence both the scientists’ and societal views on race?  Throughout the article, Fullwiley quoted and gave examples of how using race in experiments seemed to bring us back to a time when racial categorization was used to promote superior races and discriminate against other races.  For instance, the word blood ‘purity’ comes up frequently, suggesting that there is a racial pureness that science strives to seek out (those who were not pure were not scientifically valuable).  Another example is described when Fullwiley notes a scientist suggesting that ‘black’ and ‘white’ are opposites, as if there is a spectrum of races from good to bad.  While the way the scientists are thinking suggests that using race in experiments promotes racist mentalities that were common many years ago, I don’t mean to pick on scientists as racist.  I can see how easy it must be for scientists who work with DNA to not even recognize that there is a human behind the gene they study.  However, it is crucial for them to take a step back from their research every once in a while to remember that what they try to categorize in scientific terms is actually adding to the discourse about race, and helping shape policies that affect various racial groups within the country.  Furthermore, by their use of various racial classifications to suggest differences amongst humans, they are giving everyday Americans further ammunition to believe that various races are different, rather than everyone just being Homo sapiens.