The Social Uses of DNA Readings

In The Meanings of “Race” in the New Genomics, DNA testing was approached with some  weariness, specifically as it relates to the conceptualization of race. Race has been an important variable of interest in the field of genomics due to health disparities in the US, but Lee, Mountain and Koenig make the important distinction between “race” and “racialized” groups. One implies a biological basis while the other emphasizes the social construction of these categories, although the effects of these constructions are just as real as if they were biologically determined. The authors urge scientists and policy makers to not conflate the two and to not use genomics to reinforce these man-made divisions that have a long history of stigmatizing and hurting certain groups. They acknowledge that this is a challenge: to fight inequity, certain attention has to be drawn to these racialized categories, thereby increasing the risk of legitimizing these categories. Their recommendation is to avoid pre-established frameworks of race when possible, and acknowledge the historical contingency of race when it’s necessary to discuss the disparities caused by them

Similarly, in “The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing,” some doubt is cast on the utility of DNA testing, both for its efficacy/accuracy and its social implications. Bolnick et al. summarize the problem as: “Commercially available tests of genetic ancestry have significant scientific limitations, but are serious matters for many test-takers.” This combination of low “scientific value” and high “social value” means that individuals could be re-evaluating their entire identities based on reductive and uncertain science. The authors warn that to build an industry on these risks is misleading at best and immoral at worst, and encourages the scientific community to take a stronger stance on companies making these claims.

To Know Where He Lies : DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica's Missing approaches DNA testing in a different context: that of a post-war region, after mass murder. In July 1995, thousands of Muslim Bosniak boys and men who had being living in the safe-zone of Srebrenica were forced out and executed by Bosnian Serb forces. Their remains were buried in mass graves, then exhumed and reburied in secondary mass graves, making identification almost impossible--that is, without innovations in DNA testing. This first half of the book sets the scene of post-war Srebrenica, one in which primarily female survivors have to navigate the aftermath of immense personal loss. It’s hinted that the identification of deceased family members will play an important role in reconstructing individual lives and the community at large. Unlike the other two articles, DNA testing here is used to identify specific individuals, rather than classify individuals into broader, socially determined groups. I think this is why Wagner seems to have a more positive opinion of it as she traces the impact of identification on survivors.