What do I do now?

This week’s response for me is deeply reflective of how to situate my own work in connection to this week’s readings. Therefore, I will avoid a summation of the articles because I acutely understand each author’s claims, even Wagner’s book (which I will not reference). The wheels in my brain are really working because I’m simply….confused. I’ve always been well keenly aware of that race is a social construction. I became even more engaged with the literature on race construction after taking an undergraduate course called, “Race and Racism-Myths and Realities”. This course took me through a close historical analysis of race throughout anthropology. I became proficient in understanding Carolus Linneaus, Sameul Morton, and many other physical anthropologist, eugenicist, naturalist, and craniometrist that built multiple theories of racial inferiority based on biological factors. What the course didn’t introduce were the meanings and underpinnings of race in genomic research. Now, in my first year as a socio-cultural PhD student, I don’t know what to do now with the literature on race, given my deep interest in race and health.  I keenly understand that much of my work will delve into the socio-cultural, environmental, political and behavioral meanings/understandings/differences/navigations/ of race & health. However, how will I engage with the clinical and scientific world that uses race to quantify differences genetically? How will I identify “black” and “latino” participants in my research? How will I engage in conversations with bench scientist in their lack of racial diversity in clinical trials? Does their work even necessitate diversity outside of a politically affixed economy?

Last week, in discussion with a scientist about ALS, he stated that he didn’t think black people got ALS. He said that there was a genetic disposition related to their (blacks) predisposition of diabetes that influenced their incidence of ALS (and was even developing a paper about it). I was stunned then and I’m even more stunned now after learning more the role of genetics in disease related research.   Soo-Jinn, Mountain, Koenig wrote, “Good science preclude the naïve use of race” (68). Because I knew that race was social constructed and ALS has no known etiology at this time, one of my framing questions for grad school is: Where are all the black and Latino people with ALS? How will I conduct my research when the ALS community here at WUSTL believes that blacks have a genetically predisposition not to get ALS? The bottom line is that race matters. Race matters not just from a social justice framework of who  we are and why race/racism exist but in understanding why diseases have become racialized and what it means to be a black man with ALS.   Bolnick et al. really challenged my understanding on why genetic testing is needed and how scientist/STS studies are influenced by this research. There are perilous challenges that come from genetic testing and how does the scientist fit into this multi-layered understanding of genetic testing. Should we trust Henry Louis Gates, Finding Your Roots? This article developed drew out my cynicism towards the necessity of his work in genetic ancestry. He’s an English PhD, what can he tell me about the 1% of my DNA? So many questions…so many critiques…so little time…I've got some serious reading to do. 

Random note to self: One thing that I will definitely have to do in my research is formally define: race, ethnicity, culture, and ancestry. I will have to define them historically but presently as well in the boundaries of my research. Soo-Jinn, Mountain, Koenig wrote, “Despite its ubiquity race has yet to be explicitly defined”. My research necessitates a clear definition of race, culture, ethnicity, and ancestry so that my work is not “arm chair anthropology” and is not politicized.