Washing away your sins: threatened morality and physical cleansing
Authors: Katie Liljenquist
Chen-Bo Zhong
Journal: Science (2006)
Discipline: Multidisciplinary
Keywords: Physical cleansing; religious ceremonies; bodily purity; moral purity; Macbeth effect
Affiliations: Department of Organizational Behavior and HR Management, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada. 

Abstract:  Physical cleansing has been a focal element in religious ceremonies for thousands of years. The prevalence of this practice suggests a psychological association between bodily purity and moral purity. In three studies, we explored what we call the "Macbeth effect"-that is, a threat to one's moral purity induces the need to cleanse oneself. This effect revealed itself through an increased mental accessibility of cleansing-related concepts, a greater desire for cleansing products, and a greater likelihood of taking antiseptic wipes. Furthermore, we showed that physical cleansing alleviates the upsetting consequences of unethical behavior and reduces threats to one's moral self-image. Daily hygiene routines such as washing hands, as simple and benign as they might seem, can deliver a powerful antidote to threatened morality, enabling people to truly wash away their sins. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 The notion that,  The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed humans are 99.9% identical at the DNA level and there is no genetic basis for race.  , is something I have read before, but does not make a lot of sense. The HGP was not examining human diversity, but trying to get a  consensus human genome--and was mostly based on a few people of recent european descent. The referenced 2003 paper makes no mention of the numbers 99.9 or words race (except in talking about an parallel with the  space race ). Not saying race=genetics, but this is pretty sloppy reasoning to start a paper with. , 
 Depending on how you count structural variants, humans can be said to be 0.1-0.6% different from each other  at the DNA level . However, that s 4.1 million to 5.0 million sites. ([1000 Genomes, 2015] ) Humans can also be said to be 1.23% different from chimpanzee  at the DNA level . [Suntsova (2020)] : Human specific single nucleotide alterations constitute ~1.23% of our genome. This value was found by directly comparing human with chimpanzee genomes. It was very close to the previous theoretical estimate of 1.2% calculated using average divergence rate for autosomes, for the time of human and chimpanzee ancestoru2019s divergence. In the human populations, ~86% of all human specific single nucleotide alterations is fixed and the rest 14% is polymorphic. Remarkably, the lowest and the highest human-chimpanzee nucleotide sequence divergences, 1.0 and 1.9%, respectively, were detected in the chromosomes X and Y. Also: These findings clearly suggest that the current version of the human genome assembly can lack nearly 10% of the genome information. --- Of course, none of that can support Duello s preconceived notion of  race as a social construct . The data that they present is moderately interesting: 9.3% penetration of  race as a social construct into  genetic studies categorized as clinical trials . As a general point, the authors seem unaware of cluster analyses of human genomes and of the differences in target allele frequencies between populations in GWAS. Other than that, I don t think a detailed review is warranted for a public health paper that criticises vocabulary and direction of human genomics. But here are some highlights: However, the species Homo sapiens cannot be further subdivided into subspecies which are physically and genetically different. However, they can be and are routinely subdivided into invariant groups which are physically and genetically different. Whether to call those groups subspecies, races, ethnicities, ancestral populations, clusters or whatever else is insubstantial. The report of a 2:1 black white mortality rate due to heart failure at age 35 to 74 was an erroneous calculation as it does not take into account that 71% of Caucasian American mortality due to heart failure occurred after age 74. When corrected, the ratio was approximately 1.1:1. I haven t looked into it, but, naturally, you would want to compare the rate of organ failure within the same age groups. And if the results differ drastically, aggregating them is not a *correction*. In the absence of a stated rationale or proffered evolutionary explanations in the papers reviewed, we infer the authors of these studies believe African ancestry denotes a biological u2018raceu2019 of people of common descent who share DNA **unique** from the rest of mankind. **Presumably they do not accept that all people who populate the earth today had common ancestors who migrated out of Africa 30,000-50,000 years ago** or that common ancestors did migrate, but subsequently isolated to form distinct evolutionary lineages with distinct gene sequences that differentiate u2018whiteu2019 from u2018blacku2019 disease. Presumably the authors wish every paper to start with  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal or a similar semi-religious creed. A cline in what is present day Turkey had a different allele frequency from a cline in present day China or India, even if all of the occupants are considered Asian. Considered by whom? Thus, it is impossible to specify a specific allele or an allele frequency that would typify u2018African ancestryu2019 for 1.3 billion Africans on the African continent or 45 million African Americans in the United States. But it s still possible to specify ~15 such alleles that would distinguish those populations from the rest of the world with over 99% accuracy. ([Kodaman et al., 2012] ) Thus, if authors use African ancestry as a genetic category or as a proxy for a genetic category, it implies that a mutation in a direct ancestor occurred at a specific point in time and this allele was inherited by everyone who shares anywhere from 1 to 99% African ancestry and u2018self-identifiesu2019 as having African heritage. This is the genetic version of the one-drop rule [76]. 76. US. Census Bureau. census.gov Even if u2018raceu2019 were used as a proxy, it is not clear how the findings of genetic studies of fewer than 500 participants of u2018self-identifiedu2019 African ancestry could be generalized to everyone of African descent. Nor can statistical significance be equated with clinical significance given the host of societal and environmental factors which impact expression of a symptom or disease. None of the papers reviewed address when this hypothetical mutation in direct ancestors took place, such that all black people are genetically similar with the same propensities to certain diseases unique from other u2018racesu2019. There is not a plausible explanation. In fact, social determinants of poor health - primarily income, education, occupation u2013 are largely responsible for the majority of biological outcomes that impact black and brown people as the result of poor air, water, food, soil, and housing quality. No reference given. As stated above, the majority of the health disparities experienced by African Americans are due to social determinants of health Then in 1986 the NIH issued guidelines encouraging inclusion of women in clinical research as historically women were underrepresented in studies and clearly differed biologically from white men on whom most medical research had been conducted [78]. In 1989 NIH expanded the guidelines calling for the inclusion of both women and minorities in clinical research, absent an explanation that minorities did not differ biologically from white men [79]. Thus, an assumption among scientists and physicians was perpetuated that people of color, like women, are biologically different from white men. Here we would encourage extreme caution against the selection of expanded data categories where the causes, effects, and answers are not in the primary DNA sequence. Unfortunately, that requires having preconceived answers, which is not exactly a scientific method. Table 4 lists issues to be remedied by individual investigators as well as issues to be remedied at the systemic level. The first step for individuals in either group is to re-examine and question their own individual beliefs and assumptions as to what race is and is not, the same exercise the entire nation is facing. The biomedical community must get its own house in order before it can hope to educate the public and restore the much-needed public trust of science. Amen. ,