The trouble with the Human Genome Diversity Project

The Human Genome Diversity Project's initial promotional publications ignored ethnohistory and placed it in a framework that centered on ostensibly isolated and unmixed peoples. It failed to engage the people themselves, talking about them, but not to them; hoping to work on them, not with them. It seemed to be aiming to reconstruct an imaginary pre-Columbian humanity, not to study the human gene pool of the 21st century[1xCall for a worldwide survey of human genetic diversity: A vanishing opportunity for the Human Genome Project. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. et al. Genomics. 1991; 11: 490–491Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (109)See all References[1].The HGDP's explicit goal from the outset has been micro-phylogeny—as its web site2http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/HGDP-FAQ.html22 says, `to see if, for example, the Irish are more closely related to the Spaniards or to the Swedes'. But because those are fluid and culturally bounded categories, there might not be a biological answer to such a biologically sounding question. Genetics are not necessary to infer that the Danes are more closely related to the Dutch than to the Hopi; and for the finer details, genetic studies turn out to be sensitive to the computer program used, the genes analyzed, the specific people chosen, the population size and other historical demographic variables[2xGene frequencies, DNA frequencies, and human origins. Harpending, H. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 1994; 37: 384–394PubMedSee all References[2]. In fact, the track record of genetics in the study of human micro-phylogeny is surprisingly poor[3xThe legacy of serological studies in American physical anthropology. Marks, J. History Philos. Life Sci. 1996; 18: 345–362PubMedSee all References[3]. More importantly, people commonly define themselves in relation to their ancestors. Asking indigenous people to participate in a research program that could prove that their ancestors are not really their ancestors turns out to be both absurd and insulting.Thus the HGDP has promoted other goals, notably biomedical[4xHuman genome diversity project. Weiss, K.M. et al. Evol. Anthropol. 1992; 1: 79–81See all References[4]. Unfortunately, as it is not planning a systematic collection of medical histories or phenotypes to accompany the blood samples, the questions it can actually address are exceedingly restricted (inbreeding within groups, and genetic distances between groups). To study the genetics of diabetes among the Navajo, after all, you need to know which Navajo have diabetes.Finally, after years of HGDP meetings and brainstorming, the panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the HGDP concluded that its supporters could not even `clearly explain the purpose of the project'[5xSee all References[5]. Consistently insensitive to anthropological criticisms, the HGDP has now been poorly received by communities of anthropologists, bioethicists, and indigenes. It has generated such a magnitude of worldwide ill-will that it would best be consigned to the history books.Nevertheless, the collection of data on the human gene pool is intrinsically worthwhile. Accompanied by a standardized battery of medical histories and anthropometric data, they might permit us to approach the genetic basis of both pathological and normal phenotypic variation in our species. With a focus removed from the `isolated', `pure' and `endangered' populations, we might be able to survey the actual structure of genetic variation in our species reliably, and make the project of value to such peoples as African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews. With a less exploitative approach towards the DNA of indigenous peoples, we might still be able to solicit their assistance in studying the breadth of contemporary variation in our species. And with proper attention paid to the ways in which peoples conceptualize their own participation in such a project, we might be able to increase the effectiveness of medical care more generally.Perhaps the most valuable lesson would be the quintessential demonstration that biological human variation is patterned differently from how our racial categories would lead us to believe. It is thus especially sad that, despite a `politically correct' posture, the HGDP's literature has consistently imposed archaic racialized interpretations upon their work—for example, imposing qualitative distinctions upon people by color-coding them as `Africans are yellow, Australians red, [Mongoloids blue,] and Caucasoids green'[6xSee all References[6]and proclaiming that the gene pool of Europeans is composed of 65% African genes (represented by a sample of Pygmy DNA) and 35% Asian (represented by a sample of Chinese DNA)[7xDrift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: a study with DNA polymorphisms. Bowcock, A. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1991; 88: 839–843Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (221)See all References[7]. A research program in which 21st-century technology is applied in a 19th-century framework should simply not be considered fundable. It should be re-thought and reconstituted from top to bottom—hopefully now with more attention paid to the state of anthropological knowledge, the kinds of questions that can be asked and answered, and the rights and welfares of indigenous peoples.