Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 7

message: this is a New York Times article from here: http://webdev.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/ppa730%20786/5-Pops.htm
I have emboldened the parts which support my contention that this article should be split.
Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
By NICHOLAS WADE
Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.
The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.
The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body. 
"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report. 
The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.
The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.
Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive"  said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.
Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.
"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.
The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.
The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.
But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small  degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.
Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.
Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."
But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.
"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of  genetic analysis is going to be," he said.'''
Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.
The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of  contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."
Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.
But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.
"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.
:So what?  All of the points of view expressed in the above article are dealt with in greater detail and with greater nuance in the Wikipedia article. Slrubenstein
::Mr Rubenstein, now you are simply lying. Nowhere in the article does it say "Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas". Nowhere does it say testing has "essentially confirmed the popular conception of race". Nowhere does it say that even sociologists have admitted that sociologists don't have the competence to judge the genetics. It fact the general tone of the article runs counter to these facts
:Mr. 195, calm down, no need to get hysterical.  If you slow down and actually read what I wrote you will see that I wrote that all the points of view are dealt with, not that all the "points."  The last two paragraphs of the "overview" of the article make it clear that some scientists use the term race in the way you do, and also makes it clear that genetically varied populations exist.  The difference between population and race is not semantic, it is substantive, by the way.  Didn't you read the quote from Dr. Goodman?  It is after all in the same article you seem to consider authoritative.  Also, it is not a fact that testing has not confirmed the popular conception of race; what is a fact is that Dr. Feldman claims this (you really need to read a little more carefully).  Yes, Dr. Feldman has this point of view, but it is shared by a small minority of scientists; this too is a fact which is expressed in the wikipedia article.  It is also a fact that the article you quote above does use the language of "population," which the wikipedia article also uses.  Nowhere does the wikipedia article suggest that sociologists are competent to discuss genetics -- the article does however acknowledge that sociologists have analyzed social facts, as does the article you have quoted. Slrubenstein
::i give up, this article is just bullshit. you haven't addressed my points.  keep your head in the sand195.92.168.176 04:26, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations

message: P0M: In two earlier postings I said two things that 195 finds contradictory:
:...they [the first Europeans to visit the New World, Australia, etc.] imagined them to be innately different in ways that went beyond the superficial characteristics such as skin color."
:If the studies of genetic similarities were stated simply in accord with objective studies, then there would be no harm in them.
P0M: What characteristics that are not literally superficial (right on the surface, subject to immediate inspection) could people back in the 1500s have determined? Certainly not their genetic identities.
:P0M: Again, a small bit of progress 'twould seem. No denunciation.
::Actually, 195 tried to erase this comment of yours instead of responding to it :-/ . Check the history or see this diff. — No-One Jones (talk) 01:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point by point 2 

message: P0M: Actually, I seem to have run out of things said while trying to establish common ground with 195 that have instead unleashed his wrath against me personally. But s/he did use her/his evidence in what seems to me a strange way, so let me inquire about that:
P0M: The magazine article said:
::Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."
::But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.
P0M: Dr. Feldman is a geneticist, isn't he? May I inquire as to his qualifications as a sociologist, and whether he has research to establish what "the popular conception of race" actually is? 
P0M: Note that if the above is an accurate paraphrase of whatever he actually said to the reporters then it involves some weasel words: "essentially confirmed." Just what elements of the so-called "popular conception of race" are not confirmed? 
P0M: 195, you have not surveyed the number and qualifications of the specialists in this field who are comfortable with using the word "race", have you? Why do you suppose that people with independent minds would accept the twice qualified judgment of a single specialist? (I say "twice qualified" because he not only says the popular idea of race is only "essentially" confirmed, but also because he urges caution so that "the new data coming out of genetic studies were (sic) not abused.") It isn't because that's the only authority you can find, is it?
I wonder why Mr Moron and Mr Rubenstein haven't written an article glorifying Lysenko and Mengele, as they are so interested in mixing Genetics and Politics?
:Knock it off with the personal attacks. If you continue then you will be banned from editing any page on this website. Got that 195? --mav 03:31, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [Peak to 195.92.168.174] Since you say you don't want to mix "Genetics and Politics", and since you evidently have some interest in human phylogeny, why not start an article on Phylogeny of Homo sapiens?  The Race article could then be revised accordingly.Peak 06:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point by point 3