6 ms·

And also, race: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ (2007) When will be comfortable accepting that "race" is biologica

And also, race: https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ https://www.wired.com/2007/12/ps-dna/ (2007) When will be comfortable accepting that "race" is biological? We need to test drugs on multiple races for this reason.

behindmyscreen 9y ago
Nothing more significant than an eleven year old popular journalism report on genetic science? What about in the intervening 11 years? No new science on that?
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  Are you saying race isn't biological? Using the fact that the random article the above comment cited is 11 years old?
burtness 9y ago
As another comment points out, a popular science article about a person's a product to law enforcement is not science. However, "race" is absolutely not biological because so little of race is physical. Nobody has ever denied that skin colour and facial features are biological, its the accompanying traits that round out what makes a "race" that have no significant biological basis
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  What term can we use to refer to skin color and facial features if race means cultural differences? Also isn't what you're talking about culture not race? Edit: I'm going to jump off on a tangent here, but this is something that really bothers me. Clearly to most people race refers to skin color and facial features. Just like to most people gender refers to biological sex. If you want to refer to the non-physical aspects of race, use the term culture, then there will be no confusion. If you wan't to refer to the non-physical aspects of gender, use the term gender identity or gender role.
tyjen 9y ago
Race is not an accurate biological classifier, it's an antiquated classifier based on physical attributes. Ethnicity is far more accurate, but still has its drawbacks. Yes, people who share similar melanin probably have similar genes providing them that attribute, but there are significant genetic differences between a black Jamaican and a black Ethiopian; or, a white Spaniard and a white Russian (not the drink). Saying they're just black or white dismisses the substantial differences that exist.
- swebs 9y ago
  Did you read the article? >Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one. >On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA.
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    There are many people who have both Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean DNA. Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? Those are opposite conclusions that both follow from the same statement, because the claim is ambiguous.
    - swebs 9y ago
      >Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? The latter. The claim is pretty unambiguous. There are genetic markers that are only found in certain populations. His statements imply that he observed no markers that are only found in Caucasian populations, and several that are only found in African or Afro-Caribbean populations. If a person were mix raced, they would likely have a combination.
  - tyjen 9y ago
to3m 9y ago
Wow, race is biological? Who knew!
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Race is not biological as it is just a historical classification based on some "skin deep” observations of physical appearance. What is biological is that different people from around the world are genetically more similar to their neighbours than people more distant and people with a similar genetic background tend to look similar. What is more interesting is not race, but that different human populations around the world are different species that can produce fertile offspring. There are four known living human species; sub-Saharan Africans, Euro/Asians, Melanesian/Australian Aborigines, and African pygmies (there might be some more human species in Africa, but we lack the fossil DNA data to know this). Each one of these different species is a hybrid between ancient sub-Saharan African’s and one of the other homo species that lived on the planet before 50,000 years ago [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
  - to3m 9y ago
    Yes, your first 2 paragraphs clarify it a bit. Thanks. As for races vs species, that well has been so thoroughly poisoned that I for one refuse to drink from it. But, you know... you do you.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Races are biologically meaningless, but species are a real things. Lions and tigers are different species of the genus Panthera, they can mate and have fertile offspring. I think where people get worked up is thinking because there are different species of humans living on the planet that one must be better (or worse) than the other. Nobody with a clue would say that lions are better cats than tigers, just different. The different humans species are the same. The other thing that makes things more complex is all living humans are predominantly sub-Saharan African (90% to 100%). If you had a large cat population that was 95% lion and 5% tiger you would most likely not even notice it was not a pride of lions. It would still be a different species, and the average member of this population would be different to the average lion, but the differences would be relatively subtle.
fullshark 9y ago
Who doesn’t think race is biological? When people connect race and talents/abilities is when people get uncomfortable though for fairly obvious reasons. Which is likely how many will interpret this result (Race related to intelligence) and probably what you really wanted to say.
- spicymaki 9y ago
  Well do you go by the American definition of race, do you go by the Brazilian color scale, or something else? In the US you are considered black if you have at least one black ancestor. Why not the other way around? Race in terms of biological definition is not consistent or coherent. There is also a lot of genetic variation within socially classified races.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Who doesn’t think race is biological? People that observe that “race” is a highly malleable concept (there isn't even a broad agreement on how many races there are) that evolves with social, demographic, and economic shifts in the culture whose views of race are examined.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    In other words people who don't know the difference between race - a biological phenomenon - and ethnicity - a social phenomenon.
    - c8d3f7b49897918 9y ago
      Ethnicity is almost always a biological phenomenon as well. Race and ethnicity are simply larger and smaller group categorizations of humans, both with reasonably accurate biological tests.
    - burtness 9y ago
OrganicMSG 9y ago
Given that the concept of race was defined by family/tribal grouping and observable physical features, which are biological in nature, to point out that it is biological is entirely tautological. Of course it is biological. Doesn't stop it being an appallingly crap system for human taxonomy. Especially given that there are a very large quantity of people out there whom you would really have to give a long list for in this taxonomy, rather than a word, as people have a habit of not sticking to these neat little groupings when they have sex, even if you force them to with law.
guelo 9y ago
Huh? Nobody denies that your ancestry shows up in your genes. 23andMe has built a billion dollar business on that premise. I'm more interested in finding the genes responsible for racism. Racism being such a giant human flaw that can lead to the collapse of societies it would be great if we could identify individuals prone to racism early.
danieltillett 9y ago
No we don’t need to test drugs on multiple “races”. The variation in response for a drug is greater within a “race” than between “races”. We need to test on a wide variety of individuals. Yes the frequency of response and the side effects will vary by an individual's genetic background, but there is to my knowledge no drug or side effect found only in one broad population grouping.
dang 9y ago
This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please (re-)read them and make sure not to do this again. We don't want unrelated controversies, generic tangents, or flamewars on HN. Racewar is right out. If that's what you want to foment, please foment somewhere else. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

behindmyscreen 9y ago

Nothing more significant than an eleven year old popular journalism report on genetic science? What about in the intervening 11 years? No new science on that?

neveroffensive 9y ago
Are you saying race isn't biological? Using the fact that the random article the above comment cited is 11 years old?

burtness 9y ago

As another comment points out, a popular science article about a person's a product to law enforcement is not science. However, "race" is absolutely not biological because so little of race is physical. Nobody has ever denied that skin colour and facial features are biological, its the accompanying traits that round out what makes a "race" that have no significant biological basis

neveroffensive 9y ago
What term can we use to refer to skin color and facial features if race means cultural differences? Also isn't what you're talking about culture not race? Edit: I'm going to jump off on a tangent here, but this is something that really bothers me. Clearly to most people race refers to skin color and facial features. Just like to most people gender refers to biological sex. If you want to refer to the non-physical aspects of race, use the term culture, then there will be no confusion. If you wan't to refer to the non-physical aspects of gender, use the term gender identity or gender role.

tyjen 9y ago

Race is not an accurate biological classifier, it's an antiquated classifier based on physical attributes. Ethnicity is far more accurate, but still has its drawbacks. Yes, people who share similar melanin probably have similar genes providing them that attribute, but there are significant genetic differences between a black Jamaican and a black Ethiopian; or, a white Spaniard and a white Russian (not the drink). Saying they're just black or white dismisses the substantial differences that exist.

swebs 9y ago
Did you read the article? >Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one. >On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian." So we can see that not only are the classes used more precise than just "black" or "white", but there is empirical evidence that they can be predicted from DNA.
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  There are many people who have both Caucasian and Afro-Caribbean DNA. Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? Those are opposite conclusions that both follow from the same statement, because the claim is ambiguous.
  - swebs 9y ago
    >Is this result claiming that killer could be one of those people, or definitelt isn't? The latter. The claim is pretty unambiguous. There are genetic markers that are only found in certain populations. His statements imply that he observed no markers that are only found in Caucasian populations, and several that are only found in African or Afro-Caribbean populations. If a person were mix raced, they would likely have a combination.
- tyjen 9y ago

to3m 9y ago

Wow, race is biological? Who knew!

danieltillett 9y ago
Race is not biological as it is just a historical classification based on some "skin deep” observations of physical appearance. What is biological is that different people from around the world are genetically more similar to their neighbours than people more distant and people with a similar genetic background tend to look similar. What is more interesting is not race, but that different human populations around the world are different species that can produce fertile offspring. There are four known living human species; sub-Saharan Africans, Euro/Asians, Melanesian/Australian Aborigines, and African pygmies (there might be some more human species in Africa, but we lack the fossil DNA data to know this). Each one of these different species is a hybrid between ancient sub-Saharan African’s and one of the other homo species that lived on the planet before 50,000 years ago [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
- to3m 9y ago
  Yes, your first 2 paragraphs clarify it a bit. Thanks. As for races vs species, that well has been so thoroughly poisoned that I for one refuse to drink from it. But, you know... you do you.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Races are biologically meaningless, but species are a real things. Lions and tigers are different species of the genus Panthera, they can mate and have fertile offspring. I think where people get worked up is thinking because there are different species of humans living on the planet that one must be better (or worse) than the other. Nobody with a clue would say that lions are better cats than tigers, just different. The different humans species are the same. The other thing that makes things more complex is all living humans are predominantly sub-Saharan African (90% to 100%). If you had a large cat population that was 95% lion and 5% tiger you would most likely not even notice it was not a pride of lions. It would still be a different species, and the average member of this population would be different to the average lion, but the differences would be relatively subtle.

fullshark 9y ago

Who doesn’t think race is biological? When people connect race and talents/abilities is when people get uncomfortable though for fairly obvious reasons. Which is likely how many will interpret this result (Race related to intelligence) and probably what you really wanted to say.

spicymaki 9y ago
Well do you go by the American definition of race, do you go by the Brazilian color scale, or something else? In the US you are considered black if you have at least one black ancestor. Why not the other way around? Race in terms of biological definition is not consistent or coherent. There is also a lot of genetic variation within socially classified races.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Who doesn’t think race is biological? People that observe that “race” is a highly malleable concept (there isn't even a broad agreement on how many races there are) that evolves with social, demographic, and economic shifts in the culture whose views of race are examined.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  In other words people who don't know the difference between race - a biological phenomenon - and ethnicity - a social phenomenon.
  - c8d3f7b49897918 9y ago
    Ethnicity is almost always a biological phenomenon as well. Race and ethnicity are simply larger and smaller group categorizations of humans, both with reasonably accurate biological tests.
  - burtness 9y ago

OrganicMSG 9y ago

Given that the concept of race was defined by family/tribal grouping and observable physical features, which are biological in nature, to point out that it is biological is entirely tautological. Of course it is biological. Doesn't stop it being an appallingly crap system for human taxonomy. Especially given that there are a very large quantity of people out there whom you would really have to give a long list for in this taxonomy, rather than a word, as people have a habit of not sticking to these neat little groupings when they have sex, even if you force them to with law.

guelo 9y ago

Huh? Nobody denies that your ancestry shows up in your genes. 23andMe has built a billion dollar business on that premise. I'm more interested in finding the genes responsible for racism. Racism being such a giant human flaw that can lead to the collapse of societies it would be great if we could identify individuals prone to racism early.

danieltillett 9y ago

No we don’t need to test drugs on multiple “races”. The variation in response for a drug is greater within a “race” than between “races”. We need to test on a wide variety of individuals. Yes the frequency of response and the side effects will vary by an individual's genetic background, but there is to my knowledge no drug or side effect found only in one broad population grouping.

dang 9y ago

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Please (re-)read them and make sure not to do this again. We don't want unrelated controversies, generic tangents, or flamewars on HN. Racewar is right out. If that's what you want to foment, please foment somewhere else. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html