4 ms·

What exactly am I supposed to read into “European descent”. For something so prominently featured in the title, implying some significance to it, I cannot find

What exactly am I supposed to read into “European descent”. For something so prominently featured in the title, implying some significance to it, I cannot find any further explanation of it: > We predominately used previously published and freely available data for this study. The study by Jiang et al 19 is a meta-analysis of GWAs of vitamin D levels carried out using participants of European descent. The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative20 uses data from multiple cohort studies,21–26 including the UK Biobank (UKB). Does it mean “U.K. residents”, “European residents”, or “persons whose ancestors had European residence, wherever they be located now.” and to how many generations back is this?

throwaway2245 6y ago
It is a genetics term of art that means "white people". This is particularly important for Vitamin D, since the colour of your skin has a meaningful influence on Vitamin D production. The research article says "Our results also cannot be used to comment on the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 in non-Europeans." - they take no stance for non-Europeans. This reflects the common point that most medical/genetic data is sourced from Europe and North America: there often isn't enough data for People of Colour to accurately comment on points of racial difference, whether white people have been sourced deliberately or inadvertently.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Methinks that would be letting scientific thought be influenced by cultural memes. “race” is not really a distinction that has any actual biological merit and is purely a cultural creation, There is really no expectation that different “races” would be statistically differently affected any more than something other completely arbitrary and cultural such as “office workers" or “virgins”. > This is particularly important for Vitamin D, since the colour of your skin has a meaningful influence on Vitamin D production. Yes, but the lines between races is arbitrary and culturally drafted. The same man who would be considered “black” in the U.K. would be considered “white” in Kenya. What test is even used as discriminant of “white people”? self-report, a pencil test? In particular, I've seen many persons who are apparently considered “not white” in the U.S.A. whose skin complexion woud surely not have such a meaningful influence. Consider also the story with Rachel Dolezal, which showed well that race is a cultural meme, not a phænotypically defined set of traits, nor something upon which a biological significance can be built.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    I can put this another way which avoids race politics: Genetic sample data is not truly randomised, and tends to greatly over-represent a particular subgroup of 10% of people who share common genetic markers (including recognisable phenotypic consequences such as: in general having white skin, and in general adults being tolerant to lactose) that are not globally common. For convenience, we'll say that groups of people with those markers are "of European descent". The extent of the over-representation is so great that edge cases are likely to have no impact in changing the overall bias of the data. As such, conclusions drawn globally should be treated at least with caution - and with suspicion when one of those genetic markers is highly relevant to the conclusion.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Then they should simply word how they drew their sampling such as “U.K. residents” or however else they drew it. I'm still not sure as to what exactly the sampling is here and what “European descent” communicates? The way I see it it can mean any of the following: - Participants were asked to self-report their “race”, any that did not report “white” were excluded. - Participants were given a pencil test to determine their “whiteness”, those failing were excluded. - Participation was drawn from U.K. residents > The extent of the over-representation is so great that edge cases are likely to have no impact in changing the overall bias of the data. You say so, but I feel this distinction is more a cultural meme than biologically meritful. I for instance rarely see, prominently in the title “in those of Boston descent” when all participants were selected from Boston, which could produce similar biases. I feel it is likely that it is highlighted because they feel that “race” is more meaningful than it biologically is, and are attempting to draw inferences from it.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        > I feel it is likely that it is highlighted because they feel that “race” is more meaningful than it biologically is, and are attempting to draw inferences from it. Try telling that to sufferers of sickle cell anaemia. They’re not making a general statement about race, they’re relating it to a specific thing. “Race” may be an overloaded, and often misused term - certainly a misnomer - but it still can be used as a shorthand that is useful especially in medical contexts. Here, it’s probably to warn against generalising beyond whites, though the meaningfulness will be borne out by research with regards to this specific virus, not through your feelings or inferences about possible inferences.

throwaway2245 6y ago

It is a genetics term of art that means "white people". This is particularly important for Vitamin D, since the colour of your skin has a meaningful influence on Vitamin D production. The research article says "Our results also cannot be used to comment on the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 in non-Europeans." - they take no stance for non-Europeans. This reflects the common point that most medical/genetic data is sourced from Europe and North America: there often isn't enough data for People of Colour to accurately comment on points of racial difference, whether white people have been sourced deliberately or inadvertently.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Methinks that would be letting scientific thought be influenced by cultural memes. “race” is not really a distinction that has any actual biological merit and is purely a cultural creation, There is really no expectation that different “races” would be statistically differently affected any more than something other completely arbitrary and cultural such as “office workers" or “virgins”. > This is particularly important for Vitamin D, since the colour of your skin has a meaningful influence on Vitamin D production. Yes, but the lines between races is arbitrary and culturally drafted. The same man who would be considered “black” in the U.K. would be considered “white” in Kenya. What test is even used as discriminant of “white people”? self-report, a pencil test? In particular, I've seen many persons who are apparently considered “not white” in the U.S.A. whose skin complexion woud surely not have such a meaningful influence. Consider also the story with Rachel Dolezal, which showed well that race is a cultural meme, not a phænotypically defined set of traits, nor something upon which a biological significance can be built.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  I can put this another way which avoids race politics: Genetic sample data is not truly randomised, and tends to greatly over-represent a particular subgroup of 10% of people who share common genetic markers (including recognisable phenotypic consequences such as: in general having white skin, and in general adults being tolerant to lactose) that are not globally common. For convenience, we'll say that groups of people with those markers are "of European descent". The extent of the over-representation is so great that edge cases are likely to have no impact in changing the overall bias of the data. As such, conclusions drawn globally should be treated at least with caution - and with suspicion when one of those genetic markers is highly relevant to the conclusion.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Then they should simply word how they drew their sampling such as “U.K. residents” or however else they drew it. I'm still not sure as to what exactly the sampling is here and what “European descent” communicates? The way I see it it can mean any of the following: - Participants were asked to self-report their “race”, any that did not report “white” were excluded. - Participants were given a pencil test to determine their “whiteness”, those failing were excluded. - Participation was drawn from U.K. residents > The extent of the over-representation is so great that edge cases are likely to have no impact in changing the overall bias of the data. You say so, but I feel this distinction is more a cultural meme than biologically meritful. I for instance rarely see, prominently in the title “in those of Boston descent” when all participants were selected from Boston, which could produce similar biases. I feel it is likely that it is highlighted because they feel that “race” is more meaningful than it biologically is, and are attempting to draw inferences from it.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > I feel it is likely that it is highlighted because they feel that “race” is more meaningful than it biologically is, and are attempting to draw inferences from it. Try telling that to sufferers of sickle cell anaemia. They’re not making a general statement about race, they’re relating it to a specific thing. “Race” may be an overloaded, and often misused term - certainly a misnomer - but it still can be used as a shorthand that is useful especially in medical contexts. Here, it’s probably to warn against generalising beyond whites, though the meaningfulness will be borne out by research with regards to this specific virus, not through your feelings or inferences about possible inferences.