5 ms·

I don't understand how the criticisms in the comment section here are at all related to the actual journal article. From the abstract of the paper: Throughout

I don't understand how the criticisms in the comment section here are at all related to the actual journal article. From the abstract of the paper: Throughout The Journal’s 70-year history, “ancestry” and “ethnicity” have increased in use, appearing in 33% and 26% of articles in 2009–2018, while the use of “race” has decreased, occurring in 4% of articles in 2009–2018. Although its overall use has declined, the odds of “race” appearing in the presence of “ethnicity” has increased relative to the odds of occurring in its absence. Forms of population descriptors “Caucasian” and “Negro” have largely disappeared from The Journal (<1% of articles in 2009–2018). Conversely, the continental labels “African,” “Asian,” and “European” have increased in use and appear in 18%, 14%, and 42% of articles from 2009–2018, respectively. Am I missing something? Is it not more accurate in genetics to describe populations based on their originating location rather than the color of their skin?

civilized 5y ago
Yeah, I'm really not following all the talk of "wokeness" here. Race is a social category that often says something about your ancestry, and about certain traits like skin color and statistical predisposition to certain genetic diseases. But ancestry is the actual genetically meaningful thing. So why would we want researchers to use the outdated concept of race? Is it woke to prefer oxygen to phlogiston?
- wrp 5y ago
  "Race" when referring to humans is equivalent to "breed" when referring to animals. Both terms, as used in biology, refer to groupings of heritable traits. Is "breed" an invalid concept because a Poodle can mate with a Labrador?
  - civilized 5y ago
    By this standard, the African bush and the villages of India should be full of thousands of "races" because of the high genetic diversity and relative reproductive isolation of many populations therein, which far exceeds that which delineates our conventional racial classification. But in the real world, race always refers to the same old Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid classification that a few Westerners came up with in the 1700s. Why is that? Does it feel plausible that Science fixated on the Biologically Correct racial classification of humans over a century before Mendelian genetics and the germ theory of disease became widely accepted? Or is it perhaps more plausible that racial classification came into vogue for other, more unfortunate reasons, which are now well-known and documented, and then persisted by mere inertia and conventionalism/conformism?
bytelines 5y ago
You're not missing anything here. The article is about race, so there's all these comments who already know what the article says without reading it, what their pre-established attitudes are, and why they are superior. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
- fundad 5y ago
  Yeah not surprising for BoomerNews
ofTheFountain 5y ago
Yea as a biologists who's done some genetic research this isn't about wokeness (though I don't think that's necessarily bad anyway). Race is a cultural term, not scientific. No one doing this research thinks there's no difference in genetic makeup between groups, it's that how we use and thinK about the word race doesn't line up with those groups and differences. It's just not accurate for scientific publications, not just the cultural and historical baggage it has. Like down anyone thing that white, black, or asian describe narrowly defined genetic groupings?
- cheese_van 5y ago
  Yes, "race" for geneticists is an imprecise term and in that field there is a growing need for a better descriptor. Now for cops, or social workers, or everyday speech, race may be just the perfect term - morphology is important to their work, and will remain important. But geneticists are concerned with more than morphology, or appearance. I don't believe there is a linguistic threat here to everyday speech, or a threat to how we refer to each others appearance. But in genetics, race as a scientific term is in need of improvement - and that is what the article is acknowledging. I'm not sure I would impute a "woke" angle here.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Does the color of an organism fall under the study of morphology? I don't believe it does. Nor do I believe race is a good term for anyone to use, partially because its entirely subjective. A good example of this is that in the US, a person can be considered black if they have African (or otherwise considered black) ancestry anywhere in their genetic history, even if the rest of their ancestors would have been considered "white" On top of this subjectivity we have the historical baggage and oppression, so it would be best to move away from race as currently used. We are all part of one race, the human race. We need to stop splitting ourselves into in/out groups because that only holds us back.
  - singularity2001 5y ago
    I agree we need a better term. Maybe 'cluster', as they are distinguishable in PCA plots. One interesting aspect of these clusters is that the higher the resolution, the more clusters you can find, up to the point that neighboring towns can have slightly different distributions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
photochemsyn 5y ago
I suppose the article is well-intentioned but in terms of genetic diversity and skin color, the actual history of human evolution on the African continent is far more complex than that indicates. There's a fascinating paper using modern DNA methods about this, from 2017, published in Science. It's behind a paywall as is the associated perspective but this is a good discussion with the links: > "Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.h... > "Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race." > "Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may never have been found outside of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa." Basically, in genetics today it's about phylogenetics, which "utilizes cladistic methods to construct phylogenetic trees based directly on morphological and molecular data." From this viewpoint 'African' is not a meaningful group relative to 'Asian' or 'European', which may themselves not be very meaningful groups either, in terms of biological descent and actual genetic relatedness within and without these supposed groups. Another truly fascinating aspect of that study is this suggestion, pigment alteration: > ""Our results suggest there must be some kind of as-yet-uncharacterized form of cross-talk between lysosomes and the melanosomes that make eumelanins," Marks said. "Figuring out how this works might provide new ideas for ways to manipulate skin pigmentation for therapeutic means." Imagine the consternation and issues surrounding the introduction of something like retroviral gene therapy which altered an individual's pigmentation. People who suffered sunburn easily might benefit greatly, but I can imagine certain controversies arising from such technology.

civilized 5y ago

Yeah, I'm really not following all the talk of "wokeness" here. Race is a social category that often says something about your ancestry, and about certain traits like skin color and statistical predisposition to certain genetic diseases. But ancestry is the actual genetically meaningful thing. So why would we want researchers to use the outdated concept of race? Is it woke to prefer oxygen to phlogiston?

wrp 5y ago
"Race" when referring to humans is equivalent to "breed" when referring to animals. Both terms, as used in biology, refer to groupings of heritable traits. Is "breed" an invalid concept because a Poodle can mate with a Labrador?
- civilized 5y ago
  By this standard, the African bush and the villages of India should be full of thousands of "races" because of the high genetic diversity and relative reproductive isolation of many populations therein, which far exceeds that which delineates our conventional racial classification. But in the real world, race always refers to the same old Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid classification that a few Westerners came up with in the 1700s. Why is that? Does it feel plausible that Science fixated on the Biologically Correct racial classification of humans over a century before Mendelian genetics and the germ theory of disease became widely accepted? Or is it perhaps more plausible that racial classification came into vogue for other, more unfortunate reasons, which are now well-known and documented, and then persisted by mere inertia and conventionalism/conformism?

bytelines 5y ago

You're not missing anything here. The article is about race, so there's all these comments who already know what the article says without reading it, what their pre-established attitudes are, and why they are superior. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

fundad 5y ago
Yeah not surprising for BoomerNews

ofTheFountain 5y ago

Yea as a biologists who's done some genetic research this isn't about wokeness (though I don't think that's necessarily bad anyway). Race is a cultural term, not scientific. No one doing this research thinks there's no difference in genetic makeup between groups, it's that how we use and thinK about the word race doesn't line up with those groups and differences. It's just not accurate for scientific publications, not just the cultural and historical baggage it has. Like down anyone thing that white, black, or asian describe narrowly defined genetic groupings?

cheese_van 5y ago
Yes, "race" for geneticists is an imprecise term and in that field there is a growing need for a better descriptor. Now for cops, or social workers, or everyday speech, race may be just the perfect term - morphology is important to their work, and will remain important. But geneticists are concerned with more than morphology, or appearance. I don't believe there is a linguistic threat here to everyday speech, or a threat to how we refer to each others appearance. But in genetics, race as a scientific term is in need of improvement - and that is what the article is acknowledging. I'm not sure I would impute a "woke" angle here.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Does the color of an organism fall under the study of morphology? I don't believe it does. Nor do I believe race is a good term for anyone to use, partially because its entirely subjective. A good example of this is that in the US, a person can be considered black if they have African (or otherwise considered black) ancestry anywhere in their genetic history, even if the rest of their ancestors would have been considered "white" On top of this subjectivity we have the historical baggage and oppression, so it would be best to move away from race as currently used. We are all part of one race, the human race. We need to stop splitting ourselves into in/out groups because that only holds us back.
- singularity2001 5y ago
  I agree we need a better term. Maybe 'cluster', as they are distinguishable in PCA plots. One interesting aspect of these clusters is that the higher the resolution, the more clusters you can find, up to the point that neighboring towns can have slightly different distributions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

photochemsyn 5y ago

I suppose the article is well-intentioned but in terms of genetic diversity and skin color, the actual history of human evolution on the African continent is far more complex than that indicates. There's a fascinating paper using modern DNA methods about this, from 2017, published in Science. It's behind a paywall as is the associated perspective but this is a good discussion with the links: > "Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.h... > "Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race." > "Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may never have been found outside of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa." Basically, in genetics today it's about phylogenetics, which "utilizes cladistic methods to construct phylogenetic trees based directly on morphological and molecular data." From this viewpoint 'African' is not a meaningful group relative to 'Asian' or 'European', which may themselves not be very meaningful groups either, in terms of biological descent and actual genetic relatedness within and without these supposed groups. Another truly fascinating aspect of that study is this suggestion, pigment alteration: > ""Our results suggest there must be some kind of as-yet-uncharacterized form of cross-talk between lysosomes and the melanosomes that make eumelanins," Marks said. "Figuring out how this works might provide new ideas for ways to manipulate skin pigmentation for therapeutic means." Imagine the consternation and issues surrounding the introduction of something like retroviral gene therapy which altered an individual's pigmentation. People who suffered sunburn easily might benefit greatly, but I can imagine certain controversies arising from such technology.