yeah but with night there is just some quibbling around the edges, is civil twilight night etc. This is more like reptiles, it's a concept that when you pick at it the concept as popularly used it falls apart (for reptiles you either need to include birds or break it up into at least two groups).
Yes, and you shouldn't use it either. Do you mean night as in dark conditions or night as in the night time? When does it start, when does it end? Is it a threshold or a discrete night-not night effect?
These questions don't have a right or wrong answer. So don't use the word night, or if you do, define exactly what you mean by it.
Where does a color stop being yellow and start being green? This is the classic lumping and splitting debate. It's obvious that the mere existence of multuple options for lumping and splitting doesn't imply there are no meaningful distinctions to be made.
I dislike this obvious and offensive dishonesty. We can define race quite easily: A race is a largely endogamous extended family group. But but but that means you could call Yoruba people a race! Well sure, you can. Just like we can call the English or even the Cornish a race. When the Angle race and the Saxon race became exogamous with respect to each other, their distinction faded and a new Anglo-Saxon race came to be. We can also talk about a British race, by descent from William the Conqueror. I believe the Chinese have a notion of five Chinese races. In fact, the notion of lumping races as continental scale groups is an American innovation that is of dubious anthropological value. Point being that you can lump up to all humans being a single race going back to the first humans or split down to the nuclear family[1]. It's clear to me that both of those extremes aren't very interesting, but they are valid! As for useful places to lump and split, genetic screening is an obvious one. As an example, choosing to split intelligently will allow a health service to save money by avoiding unnecessarily testing for sickle cell disease.
It follows that for two typical individuals of the same race, you have to go less far up their family tree to find a common ancestor than you would for two typical individuals of different races. This effect is considerably more pronounced if you restrict it to common ancestors from before 1492. Of course 1492 isn't the only date where this effect is seen. For just one example, most Britons have a common ancestor from slightly after 1066.
[1] Nuclear meaning no longer able to be split (physicists weakened that metaphor a bit though!).
Edit: The redefinition goes the other way, as can be seen from public domain sources like Webster's where the first sense of race is "The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed."
I will happily agree that the contemporary lowbrow usage of race to mean black people or white people, and I dunno maybe let's lump everyone else together as asian except some white or black people are hispanic instead doesn't even rise to the level of being childishly stupid.
everything you just talked about is not 'race' but 'genetic history', and attempting to redefine the commonly used term 'race' for the scientific concept of 'genetic history' isn't super helpful.
of course night is a scientifically defined concept (which also takes human subjectivity into account). The term in science is "Astronomical night" and it has an exact physical description which can be unambiguously determined through scientific measurement.
comments like yours don't add much value to discussions about race.
Generalizations can be useful in science. I know some of the definitions I use in my field probably describe groups of heterogeneous things. But these definitions can be appropriate when more granular approach isn’t feasible.
But yes, everything is a spectrum, boundaries are blurry etc. it’s just often times this line of thinking doesn’t lead you anywhere.
“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of genetic variation results from repeated human population mixing and movements across time, yet the misconception that human beings can be naturally divided into biologically distinguishable races has been extremely resilient and has become embedded in scientific research, medical practice and technologies, and formal education.”
Dumb question… why would using ethnicity (which is accepted) solve any issues? And, can people choose their ethnicity or is it determined at birth? Complicated, I bet.
What would you be using ethnicity for? I don't think they're making a case for some sort of trans-racial ethnic self-identification being used in science as a replacement for race.
I think you substitute race with precision. If a cluster of different genes or characteristics are commonly found together, say which ones you're talking about, how often they're found together (as opposed to apart), and why you think that's relevant. Talking about race is honestly often ultimately handwaving in the vague direction of 19th century biblical scholars.
Ethnicity is just one of many factors, and is related to your culture, which is related to how you live your life, which can definitely be a factor. But yes, if your "ethnic" groups look like [1], ethnicity is really just another word for race,
because you are not asked the bullet points, which certainly are ethnic (English vs. African, for example), but the headers (White vs. Black).
To be fair, there is a clear definition of ethnicity as "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent".
So while an individual cannot decide who they descended from, they can choose whether or not to accept a set of cultural norms. People routinely change religions, learn other languages, or follow other traditions outside the ethnic cultural norms they were born into.
The TFA states that ethnicity is only one of many potential "population descriptors" and recommends that researchers "use multiple descriptors rather than a single, overly broad category".
Further down in the article, the answer is given. They are recommending that journals, funding bodies, etc, start to require scientists to define their chosen categories and justify the usage.
This whole line of reasoning can also be used to argue that there is no such thing as culture: neither "French culture", or "English culture", or "New York culture", or "Florida culture", etc. exist.
Also, population mixing and movements across time doesn't preclude the existence of more or less distinguishable groups inside the said population.
That doesn't even make sense. Nobody believes that "race" is the cause of phenotypic differences between groups, it's the outcome of it. It's a useful, albeit broad, term to distinguish distinct populations of people who, over many generations, have genetically converged within their own group and genetically diverged from others.
That’s factually incorrect—there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups.
There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which makes it very difficult (at best) to come up with some kind of genetic criteria for defining race.
> there’s not actually a significant amount of genetic divergence between racial groups.
Does skin color not diverge between racial groups, or is it not a significant genetic divergence?
If skin color seems too trivial to be genetically "significant", then what about racial differences that confer an advantage or disadvantage to malarial resistance?
It’s not a significant part of genetic divergence. Humans also have a striking lack of genetic diversity in the first place, due to factors like a severe population bottleneck 2 Mya.
One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless. It would be difficult to come up with some kind of genetic basis for that category that is somehow useful to science, somehow includes most black people, and somehow excludes most non-black people.
It is more useful to talk about genetics in terms of (recent) ancestry. Ancestry is reasonably useful for things like screening for genetic conditions. You want to screen for sickle-cell anemia? Recent African ancestry is a reasonable thing to look for; blackness is a poor proxy. Recall that skin pigmentation is more about what latitude your ancestors are from, and not about what specific part of the world they are from.
(I’ve used the term “African ancestry” to refer both to long-term ancestry and more recent ancestry here, I hope that the usage is clear from context.)
> One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless.
Proves too much: the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for "fishness" is also now completely useless.
> Proves too much: the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for "fishness" is also now completely useless.
I mean, that’s a good analogy, the term “fish” is even worse than “race”. Fish is paraphyletic, just like “tree”. There’s also the colloquial sense of “fish”, which is even less clear.
"Fish" are one of the classic examples of a commonly-understood descriptor that has little to no scientific rigor. Another good one is "tree".
In casual speech, you can certainly look at an animal and say "this is a fish", or look at a plant and say "that is a tree", but if you actually start to look closer, you find that there's no clear way to define either of those terms that includes everything we think should belong in them, and also excludes everything we think shouldn't.
"Races" among humans are similarly hard to pin down by any kind of genetic taxonomy.
fish exist. trees exist. races exist. we have laws about overfishing, laws about cutting trees down, and laws protecting against racial discrimination and these laws largely work. the legal system has developed techniques for dealing with gray areas too.
science is for describing what is, and in detail, but science's failure to do that just means we need more science, not that we should quit and claim the above words have no meaning.
That sounds like contrived rubbish me. Yes we can pluck a dozen Germans off the street and you might find 5 different eye colours, 6 hair colours, a range of 30 IQ points, a priest and a thug, and over a foot between the tallest and shortest.
Yet show me a picture of any of them and I am confident I could roughly point to the region in Europe where their ancestors have toiled for the last thousand generations. Put them and a dozen Congolese in a group and a 5 year old could easily separate them into their two respective racial groups.
There is clearly a common genetic 'core' among people of the same racial group. There may be much diversity within it, too, but to use that to deny the existence of this shared heritage is downright subversive and disingenuous.
Rather than shouting loudly on the internet, I recommend going and reading a bit more about genetic history. There are much more accurate scientific terms for eveyrthing you're talking about.
I feel like I’m being gas lighted by these explanations that race doesn’t exist. A five year old can plainly see race but grownups must pretend it doesn’t exist? It’s a bit Orwellian (a bit like 2+2=5)
You're not being gaslighted, rather you're being made aware that a five year old's naive and immature view of reality is insufficiently grounded in knowledge or nuance to be useful as a basis for adult discussions, much less science.
I'm guessing you're older than five, so you probably should adjust to the shock and make an attempt to advance your understanding of the world beyond the level of a child who can't even tie their shoes.
> Dumb question… why would using ethnicity (which is accepted) solve any issues?
Because ethnicity is commonly understood and has been defined fron the beginning as a social category (that’s what, historically, differentiates it from race.) So using it to describe a social category doesn't have the problem that using race for that purpose does.
> And, can people choose their ethnicity or is it determined at birth?
That’s a false dichotomy, and the answer is “not exactly” to both.
What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.
“Race” is significantly more fuzzy than “species”.
There are edge cases where people will argue where to draw lines between species. However, it’s profoundly challenging to draw lines between “races” in the first place.
As someone who, as a child, read books on the history of taxonomy and how taxonomy has changed over the centuries, I would love to hear you list what mistaken beliefs about species you claim that I have.
Seriously, though. I am not interested in being the topic of conversation, so please do not make me the subject of your comments.
I think if you actually went over and talked to some biologists, you'd find that they have, in fact, put aside various colloquial terms for scientific use because they're insufficiently rigorous.
No; many things in biology are not easily defined (due to limitations of technology, or our own ability to classify things is faulty) but are solidly in the area of quantitative biology.
Example: in the past, "rho factor" was a magical component in a test tube that had a well-defined activity but nobody knew "what" rho was (hence the term "factor"). Eventually, rho factor was isolated and purified to the point where molecular characterization determined it was a protein with a specific function. but that didn't stop people from studying it as a "thing" that had no real "definition" other than the visible activity of its function.
That’s not useful in a scientific context. Kind of like trying to come up with a test to see if someone is “crazy”. “Crazy” is not a diagnostic term, you wouldn’t split crazy and non-crazy people in a scientific context. What you would do is, for example, consider a group of people who have experienced psychotic episodes, or people who experience persecutory delusions. Those terms, while not perfectly precise, are at least repeatable and well-understood.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.
> Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity.
Would it not be correct to state that "race" is a social construction intended as a stand-in to identify sets of interconnected factors which impact a particular population, such as historical, social, and biological?
Is the issue that the word "race" has too much baggage, or that the very concept of "race" isn't useful? It sounds to me, based on the argument in the article, that the concept has some usefulness, even if it has been misused in such ways to have significant baggage. It is necessarily less precise than defining each variable independently in a matrix.
Race is a proxy measure that weakly correlates with genetic history. Seems easier to just use the direct measure which can be determined with high accuracy (identity by descent through DNA sequencing).
I think the problem is that race is so deeply embedded in people's minds that even scientists who try to be objective struggle to disentangle theories from their preconcieved notions.
It's probably not all that easy to sequence the DNA of study participants when they number in the thousands. Although I guess you only have to do it once per person.
It's trivially easy and cheap to determine genetic history by dna sequenceing; it doesn't require sequencing the whole genome, just a tiny bit of it. 23&Me does it with their tiny little exome test.
At $100 each, adding $1M to a small study of only 10000. And biasing the results by only including people willing to hand over their DNA. I'm not sure the net result will be improved science.
You're not adding anything to this debate- studies already do this (and budget for it). Lightweight genetic testing like this is far cheaper in bulk and the scientists and doctors running the study are likely going ot want that data, so I don't see any problem there.
As for bias and people not consenting to hand over their DNA: this is not a scientific problem, it's a social one.
A really good example in how poorly race represents what it seems to represent is that the two ethnic groups with the most genetic distance from each other are both "black." In fact there are dozens if not hundreds of african ethnicities with as much difference between them as, for example, irish and japanese have. But since they all have the dark skin phenotype, they all register as one "race." It's just not a useful system for much.
That's a very good point, and a good indicator that "race" is not a precise enough construct to be useful. Ethnicity is likely a better top-level designation for both science and communicating that science to lay-people.
Look at Native Americans, where the median household income is almost double for some subgroups compared to others. For Asians, the income difference is more than double between Indians and Bangladeshis. American Turks seem to do extremely well, while I expect the numbers for German Turks would be a fair bit lower.
So if you're trying to analyze things, whether for medicine (blood pressure), or sociology (impacts of racism, benefits of economic intervention), racial groups are a pretty poor categorization, vulnerable to Simpson's paradox.
One classic conservative argument against reparations is that it lumps in rich Nigerian immigrants with poor African-American descendants of slavery. Seems like their logic could actually be used to support this change.
I agree that a more precise indicator (like ethnicity) is probably more useful. I think becoming even more precise than this likely is even more useful, however with precision comes added complexity/specificity as well.
That said, your example about Native American income groups isn't the argument you likely think it is. That has been investigated pretty thoroughly and found to be nearly entirely based on shared tribal ownership of businesses like casinos or oil fields, which pay out to the entire tribe. Overall Native Americans in the US are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to non-NA populations, primarily because they are in largely undeveloped (from a business/economic perspective) areas of the country, which are not considered targets of development. They suffer from both ethnic disparities as well as the same disparities that generally affect rural vs urban populations.
Race is in the eye of the viewer. You can choose your race, but it has no value unless other people recognize it. Ultimately, though, race is defined by skin color, which is a quick way to identify people. This article seems to be creating an argument, where one was never needed.
Sometimes society does things to help organize itself.
I think this is a common misperception whenever a research body makes an announcement on race like this. It is not that there is no there, there. In fact there is so much there that race fails as a concept because it is (ridiculously) insufficiently granular, not because there’s no underlying differences.
If you do any kind of clustering on genetic expression data, all kinds of categories much more detailed than racial categories jump out - a good example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_genetic_structur... which shows not only that there are extremely distinct genetic clusters between locations like Europe, China, and America, there are actually highly distinct genetic clusters for each individual European nation - in fact there are even moderately distinct genetic clusters for different geographical areas within a single European nation.
To use the astrology metaphor, the scientific critique would be something like “we need to do away with astrology because months don’t capture the differences - there’s actually significant differences on the level of individual days of birth, even on the level of morning/afternoon/night time of birth”. We take the wrong message from these announcements when we conclude that there’s no differences at all.
Your example would make more sense if the kid was asking why 1% of people have red hair. And we can answer that without inventing a ginger race, and with much more interesting science based answers that involve actual genetics:
Here is a review about how race affects Adverse Drug Experiences (In response to commonly prescribed drugs), published in the journal of ethnic and racial health disparities.
Sure it would be better to sequence each person's genome to accurately place them on the spectrum of human genetic diversity, but that's not practical in a hospital or emergency setting.
> This is a bit ridiculous. It's well known in medicine that members of different ethnic groups..
Emphasis added. Race != ethnicity; TFA argues against using the former and suggests using the latter (with other things).
> Some of the key recommendations focus on getting rid of the use of race and instead focusing on what the report terms "population descriptors." These can be things like ethnicity, region of residence, and so on.
Not a great argument. Drug response is based mostly in genetic history, partly in life experience (IE, if you live near a highly polluting plant and develop an allergy while growing up there). While many papers on drug response use race as a variable, that variable is highly confounded and is often not sufficient to make an accurate determination for medication prescription purposes.
Such research is not being banned or proposed to be banned- in fact, there's a lot more interest now in understanding the relationship between genetic history and response to disease, but the work is still fairly primitive.
> Should the research that tells you which drug to give be banned?
No, and nobody suggested anything like that, so if you're trolling please don't.
The point of TFA is that a study reporting "drug X has greater risks for black people" is weak science, because any given doctor has little way of determining whether their patient is genetically similar to whoever participated in the study. If the study had instead reported risk levels for, say, people of North African ancestry, then the doctor could ask about the patient's background and make an informed decision, instead of just looking at skin color and hoping for the best.
“Race” is a poor proxy for ancestry. If ancestry is what you care about, look at ancestry. If cultural and environmental factors are what you care about, then look at that.
> However, few of these studies were specifically designed to evaluate racial or ethnic disparities, lacking a standardized approach to racial/ethnic categorization as well as control for potential confounders.
The NIH study that the article is about provides concrete recommendations that would help alleviate the precise concerns expressed by your article.
You seem like you might be responding to the headline rather than the underlying content of the NIH study.
This is a classic, textbook example of entryism. It's happening to tons of institutions, including science & medical institutions, in the USA.
"Entryism (also called entrism, enterism, or infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. "
There is a ridiculous game of telephone and this is shitty science journalism.
>The report offers a decision tree to help researchers choose whether race, ethnicity or indigeneity, geography, genetic ancestry, or genetic similarity are most appropriate for their work.
So, "We can't define 'race' so stop using it in science" is a factually incorrect description of the report and is instead click bait journalism intended incite controversy where none exists.
90 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadThese questions don't have a right or wrong answer. So don't use the word night, or if you do, define exactly what you mean by it.
I dislike this obvious and offensive dishonesty. We can define race quite easily: A race is a largely endogamous extended family group. But but but that means you could call Yoruba people a race! Well sure, you can. Just like we can call the English or even the Cornish a race. When the Angle race and the Saxon race became exogamous with respect to each other, their distinction faded and a new Anglo-Saxon race came to be. We can also talk about a British race, by descent from William the Conqueror. I believe the Chinese have a notion of five Chinese races. In fact, the notion of lumping races as continental scale groups is an American innovation that is of dubious anthropological value. Point being that you can lump up to all humans being a single race going back to the first humans or split down to the nuclear family[1]. It's clear to me that both of those extremes aren't very interesting, but they are valid! As for useful places to lump and split, genetic screening is an obvious one. As an example, choosing to split intelligently will allow a health service to save money by avoiding unnecessarily testing for sickle cell disease.
It follows that for two typical individuals of the same race, you have to go less far up their family tree to find a common ancestor than you would for two typical individuals of different races. This effect is considerably more pronounced if you restrict it to common ancestors from before 1492. Of course 1492 isn't the only date where this effect is seen. For just one example, most Britons have a common ancestor from slightly after 1066.
[1] Nuclear meaning no longer able to be split (physicists weakened that metaphor a bit though!).
Edit: The redefinition goes the other way, as can be seen from public domain sources like Webster's where the first sense of race is "The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed."
I will happily agree that the contemporary lowbrow usage of race to mean black people or white people, and I dunno maybe let's lump everyone else together as asian except some white or black people are hispanic instead doesn't even rise to the level of being childishly stupid.
comments like yours don't add much value to discussions about race.
Reflexive ... reactions ... suppressing...
But yes, everything is a spectrum, boundaries are blurry etc. it’s just often times this line of thinking doesn’t lead you anywhere.
Dumb question… why would using ethnicity (which is accepted) solve any issues? And, can people choose their ethnicity or is it determined at birth? Complicated, I bet.
I think you substitute race with precision. If a cluster of different genes or characteristics are commonly found together, say which ones you're talking about, how often they're found together (as opposed to apart), and why you think that's relevant. Talking about race is honestly often ultimately handwaving in the vague direction of 19th century biblical scholars.
[1] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-gui...
So while an individual cannot decide who they descended from, they can choose whether or not to accept a set of cultural norms. People routinely change religions, learn other languages, or follow other traditions outside the ethnic cultural norms they were born into.
The TFA states that ethnicity is only one of many potential "population descriptors" and recommends that researchers "use multiple descriptors rather than a single, overly broad category".
Also, population mixing and movements across time doesn't preclude the existence of more or less distinguishable groups inside the said population.
Why must they lie?
There’s a saying—if you pick two chimpanzees in the same forest, you are likely to find more genetic differences than if you pick two humans on opposite sides of the world. Genetic diversity within a given racial group is much larger than the genetic differences between different racial groups, which makes it very difficult (at best) to come up with some kind of genetic criteria for defining race.
Does skin color not diverge between racial groups, or is it not a significant genetic divergence?
If skin color seems too trivial to be genetically "significant", then what about racial differences that confer an advantage or disadvantage to malarial resistance?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704235/
One of the races is “black”, but since most Africans are black, and all humans have African ancestry, the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for “blackness” is completely useless. It would be difficult to come up with some kind of genetic basis for that category that is somehow useful to science, somehow includes most black people, and somehow excludes most non-black people.
It is more useful to talk about genetics in terms of (recent) ancestry. Ancestry is reasonably useful for things like screening for genetic conditions. You want to screen for sickle-cell anemia? Recent African ancestry is a reasonable thing to look for; blackness is a poor proxy. Recall that skin pigmentation is more about what latitude your ancestors are from, and not about what specific part of the world they are from.
(I’ve used the term “African ancestry” to refer both to long-term ancestry and more recent ancestry here, I hope that the usage is clear from context.)
Proves too much: the idea of coming up with a genetic basis for "fishness" is also now completely useless.
I mean, that’s a good analogy, the term “fish” is even worse than “race”. Fish is paraphyletic, just like “tree”. There’s also the colloquial sense of “fish”, which is even less clear.
In casual speech, you can certainly look at an animal and say "this is a fish", or look at a plant and say "that is a tree", but if you actually start to look closer, you find that there's no clear way to define either of those terms that includes everything we think should belong in them, and also excludes everything we think shouldn't.
"Races" among humans are similarly hard to pin down by any kind of genetic taxonomy.
science is for describing what is, and in detail, but science's failure to do that just means we need more science, not that we should quit and claim the above words have no meaning.
Yet show me a picture of any of them and I am confident I could roughly point to the region in Europe where their ancestors have toiled for the last thousand generations. Put them and a dozen Congolese in a group and a 5 year old could easily separate them into their two respective racial groups.
There is clearly a common genetic 'core' among people of the same racial group. There may be much diversity within it, too, but to use that to deny the existence of this shared heritage is downright subversive and disingenuous.
I'm guessing you're older than five, so you probably should adjust to the shock and make an attempt to advance your understanding of the world beyond the level of a child who can't even tie their shoes.
Because ethnicity is commonly understood and has been defined fron the beginning as a social category (that’s what, historically, differentiates it from race.) So using it to describe a social category doesn't have the problem that using race for that purpose does.
> And, can people choose their ethnicity or is it determined at birth?
That’s a false dichotomy, and the answer is “not exactly” to both.
There are edge cases where people will argue where to draw lines between species. However, it’s profoundly challenging to draw lines between “races” in the first place.
As someone who, as a child, read books on the history of taxonomy and how taxonomy has changed over the centuries, I would love to hear you list what mistaken beliefs about species you claim that I have.
Seriously, though. I am not interested in being the topic of conversation, so please do not make me the subject of your comments.
Example: in the past, "rho factor" was a magical component in a test tube that had a well-defined activity but nobody knew "what" rho was (hence the term "factor"). Eventually, rho factor was isolated and purified to the point where molecular characterization determined it was a protein with a specific function. but that didn't stop people from studying it as a "thing" that had no real "definition" other than the visible activity of its function.
(same if you do "dog breed" for example)
Would it not be correct to state that "race" is a social construction intended as a stand-in to identify sets of interconnected factors which impact a particular population, such as historical, social, and biological?
Is the issue that the word "race" has too much baggage, or that the very concept of "race" isn't useful? It sounds to me, based on the argument in the article, that the concept has some usefulness, even if it has been misused in such ways to have significant baggage. It is necessarily less precise than defining each variable independently in a matrix.
I think the problem is that race is so deeply embedded in people's minds that even scientists who try to be objective struggle to disentangle theories from their preconcieved notions.
As for bias and people not consenting to hand over their DNA: this is not a scientific problem, it's a social one.
Look at Native Americans, where the median household income is almost double for some subgroups compared to others. For Asians, the income difference is more than double between Indians and Bangladeshis. American Turks seem to do extremely well, while I expect the numbers for German Turks would be a fair bit lower.
So if you're trying to analyze things, whether for medicine (blood pressure), or sociology (impacts of racism, benefits of economic intervention), racial groups are a pretty poor categorization, vulnerable to Simpson's paradox.
One classic conservative argument against reparations is that it lumps in rich Nigerian immigrants with poor African-American descendants of slavery. Seems like their logic could actually be used to support this change.
That said, your example about Native American income groups isn't the argument you likely think it is. That has been investigated pretty thoroughly and found to be nearly entirely based on shared tribal ownership of businesses like casinos or oil fields, which pay out to the entire tribe. Overall Native Americans in the US are at a socioeconomic disadvantage compared to non-NA populations, primarily because they are in largely undeveloped (from a business/economic perspective) areas of the country, which are not considered targets of development. They suffer from both ethnic disparities as well as the same disparities that generally affect rural vs urban populations.
Sometimes society does things to help organize itself.
No, it's not; a couple of them have names that refer to that trait.
Already a few people saying yeah it's not perfect but it's a rough approximation.
No, that's the whole point, it's not. It's astrology level science. There's no there there.
"Race" is about as real as :) is a face.
No it isn’t, it allows us to make accurate predictions about health. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=35182504&goto=item%3Fi...
That’s real science, saying it doesn’t exist is astrology level pseudoscience.
If you do any kind of clustering on genetic expression data, all kinds of categories much more detailed than racial categories jump out - a good example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_genetic_structur... which shows not only that there are extremely distinct genetic clusters between locations like Europe, China, and America, there are actually highly distinct genetic clusters for each individual European nation - in fact there are even moderately distinct genetic clusters for different geographical areas within a single European nation.
To use the astrology metaphor, the scientific critique would be something like “we need to do away with astrology because months don’t capture the differences - there’s actually significant differences on the level of individual days of birth, even on the level of morning/afternoon/night time of birth”. We take the wrong message from these announcements when we conclude that there’s no differences at all.
The correct response is, “well junior you’re just seeing things. Please stop making such observations.”
Your example would make more sense if the kid was asking why 1% of people have red hair. And we can answer that without inventing a ginger race, and with much more interesting science based answers that involve actual genetics:
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml
This article describes how members of different ethnic groups have different complications in pregnancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7290488/
Here is a review about how race affects Adverse Drug Experiences (In response to commonly prescribed drugs), published in the journal of ethnic and racial health disparities.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-015-0101-3
Sure it would be better to sequence each person's genome to accurately place them on the spectrum of human genetic diversity, but that's not practical in a hospital or emergency setting.
Emphasis added. Race != ethnicity; TFA argues against using the former and suggests using the latter (with other things).
> Some of the key recommendations focus on getting rid of the use of race and instead focusing on what the report terms "population descriptors." These can be things like ethnicity, region of residence, and so on.
One of the drugs has a greater risk of nasty side affects for the black patient.
Which drug do you give the patient?
Should the research that tells you which drug to give be banned?
Such research is not being banned or proposed to be banned- in fact, there's a lot more interest now in understanding the relationship between genetic history and response to disease, but the work is still fairly primitive.
Which drug do you give him?
No, and nobody suggested anything like that, so if you're trolling please don't.
The point of TFA is that a study reporting "drug X has greater risks for black people" is weak science, because any given doctor has little way of determining whether their patient is genetically similar to whoever participated in the study. If the study had instead reported risk levels for, say, people of North African ancestry, then the doctor could ask about the patient's background and make an informed decision, instead of just looking at skin color and hoping for the best.
> However, few of these studies were specifically designed to evaluate racial or ethnic disparities, lacking a standardized approach to racial/ethnic categorization as well as control for potential confounders.
The NIH study that the article is about provides concrete recommendations that would help alleviate the precise concerns expressed by your article.
You seem like you might be responding to the headline rather than the underlying content of the NIH study.
"Entryism (also called entrism, enterism, or infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organization in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism
>The report offers a decision tree to help researchers choose whether race, ethnicity or indigeneity, geography, genetic ancestry, or genetic similarity are most appropriate for their work.
So, "We can't define 'race' so stop using it in science" is a factually incorrect description of the report and is instead click bait journalism intended incite controversy where none exists.