Research such as this genome sequencing and DNA evaluation might be useful in identifying genetic factors for autism - something that was rarely known in my day, but much more prevalent today. Do genetics play a role? This would help clarify whether it does or not. (myself, I believe it is also due to environmental exposures and lack of play outside in the dirt. When I was a baby, infants were regularly placed on blankets on the grass or in the sandbox, giving them exposure to lots and lots of different germs...
16
This point of view is specifically social and political and has nothing to do with science. Science influenced by politics is not a science. The genetic difference between races and biologically conditioned medical conditions are not subject to the ideology, they are a physical reality. the difference doesn'r mean hierarchy. It means that we all are different, and genetics are not to be ignored. We are not the same. Diversity is good. Stop politicizing SCIENCE!
33
We all know what race we belong to. So, artificial construct or not, it's a construct upon which whole societies are constructed. It's a fuzzy logic kind of construct but if you ask 100 strangers of a particular culture to look over, say, 100 pictures of random people, they will "properly" categorize into the same racial categories a significant number of those pictures. So, regardless of what culture we come from, we have a concept of race -- of "otherness" -- and an ability to categorize based upon it. As Dr. Reich rightly points out, that ability is cultural in origin, and is an endemic artifact of a society.
The problem we have in all of this is how to determine what is inherited, and what is the result of social constructs enforced on children by parents -- the "nature vs. nurture" controversy. I put great store in genetics to cure inherited diseases, but I do not put great store in any ability they may assert to change culture. That is up to the people who have embraced the culture. These constructs are there for a reason, and perhaps it's out of the geneticist's field of knowledge to determine them. The geneticists have figured out only a fraction of the features our genome codes for, so I doubt they have any idea what part of our genome codes for superior intelligence -- or what would happen if we built humans by concentrating upon a single capability. All of that is far outside of their pay grade.
10
David I can only congratulate you for writing this piece from the very bottom of my heart. I hold two BSc (Hons) degrees, one from the University of Melbourne (major in biochemistry) and the other from Monash University (double major in mathematics and physics). Even with my very rudimentary knowledge of genetics I find myself agreeing with your sentiments totally. I find myself wanting to support you to the hilt in your implied arguments in favor of the scientific method and by implication against ‘political correctness’.
You have grasped a very thorny political and social nettle. I know that there with be, inter alia, people with political agendas who will attack you. I hope that you will stand firm in the face of the attacks that I am sure you will face. After all, you have science on your side. I doubt that it will reach the proportions of a Galileo Galilei verses the Inquisition stand-off but I am sure it will become unpleasant at times for you.
I absolutely hate it when science self-censors itself because of political correctness or for any other reason.
I hope that this article and your forthcoming book do not cause you any problems with grant applications either.
You have my very, very best wishes, total respect and admiration for your courage.
59
I live in Berkeley and recently watched some friends move from there house to the East Coast. These two are at the top of what society offers: Good marriage, nice kids , great salaries, fascinating work, a future taken care of by jobs with retirement and tremendous benefits. Then I watched the guys moving them. Are they even making 1/20 of what my friends are? No retirement, questionable benefits, couldn't start to buy a home in this area. How does that impact a marriage or their kids? If we can equalize benefits for people, it will go a long way to making arguments about genetic differences unimportant. But in a meritocracy that distributes goods according to the current perception of excellence, where difference becomes the excuse for indifference, the racists and sexists babel everywhere.
22
This is the same old, same old... I co-wrote a book on this with my mother, who co-taught a class on this with Dick Lewontin. 1) Reich mischaracterizes our argument -- obviously, people who look different have *some* genetic differences. 2) He claims that showing one large group of men has a somewhat higher chance, on average, of getting prostate cancer will improve their health prospects, with no explanation of how it could do that. 3) He jumps from establishing a genetic link for a specific disease to genetic links for vague "cognitive and behavioral" characteristics. 4) He ignores the question of why one would be looking for evidence of cognitive or behavioral characteristics between self-defined races, except to excuse current disparities. 5) He suggests we must be brave enough to do such inherently racist studies, and confident that their results will be used "maturely..."
I would suggest that before doing any racial studies, we first need a solid scientific study of the maturity, on average, of our current national leaders, demonstrating that we can indeed be confident they would not misuse the results of those studies.
24
Race is a human construct. The author does not recognize that his need to label the identified genes into racial categories is a result of a societal artificial construction which compels him to do so.
Assuming there was any use to organizing genetic characteristics into racial categories, which is highly doubtful, our society is not advanced enough to study race in such a suspect manner. Currently, human beings are focused on gaining power and riches regardless of the well beings of other people an the planet itself. One has to look no farther than the president of the United States to see man's shallow, un-advanced animal greed in action, plowing through and diminishing people and planet with little regard for anything than satiating greed. We lack wisdom. The fact that much of the globe exists in a state of perpetual war proves we are severely lacking in our emotional and philosophical evolution- thus, it would be foolish to tackled weak ideas that a large part of society would simple distort and use to harm others. We would be wiser to develop our wisdom first, only then can we properly delve into more complex concepts and technologies.
13
It should be emphasized that genes may determine a propensity to, for instance, develop prostate cancer, not a certainty that a person will. Also that there are variations within gene pools. Thus, if it is found that one group as a group has a slightly higher WAIS IQ than another, this doesn't mean that each individual within the group will have a higher IQ/
47
"Hispanic" was made into a race by the census department during the Nixon Administration. Since then people have been using the term as if it were actually a race. Americans are both obsessed with the subject of race and at the same time completely confused about it. Maybe we should just stop using the word. Substitute "population group" or "language group". It may help.
86
Let us see where the science takes us, and deal with the implications honestly, respectfully, and with the "humanity" humans seem not to possess.
35
I like this, and of course I think it makes sense, over-all. Research and scientific progress may be misused, but at least it is adding to the body of knowledge. The point that some comments seem to attempt to reinforce is that sometimes this information will be misused and misunderstood. So? We should just working on the real issues and just adopt a kind of weak-minded: "we are all equal and the same" idea about everything? Which is clearly inadequate in terms of reality and inaccurate.
For example: If we determine (or even concede) (and again, as an example) that Americans of African descent are less likely to do well in college, does it "mean" that all Africans are somehow lesser beings? First, "all" is not even suggested in the statement, and second, doing well in college is not some sort of be-all and end all measurement of human worth.
The idea behind a lot of the good thinking here is that society benefits when people are given equal opportunities, meaning when people, regardless of their differences, are treated equally: It's good for all of us
I'm not sure why this is so difficult to do. But it certainly seems to be.
43
I read this article with great interest but was/am curious about the absence of any mention of the possible role of epigenetics in any of the areas you touched on. Admittedly all I know about epigenetics has come from various nonacademic sources (e.g. the NY Times) so am uneducated about this topic. Nonetheless, from the little I have read I am always puzzled and disappointed by the lack of discussion about the interaction/relationship between genetics and epigenetics in the nonacademic media. Would appreciate a reply or to be directed to some writings that address this.
24
I think the most important point in the article, that could've been emphasized a bit more, is that differences in individuals are far greater than that of populations.
When those who use the stats of the average IQ justify that for racist ideologies, they seem to fail to recognize the fact that there is MASSIVE variance from the average of all races. As well as the fact that institutional discrimination also has a negative impact on IQ of populations, which when those factors are controlled (education, economic upbringing, even being adopted and raised by parents who are of a different race), leads to even less substantial difference in even the average of IQ of populations.
Differences in individuals vary FAR more widely than populations. Especially with intelligence.
32
Speaking of the differences between men and women, it seems to me that a woman, who on the average have less testosterone than a man, would be the better choice for head of state. Not that, as the authors states by implication, men shouldn't be offered the opportunity to lead, but they would be serving the cause of peace by not doing so.
20
Until relatively recently, most academics - and practically all of pop culture - portrayed neanderthals as our dumber, clumsier and less evolutionarily successful distant relatives. Today, our portrayal of neanderthals (particular of neanderthal intelligence) seems to be much more forgiving. Why the stark change in perspective? Surely, better science helps to expand our understanding of the world. But is it also possible that Western researchers (and culture as a whole) began to develop more favorable views of neanderthal intelligence shortly after learning that most people of European ancestry can trace as much as 2% of their own genetic lineage back to neanderthals?
It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that a scientific establishment compromised largely of people from one "racial" group or cultural tradition will inevitably interpret scientific findings in ways that would paint their own group more favorably (see Scientific Racism). The author himself points to historic examples and the consequences of such biases.
This only highlights the urgent need for a scientific establishment that better represents the whole of humanity. If not for the purpose of social equity than for the betterment of science.
20
I'm amused and saddened reading the comments. All these well-meaning 21st century ideologues trying to outdo each other demonstrating their virtuousness by rejecting science. Learn to handle the truth, people, and stop pirouetting around plain truths. Stereotypes (or folk wisdom as I like to call it) aren't always true, but they exist for a reason.
82
Yes, gene frequencies vary among populations, as long as those populations are sufficiently isolated from each other. Yes, genes influence our cognition and behaviour as they do our physical traits. But let's also avoid oversimplifying. Populations themselves are complex. The world is a mosaic not of a few populations, but of thousands. Those populations can be defined at different scales, depending on what point of divergence we choose to focus on. The genetic make-up of every population is always in flux thanks to mutation, genetic drift, and evolution. Populations themselves interbreed, merge, and separate into new populations. The individual variation within any population is large—and grows larger the larger the population. Plus, the cognitive and behavioural traits most important to human success are influenced not by one or two genes, but by hundreds that interact with each other in complex ways. And the expression of all those genes is altered in equally complex ways by multiple environmental factors.
So what do we make of it? Certainly our ancestry influences who we become as different ancestries give us higher or lower probabilities of inheriting certain genes and therefore certain phenotypes. In some cases, that knowledge can be useful to us. But individuals are unique and making generalizations about the intelligence or behaviour of any individual based on that person's (often hazily known) ancestry is a fool's errand—and one rife with pernicious consequences.
20
Sure race is a social construct. Within-race variance in genetics far over-shadows between group variance, and total group variance. All true.
But, social constructs matter, and are inseparable from "scientific" inquiry. That someone can study "objective" science, and make a report without changing a social construct is a dangerous myth. If we touch it, we socially construct it.
The current social construct of "America should be a heavily armed christian Norway of leisure class privilege for some, and barbed wire separated-Soweto for others" is devastating lives. The social construct seems to matter. Worse yet, knowing this has not liberated the country from approaching a banana republic status. Objective measurement of this status will similarly not liberate us from this social construction, nor cause a single person to give up guns, prejudice, or hatred.
Scientists too are dangerous. They would urge use of clinical data to make antiseptic decisions at the local level - never mind the pscychosocial, cultural, political and economic reality in which a patient is embedded. E.g., increasing awareness of the dangers of obesity is positively and strongly correlated with obesity, not 'absence of obesity.' To assume scientists suggesting "diet and exercise" matters to our health, is a very dangerous assumption, and defies social reality.
Hence, leave race alone. All races are fine and equal. Next question.
Kalidan
5
I am puzzled by this article and don’t get if idea presented is that David Reich is correct in stating that racial differences exist or that James Watson was wrong when he said similar thing. I found consolation in following sentence: “If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong.” So what is the point of the article or the book, then?
21
While studying gene distributions and the presence of genes in individuals and then looking for validated links with disease or other traits can prove informative, we run tremendous risks in taking a small piece of science inquiry or discovery and extending it into conclusive results for societies, cultures or politics. If we have an absence of scientific knowledge and obtain a significant new discovery, then fine, new and verdant fields of endeavor and application ensue. But remember: We Americans already have a hyper individuated culture wherein the individual is revered as an autonomous corporate shopper or consumer far beyond all other considerations. Deriving broad conclusions by way of analyzing genes as the hyper individuated units of scientific inquiry poses even more conclusion or validation hazard than what we already experience with our study of the individual. Some genes never obtain expression without social or environmental triggers. Some inheritances bypass genetics yet are caused by early childhood or gestational stresses or factors. The field of Geography includes a subset called Geography of Population which might take into account topography (such as the layout of a large box store for consumers) among multiple other influences. Also, the choices of what to validate or correlate in terms of gene expression will always prove arbitrary, biased and political, just as such choices in evaluating the individual are now.
6
Apropos of the author's comments regarding genetic differences between genders, it is worth noting that Dr. Watson and his colleague Francis Crick misappropriated from Rosalind Franklin the "proof" that the form of DNA is a helix and that the length of strands of DNA are much longer than they were assuming. Watson treated Franklin with open and insulting distain and rumor has it that he and Crick literally stole from Franklin's lab the high resolution photographs of DNA fibers that Franklin and her student Raymond Gosling had developed to observe and study the structure of DNA. Without the Franklin photographs, Watson and his elitist group most likely never would have been able to cross the first threshold of DNA analysis. Watson and Crick were awarded the Nobel prize while Rosalind Franklin was relegated to the dustbin of unknown women scientists who played essential roles in the development of scientific knowledge. I add this comment on a somewhat remote subject to affirm the author's premise that the internal politics that infects DNA science continues to impair deep scientific analysis and discovery to this very day.
32
Part of the struggle is to remember how science works. It develops useful knowledge FROM PREEXISTING KNOWLEDGE. Sorry, no other way to show emphasis here.
Science can be used to make accurate predictions and develop new technologies, but only as accurate and useful as the observations that formed the basis for that scientific knowledge to begin with. Science doesn't form correct concepts from nothing, nor does it usually form knowledge from the "ground" up. It builds on human experience and the conclusions of previous research.
The observations that form the basis for science are subject to interrogation, and the complex, interwoven construct of logical assertions that forms the full body of science can become rickety, unstable, or subject to massive unexpected inversions, depending on the pattern of its struts. To be blunt, no one alive understands all of science or can totally perceive its net validity or falsehood.
Why does this matter? Because we are first and foremost poor OBSERVERS of intelligence, behavior, and human worth! Our observations are relentlessly shallow, biased, and demonstrated to be wrong as soon as we turn our backs or the tone shifts. And second, our DEFINITIONS of human traits like intelligence are notoriously lacking in validity. Once of the reasons artificial intelligence is such a hot topic is that, once we succeed in replicating intelligence, maybe for the first time we will have some clue as to what it actually is.
7
This article makes me nervous and it makes me wonder what the motivation for this (arguably flawed; certainly imperfect) research really is.
19
There are two inconvenience truths for two political stripes. Global warming for one stripe, and human genomics divergence for the other. Science denier of one is the science embracer of the other.
32
Historically speaking, before recent contacts with other civilizations, sub- Saharan Africans did not invent the wheel, did not invent writing, developed minimal art and came up virtually empty in terms of math, science, and technology. Perhaps it was their physical isolation but it is easy to see why the early African explorers were not impressed.
31
Your comment is far from the truth and over generalization of the African continent and its history. This was the biggest point in this article the dangers of misinformation. I'm not going to go into details about the genetic diversity Africans display across the continent or how the term Sub Saharan is just...pointless, but I will say that Africa did develop art, writing, math, and science etc. To use the wheel as a guide to group differences in intelligence is ridiculous seeing how no one knows where the wheel originated(not Europe). There are plenty of societies that flourished without the wheel and even writing, for example the Mesoamerican civilizations.
13
I look forward to the day when the term 'race' is irrelevant and instead we just consider alleles, and those you carry are simply a reflection of genetic history along with PLENTY of recombination. Thinking of 'race' as a proxy for determining disease risk or other attributes is riddled with uncertainties when considering an individual. Population genetics works well with large populations but much less so for individuals. I look forward to the day people care less about where we originated from as individuals and instead concerns itself with where we are going as a species that collectively controls the fate of the entire planet.
16
while many of the commentariat seemingly want to deny that genetics has anything to do with IQ, and insist with certainty that any differences among groups must be explained by culture, not biology, they are wrong. That thinking is clearly not supported by science. And the genetic role in determining IQ is a question that becomes more critical as our society develops and our economy and jobs become more dependent on complex technologies. Specifically, jobs have become more complex and brain clearly beats brawn for forecasting how well people will do in terms of income & more so in the future. More complex jobs increases the importance of IQ. Now, forgetting groups --- what we do know for a certainty is that half the population is below average in IQ and will likely have more and more difficulty in finding well paying jobs in the future.
If you want to believe IQ is irrelevant, you are wrong. If you believe it is a narrow construct, poorly understood, etc. you are wrong -- although there is much more we can learn. If you believe what ever differences in IQ exist are due to culture, environment, etc., you are wrong and wrong in a way that will create increasing harm. Instead of ignoring IQ, we need to increase our understanding so that we can do whatever is possible to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. If we just say, everyone needs a college degree and think that will solve the problem, that is simply ignoring an issue of great importance.
58
Reich and the Establishment are backtracking on race because they have to. If they don't, in a few years they'll end up looking like a bunch of snake handlers from the fever swamps, with zero credibility.
And zero credibility is what they deserve -- as more and more evidence comes in, we realize that men like James Watson and Revilo Oliver were right all along. Races are self-defining entities, true. But the consequences of that self-definition, and its concomitant separation and separate evolution, are more than merely real -- they are profound. They are the difference between a witch doctor's totem and the Saturn V rocket.
17
My brother-in-law is a biologist who specializes in genetics and the version he gave me (presumably rather dumbed-down so I could grasp it) is that populations existing for thousands of years and more in a single geographic area tend to share certain traits, but fundamentally the world is populated by about 7 billion individuals. It seems to me this simple paradigm can account for differences in things like ear wax and frequency of prostate cancer but maintains the emphasis on the fact that we are all individuals. I've found this outlook incredibly useful in everyday life in combatting my blindspots, which we all inevitably have, and helping my kids to navigate a world that still clings to so many stereotypes.
23
@Ilona,
Indeed. And what's amusing (and depressing) about all the commenters who think this somehow validates their views about race is that the more we develop this science and technology, the less race matters.
Think about it: If we ever did achieve a high enough resolution in our measurements to establish some kind of genetic indicator of "intelligence" (doubtful, as others have pointed out), then each individual could be tested for that trait. And since (again, as has been pointed out over and over) the variations *within* what we call racial groups is way greater than the difference in the average *between* those groups, what would be the point of even measuring that average?
I know it sounds like GATTACA, but it would actually achieve the "color-blindness" that people like to bring up in discussing college admissions and so on. Perhaps these people should be careful what they wish for. It may turn out that their child *really is* less "intelligent" than someone with darker skin, who gets that slot. No more excuses about affirmative action.
6
Race is just one of the observable characteristics used to explain the variability of outcomes. It proxies for something that has true explanatory power but not easily observable. Unfortunately, since we humans rely on our visual senses a lot we put a lot of emphasis on visually observable characteristics.
11
As a layperson, I was able to follow Reich's point about the existence of a correlation between certain genes and performance on intelligence tests and the implication that there may be more of this to come in the future. What is not obvious to me at this point is whether (a) that correlation has or will eventually be shown to have a genetic cause (perhaps it's all correlation, with some other, unidentified cause at play); (b) what intelligence tests tell us about intelligence; (c) what our often narrow notions of intelligence tell us about people and life outcomes; and (d) how much extra-genetic dimensions of the problem such as epigenetics are involved in the cited findings of a correlation between certain genes and intelligence.
5
Nature deals each individual a genetic hand but that person is then shaped by a social situation with concentric rings of influence. But even within a family there can be large differences in behavior, ability, and ultimate social status. Height, facial symmetry, and perceived attractiveness confer significant advantages. Still, predicting life's outcomes based on some snapshot of genes and circumstance would be highly fraught. Even identical twin pairs can have one member who identifies as gay and one who's straight.
Genetics probably sets significant but broad bounds on all manner of health and social outcomes. The uncertainties involved make it much more important for people to be treated as individuals. And a just and self interested society owes its collective members the best opportunity for health and development without prejudice or presumptions of that person's potential.
To that end, genetic research offers real opportunities to discover the mechanisms behind disease, improve identification of underlying risk factors, and help with development of therapies tailored to specific genetic predispositions.
There are real differences among individuals, many obvious to the naked eye. But prejudging people and pigeonholing them reflects our worst instincts. It's much better to view these advances in genetics as an opportunity for better understanding and advancement.
7
This argument – acknowledge the genetic basis of differences in achievement but ensure equal opportunity for all – will never make it with liberals, who long ago went from demanding equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. Any inequality of outcome must, according their ideological commitments, be attributed to discrimination: sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. (If no visible "racist" cause can be discovered, disparity of outcome will be explained by "invisible" agents such as "structural" racism, etc.)
These ideological commitment will not go away simply because they're not supported by the facts. The facts will simply be denied.
36
Genetics is somewhat like ingredients in cake. Almost all will have some amount of basic ingredients (e.g. sugar, flour, eggs and water). Depending of their flavor, each will have other ingredients. But how they are cooked (e.g. their environment) can really impact their outcome. Nevertheless, during our lifetime, I think all of us would prefer having a smorgasbord of choices versus only one choice.
In case my metaphor didn't come across well, basically we all are essentially the same and our differences add to the flavor of our life, and almost all of us wouldn't want to have our duplicate as our sole companion. Knowing more about each other should be a good thing. Unfortunately, some will abuse this opportunity.
6
Given that traits like intelligence and specific behavioral characteristics are complex, controlled by many genes that differ in their allelic combinations among individuals (not to mention modifying epigenetic factors,) can we really start using the information provided by the relatively few genes we have some (sometimes scanty) information on to make sweeping comparisons of traits between populations?
6
The author says scientists should speak out and then in the following paragraphs detail two scientists whose careers were ruined for doing so. I'm not sure why anyone would venture to do that in such an environment. Charles Murray's reputation was dragged through the mud for two decades for publishing information similar to this article. It seems you can explain some differences but others are untouchable especially if they could offend certain segments of the population.
43
Professor Reich clearly has not done much research on gender, which is the term that largely has replaced "sex" as a term to define different classes of people. There may be biological differences between men and women, but those categories and boundaries are not rigid, but fluid. In my reading of this piece, the author seems to imply that all people who identify as women, and all people who identify as men, have the same characteristics. Not true. Read some feminist scholarship, along with the science research studies.
9
"We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences."
I am not sure how this could possibly be misinterpreted
24
Even so, women can (in general) gestate children, but men can never do so. Some differences are real. On the other hand humans are a motley crew. Our genetic inheritance is scrambled. By and large, we are all mutts.
I do not believe in the Brotherhood of Mankind but I surely do believe in the Cousinhood of Mankind. We are all descendants of a few who survived the torments of nature.
6
My reservation is that we no longer even need the concept (is it a concept?) or better, the "cultural construct" of a race to talk meaningfully about biological diversity, which is, after all, a key to our ability to adapt to change. Without it, we are doomed. If we misuse it we are also in really big trouble. See WW II, American civil war, etc. etc. for simple corroboration of that. So, yes, there are surely individual vulnerabilities lodged in population differences, but to discuss these without even mentioning epigenetic impacts is also pretty misleading. We now know that traumatic experience creates very profound changes in the way genes are expressed and that populations that have experienced those--enslavement, war, pogroms, epidemics, starvation to name a few--have long-lasting (multiple generational) problems associated with that. Without a morality based discussion of any of this, we are going to miss the core element of racism to begin with.
3
More question than a statement
I believe the beginning of the evolution is epigenetics. ( I’ll say these is like the software between the gens and gens are hardware) When mouse parents are in their life under the stress, so have the third or forth generation still these signs. And so I believe, the people or nations which have been lived for many generations in different environment are then different. Maybe is this a possibility to explain some differences between the nations.
In my case I am interested if it is possible to explain behavior from Slovenes. Our ancestors were for near 1.200 years subjects of foreign rulers – of monarchs and from Church. In everyday life is our behavior to foreigners different – subdued, than to our people.
And: I am still living in Germany and I think the Germans have different history than the people from France or Great Britain with their kings since many centuries. So I think they are more subdued and so it is possible to explain – a little – WW1 and WW2.
4
Could it be that intelligence itself is also a social construct, it's measurement being based on how well an individual navigates the society into which he or she is born/brought up? I may be "smart" in my culture but "dumb" in another.
15
If everything about everyone is genetically determined, then no one is really responsible for what he or she becomes. Our successes and failures are not our own, but merely consequences of how well or poorly we did in the genetic lottery. We deserve no credit nor do we deserve any blame. All we can say is that we are all equally underserving of our inequality.
2
That is almost exactly what he is not saying
8
But it is the logical conclusion of a world where human cognition and behaviour is largely determined by genetics, and the differences in our genetic make-ups lead to differences in outcomes for us. Suddenly, we can't take credit for our successes nor blame others for their failures. No one choose his genes or has any input at all into what DNA they are given.
Ethically, such a genetically determined world leads us in one of two directions. We can take the conservative approach, which means simply accepting inequality as nature's will and doing nothing to help those who suffer because of it. Or we can actually accept responsibility to support those who are genetically less fortunate. In other words we can be uncaring or compassionate. I choose compassion, how about you?
4
"This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out"....seems like some folks have some apologies in store for Harvard professor Charles Murray....
23
This is one of the most appalling articles I have ever read on this site. It ranks right up there with the sympathetic article that was written about the nazi couple.
For example the author states "multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans," and I find it frightening that such ignorance is still believed. Multiple Sclerosis is more often EXPRESSED in Europeans than African Americans due to most Europeans living in a cooler climate. In fact there has been an increase in the diagnoses of MS in African Americans due to the historic migration to the north with cooler climates and the dismantling of the old belief that MS did not exist in the African American population. The reemergence of such an ignorant belief would deny many African Americans a proper diagnoses and treatment. Numerous studies have shown that MS will be more prevalent in cooler climates.
https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/risk-factors-for-multiple-scleros...
Just one of numerous misrepresentations in this article and raises serious questions about the agenda and integrity of this site in printing such nonsense.
I am also involved in genetic studies and genetics have reinforced that there is very little differences between the so called "races" and that race is a social construct. In fact recent studies in Africa are showing all genetic variations originated in Africa but were only expressed due to migration to new environments.
14
This is only one of the more appalling comments I've read here. It is almost purposely deceptive. First, most diagnoses of any disease relate to solely expression. Most, not all, diseases, only matter if they are expressed. So the author is on much firmer ground than the commenter. Second we know beyond any doubt that there is a strong genetic component to MS. Twins are far more likely to get, or express(!) the disease than others. That they are not 100% likely to get or express it also proves that it is not ENTIRELY genetic. The rest we don't know yet. The point of the article is that we should know more and not be afraid of race studies, partly because our present situation it's hardly ideal.
26
There are no serious studies that link MS to climate - there is an association only - and MS's link to genetic identity has been studied in depth for many years.
Everything that the real scientist: Dr. Reich says is accurate and MSnewstoday is simply a news site with no medical/scientific connections at all.
13
please forward article to the US census, which has defined race for the US since 1790, when you know what was still legal, and americans were trying to define and count themselves. (the indigenous population did not even make the first census; at the time, only relatively recent immigrants and their progeny were counted.) also, as immigration increased during the next few centuries; racial, religious and other categories offered a way to define ourselves and others.
n.b. the US census is not generally interested in counting cases of diseases, identifying susceptibility or risk of diseases, and identifying haplotypes. that is generally the CDC's job.
if the US census is convinced of modern biology and the continuum of genetic variation ("gene" was not even in the medical textbooks in 1790, let alone an english dictionary of common words), others should follow, except for fringe elements with a political axe to grind or a soapbox to stand on.
as the article states, one grouping that is easy to define genetically is based on sex, but even here answers can be fuzzy with XXY and other non-standard 23rd chromosomes.
...
"...knowledgeable scientists must speak out."
perhaps, but at some point, you need to know when not to waste time with codgers and trolls. voting can help too, to keep codgers and trolls from passing arbitrary and inconsistent legislation that the courts have to deal with.
2
It’s nice we now have the scientific tools that reveal the differences between and among “races”, but it has been obvious for thousands of years that these differences do make a huge difference in the way each “race” advanced with its culture and technology.
Despite the wars and inbred cultural animus, it is no accident that Western Europeans moved civilization forward both politically and technologically. Without question it was the driving force of their intellectual ethos that moved them forward.
In these last two centuries no countries have benefitted more from this than China, Korea, and Japan, but the question remains: How do those whose lineage belongs to Western Europe continue to integrate their success with the world that lags far behind?
It seems neither Neo-Marxism--multiculturalism and equality uber alles--nor Globalism--which is nothing more than economic Stalinism manned by the same group of industrialists and plutocrats that have been in place since the beginning of the 20th century--is the answer.
Ultimately, it becomes a question of who has the wealth and how best to use it to benefit the greatest number without destroying the system that made it all possible. Those with wealth only want more believing that it is their right and those who want to take that wealth for the “greater good” also believe it is their right.
“Race”, of course, is about the cerebral horsepower and cultural ethos that will make the difference. Stay tuned.
8
Looking forward to reading the book!
2
Could there be a more convincing proof of the inability of our culture to come to terms with the science of human groups than the comments on this piece?
Look at all the rationalizations and evasions: race doesn't really exist; it's all a social construct; IQ means nothing; it's all racism; epigenetics invalidates genetic explanation, etc.
Will we ever develop the maturity to deal with unwelcome facts? It doesn't look like it.
Darwin delayed publication of his ideas because he worried they would be rejected for moral reasons by his society. Little did Darwin know that the real resistance to the idea of evolution would be in the 21st century.
36
The goal of science is to create hypothesis and then verify or find fault with that idea through collecting empirical information. In science that information needs to be collected in a non judgmental way without prejudice.
But beyond this scientists as well as the rest of us have a bad habit of giving meanings to that information that inspires prejudice and mistaken conclusions that come from emotions of which we are barely aware. The challenge is to identify these emotions and their corresponding prejudices and eliminate them from the discussion. Can we do this affectively or in situations that have so much history and emotional baggage?
In short as a species will we be capable of growing beyond our reptile brains to become a species that is able to take in all differences? Our ape cousins have about 98 percent genetic similarity to us and even a carrot possesses great similarities to us genetically. Life on this planet is intricately related and we need to learn respect for all of it.
4
so, is the author saying there is an Icelandic race, and it is the coding of genes for higher risk of prostate cancer that defines one as black race, not skin tone?
I heard recently Egyptians claim Egypt is not in Africa because skin color in Egypt is not black. maybe Mississippi is actually in Africa?
North Korea and Cooks Island have isolated populations the seem to qualify them as separate races, if race is the term to use to define general population genetic variation. but increasing rates of migration drive so much mixing the geolocation is misleading, as is appearance.
5
As I, and MANY experts, have repeatedly stated, Race is an made up concept, designed to help one group feel superior to another, and to justify their stupidity. PEOPLE have different colored skin, hair, and eyes. That is the only important biological difference between people. All people.
6
I am amazed that the author fails to adequately distinguish between “race” and “population” or genetic pool.
6
He is a distinguished, tenured and well-known genetic research at Harvard Medical School and recent winner of the $1 million 2017 Dan David Prize in archaeology and natural sciences.
You think he doesn't know that: "Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture. In biology, races are genetically distinct populations within the same species."
13
He might know it’s true, but just not care. There are lots of people who believe things about race regardless of whether they are true or not. There’s also a word for that...
5
An important and useful. That many will ignore or dispute.
Thereby furthering what the author warns against: denying genetic differences, when they clealy exist, provides cover for racists and racist theories.
4
Majority of this is flawed. No actual research cited properly here- name of each research study and journal it's published in. And the danger of publications like this is they muddy the argument and only reiterate racism. NYT should know better.
9
I just posted something similar. As a person who is involved in genetic studies myself I am really upset and angry that this article was allowed. It is truly disturbing.
7
What needs to be made clear is that the only science is physics, where there are clear laws of nature and mathematical prediction. Chemistry is merely a branch of physics albeit and important branch. And even physics has its inconsistencies. Most of the rest of which is commonly referred to as science is the application of the scientific method with conclusions based upon statistical analysis, conjecture and confirmation bias.
The problem I have in this article is that just by using the term "Race", there is immediately confirmation bias and conjecture. What are exactly the borders of West Africa? What the hell is intelligence anyway? My statistics professor always warned us to beware of hypothetical constructs - figments that are defined more by the tools of measurement than anything actually observable. Genetics is even a muddied term. We now know that epigenetics (how environment impacts genetic expression) plays a key role in our traits.
Anthropology has itself a long history of cultural bias. Mixing anthropology with genetics is, well, unscientific. When it comes to these matters, the pursuit of knowledge is great but ethics and morality need to rule the day. And ethically, the concept of "race" has no standing.
8
The question is what difference do genetic differences make? We still act as if genetics is determinative of behavior. I will gladly accept this if someone can make predictions before the fact rather than offer "plausible explanations"of differences among groups after the fact. We are all still individuals regardless of what the research says about "our group".
3
I am highly suspicious of studies in which researchers look to find linkages between genetic traits and behavior/life choices. In most of the cases cited here, voila the researchers found exactly what they were looking for. This should evoke great skepticism among scientists if not alarm. Afterall, what's the point in, for example, suggesting that group A has a greater tendency to pursue education and delay child bearing than group B? Policy to "correct" behaviors that might emerge and be troublesome? Segregating groups according to predictions with merely a patina of scientific truth attached? There is no such thing as race, as the Human Genome Project showed. But as long as arguments and "evidence" are concocted to say that there is, we will continue to create groups of people who engage conflict to deal with the prejudices that surely follow.
5
Reich identifies a real issue—that human populations do vary genetically—but does a poor job finding a framework to discuss that variation in a way that avoids simplistic stereotyping. Most differences between human populations are not as simple as the difference between men and women. The key to understanding genetic difference constructively is to avoid simplification and instead stare complexity in the face. Rather than simplifying, we need to recognize the immense complexity of (1) the genome itself, (2) the influence individual genes and combinations of genes have on the socially significant traits of cognition and behaviour, (3) the genetic variation of humans individually and by population, and (4) the transformations of that human variation over time. When one understands the complexity of all of this, it becomes silly to try to predict anything about any individual based on that person's (usually incompletely known) ancestry.
It is true that to the extent we can identify and isolate different populations, we will be able to find different frequencies of specific genes appearing in those populations. But populations are nested sets, and each of us belongs to a hierarchy of populations, so which of our populations is relevant depends on what we are looking at. Furthermore, interbreeding, mutation, genetic drift, and evolution are constantly transforming the population sets. There are patterns—but they are complex and in constant flux. Nothing is black and white.
3
It is sad that this is an article about science, not about our Constitution, law, or social values, yet so many see only the latter. Humans are animals and subjected to the law of nature, including evolution that results in the split of sub-species, or the emergence of new species, and that behavior is not a separate entity from physical appearance and everything about an animal is determined by genes. The so-called nature-vs.nurture is a great fallacy the same way as saying that Windows is different from iOS, hence, they must fundamentally have different CPU.
Humans have evolved into sub-groups with distinctive genetic clustering. This has nothing to do with the fact that our society is committed to the principle that everyone is equal under the law and everyone should have equal opportunity. We should fight for this principle and against prejudice with all our might, but we should not allow ourselves sliding back into the Dark Age by being science deniers.
8
According to a study reported by the Smithsonian Institution ( http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics ) humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% of the same genome. With gorillas humans share 98.4%. The same study showed a 0.1% difference among humans. Clearly a small difference in genes can make a huge difference in physical and cognitive abilities.
It is also true that averages say little about any specific individual. While men on average are taller than women, there are lots of women who are taller than the average man. Where this makes a difference is at the extremes of the bell curve. I would surmise that the tallest 0.1% of all humans has few if any women.
Another area where you see these differences is in athletics. No one would say that all blacks are more athletic than whites. But the mens' sprint events (100m and 200m) in the Olympics are dominated by individuals of West African descent.
9
Tall people with long legs probably can run much faster than short people with short legs, and if one has long legs, each stride takes them farther than someone with short legs. That doesn't have much to do with intelligence, IMO, more with body mechanics.
"This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found."
You can develop the best discursive toolbox in the history of human civilization—it won't change the fact that its concepts will get completely twisted by people with other agendas.
4
"Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid." Professor Reich's advice is a nice academic view which perhaps should be taken to heart among academics but will go completely unnoticed by the general population who will continue to believe what they want even in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary. One needs only look at the significant minority of our fellow citizens who approve of the debacle that is the Trump Presidency. And what evidence does he have regarding his "confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings." Scientific findings have been and always will be used by some non-scientists in furtherance of political and economic advantage, cherry picking the data for evidence supporting their positions on all manner of issues. While scientists must be free to pursue scientific truth and free to publish it, it is the application of their findings that is the double edged sword, one side for good, the other for evil with a lot of gray areas in between.
What seems to have been ignored or forgotten here are the facts that we are all members of the genus/species Homo sapiens and that, except for a few dominantly inherited diseases and fatal mutations, genes are not destiny. Interactions between genes and the environment are far more important.
1
Patients with recent African ancestry benefit from a heart medication that doesn't help patients with recent European ancestry. About 27% of Swedes carry the gene for hemochromatosis because that gene conferred immunity to bubonic plague 600 years ago. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia is common among Africans living in areas where malaria is common because that gene confers immunity to malaria. Cancer treatments are now being guided and made more effective by analyzing genetic components of specific tumours in specific individuals. Studying the genetic basis of different types of intelligence and learning ability may help struggling students acquire important skills by tailoring teaching methods to the individual. Industrial automation and self-driving vehicles are eliminating low-skill jobs. We have to abandon political correctness and face the reality of genetic differences when assessing and developing skills potentials. One of the problems with only looking at overall IQ is that it ignores the fact that the most effective learning methods for individuals with innate, genetically-influenced, strong three-dimensional visualization abilities but poor verbal abilities will not be the same as the most effective learning methods for individuals with strong verbal abilities and poor three-dimensional visualization abilities.
6
When reading articles such as David Reich's, we need to remember that humans are individuals regardless of populations, ancestry and other characteristics. As such, humans should be treated as we find them and not the result of labels. When I operate on a person (surgeon), I deal with the anatomy (and disorder) that I find, not on the population/social group of that person which may or may not apply to that individual. While these population genetic studies give us ideas of trends, they are not universal/absolute and should not be taken as universal. Scientific study gives up information for consideration and application when needed but we should never forget our fellow humans as individuals with variance. This is the fun part of medicine for me; discovery of the wonder of the individual.
4
Reich is correct. For humans, almost all traits are normally distributed, with most people being at the average & fewer and fewer at the tails of the distribution. This may be less true for discontinuous/rare attributes. But for most traits, it is reasonable to expect a near normal distribution.
When you look at sub populations, no matter how defined, avgs for a given trait won't be exactly the same, the standard deviation may not be exactly the same, nor should we expect them to be. But the distributions will most often tightly overlap and group membership means little. For some traits, distribution avgs may be further apart. And while this may be unimportant in most instances, if we are focused on group -- not individual -- outcomes -- differences in the averages of some traits may affect group outcomes on key indices of concern.
It is also important to note that culture can affect genetics. Let's say you have two non interbreeding populations. In one, men who have large hands are considered most attractive and on average, impregnate more women than their smaller handed rivals. In the other, small hands on a man set maidens' hearts aflutter and small handed men get more damsels. Over time you shouldn't be surprised that the 1st population has more large handed men, the 2nd more small handed. Where the preference comes from who knows, but any trait that provides reproductive advantage will become more common in a population, even one culturally defined.
2
The idea that a person's DNA makes a person culturally better or worse is pure supersitition. DNA is a more objective way to study measure of how variables in behavior, on a cellular level, are affected by variables in the environment. Social attitudes are simply a part of the environment we can change, and of course, nowadays, the same can be said of DNA.
2
I still don’t get what “race” is supposed to be. Ethnicities, countries of origin, languages I can understand. But I am unpersuaded that race is real in a scientific sense, and continuing to argue otherwise strikes me as dangerous and will be irrelevent in a couple of generations probably.
The problem is that even the study of the writer of this article somehow tries to accentuate genetic and racial differences. I believe, instead of trying to concentrate our studies on sole genetic studies we have to develop more inter-disciplinary studies especially between sociology and genetic studies so to prevent stereotypical assertations which can result from sole genetic studies. As the writer himself pointed out, even though people might be different genetically based on their ancestors but social variables are still so important in defining the behavior of individuals and a repressed stereotypical racial community. We have to find out those social variables.
2
The author provides the test that needs to be passed, when he states that "we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those [X and Y genetic] differences." When this comes to pass, then the research into genetic differences in all the other DNA bits will not be the dangerous field of landmines that it is today.
2
Put aside the methodological error/problem of comparing surveys of time-bound mixed-race traits of hundred white millions to a search for the same traits (illnesses, standardized ability test result, etc.)of tens of mixed-race African millions. Unequal sample size comparisons between so-called races tend to distort the comparison significance of proportional result differences of the yields between them.
In American professional sports history, for example, there was once a ban on competitions between white and black baseball players, and a ban between black and white professional prizefighters, because black athletes were once considered inherently unequal in sports abilities to whites. Segregation customs and laws in professional sports, as we now know, had nothing to do with genetic differences between the “social constructed” differences in racial appearances. The segregation that required black baseball players to compete only among other black baseball teams (the bklack baseball league) or required black boxers to fight only black boxers had nothing to do with their inherent genetic lack of ability to compete with white skinned baseball teams and white boxers. A worthy line of scientific inquiry will be to determine whether there is a genetic predisposition to preserve social advantages through racist laws giving unfair economic advantage to one group over another?
3
The subtle scientific distinctions that Mr. Reich discusses will not survive interpretation by demagogues.
5
When affronted by government or medical forms that require me to specify my "race" I enter "Human" which is the only applicable truth as I know it. I understand that there may be a few, isolated, legitimate medical or legal reasons to identify my genetic or social sub group. But, without a further, in depth discussion and justification, I refuse to contribute to the illusion that I or anyone else can be accurately identified on a checklist of options that routinely include "white" and "black" (inherent lies).
1
The only solution to this dilemma is to treat each human being as an individual, not as a member of some victim/oppressor group. Can we abendon the identity politics? Can we stop the “victim Olympic”?
3
This is self-evident: An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. But, it's not so self-evident: ...whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims. Racist prejudices and agendas are dealt with us (part and parcel) in our individual deck of life deck of life! It's useless to tiptoe around it. It is so and will always be so, as long as nature doesn't deal us a new deck without the feature of racial discrimination! I defer to Pascal who claims that our Imagination determines everything and it is the Imagination that leads us astray to believe in things that don't exist.
1
Reich is clearly correct that disease has a genetic component, and that markers of that disease are unequally divided geographically.
But that has nothing to do with the simple fact that a job application or a government document that asks one's "race" is not posing a genetic question. It is as much an honest social and political question as it is a potentially devious social and political question.
The only objective answer to the question is "Human" or "None."
3
Between looking for "racial differences" and simply developing a large enough model to see what's actually there spans the spectrum between racism and science. Many might agree that nurture has far more to do with measurable variations in behavioral traits defined as positive than nature.
An isolated population can develop a tendency to a particular disease out of the collective history of that population, which only indicates the stresses and conditions it met while isolated. To generalize such a response as superior or inferior is the province of racism - not science. Genetic variation is a means of having populations with a sufficiently large enough field of traits to survive pandemics or natural catastrophes.
4
It cannot be surprising that groups of people who've formed coherent populations over a long period of time would come to have distinctive characteristics.
The thing to remember is that the averages that characterize groups are useless for predicting the characteristics of an individual. Even if I'm born into a group of people who tend to be tall, or people more likely to get MS, I myself may be short and healthy. This understanding can help guard us against prejudice.
14
I am a biologist who researches variation in organisms. Race is real and not a "cultural construct." Humans are animals subject to the same genetic and evolutionary constraints as other animals. The article noted one study that found 85% of the variation in humans is within groups whereas 15% is among groups. This is absolutely typical for organisms, but that 15% is not negligible, it is reflective of meaningful and measurable differences, e.g., native Chinese parents do not have children who look like Nigerians, and Nigerian parents do not have children who look like Norwegians. Human offspring look morphologically the same as their parents and obviously different from other races because of the consistent among-group genetic differences.
The article notes other racial differences in physiology that have been found. If there are obvious morphological differences and measurable physiological differences among races, it is completely possible that there also are cognitive differences too. I am not hypothesizing about the directionality of those differences nor am I advocating knowledge of this dicey subject even be pursued--but it is intellectually dishonest to deny these differences may exist.
31
You're correct that it would be dishonest to deny morphological difference between groups. But it's the ways in which societies -- scientists included -- parse morphological difference that matters. "White" people have red hair, brown hair, blonde hair, freckles or no freckles, very dark brown or very pale skin, long noses, short noses, etc... but we ignore those differences when we classify people as "white" and insist that "whiteness" (or blackness, asian-ness, etc.) is a salient basis for biological analysis of groups. This is because race is a political category -- as you, yourself, seem to suggest when you remark that "native Chinese parents do not have children who look like Nigerians, and Nigerian parents do not have children who look like Norwegians." "Chinese," "Nigerian," and "Norwegian" are political categories -- not biological ones. The fact that even a biologist can conflate biological characteristics (like genomes) with political characteristics (like what passport someone's parents hold) is indicative of the sort of myopia (though not dishonesty, I suspect) that an insistence on the biological relevance of centuries-old political categories can engender.
1
"it is intellectually dishonest to deny these differences may exist." Yes. Sadly, we the country is intellectually dishonest on both sides of political spectrum. Democrats, ideologue leftists are just as bad science deniers as Republicans, dogmatic fundamentalists. Eventually, scientific truth shall prevail.
2
The very real differences within races you point out are evidence of that vast variation I acknowledged that is manifest WITHIN races. That variation does not negate the consistent variations AMONG races. I chose political categories to represent races to make and perhaps dramatize my point. I could just as easily said that East Asian parents don't give birth to black children, and black parents don't give birth to white children and it would not change my argument whatsoever.
1
I quite agree with the initial part of your essay, and congratulate the Times on having had the bravery to print it. However, later on, you chicken out and deny the possibility that observed differences are the consequence of genetics, even though there is good reason to believe, on the basis of evolutionary principles, that some probably are.
The sad reality is that as our knowledge increases, we are going to have to face the reality of racially-associated genetic differences on personality and cognitive ability. It will no longer be sufficient for 139 geneticists to write a letter, or to fire those who are foolhardy or brave enough to posit them. Knowledge will make such tactics obsolete.
For example, as you undoubtedly know, Ashkenazi but not other Jews score on average between 112 and 115 on IQ tests. But despite what you imply, there's pretty good evidence that genetic factors are responsible. See, for example "The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" by Cochran, et al.:
http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
As a Gaucher's carrier, I have at least one of those apparently intelligence-increasing alleles myself.
As you say, we will ultimately have to learn to treat people as individuals. My fear is that we are too prone to stereotyping to do that, as witness the persistent discriminatory attitudes towards women and African-Americans. One possibility is that gene therapy will ultimately eliminate the differences.
7
Probably I am too selfish, so e.g., I do not care if a fellow countryman (or woman) got a Nobel prize or an Olympic Gold medal or not (because I do not). In my view people are race-sensitive or racist because they mind too much others in some selective ways. Is this trait also genetically wired? If that's a possibility we should start to promote the idea that human culture transcends genes.
2
Most people in the western world believe, explicitly, as the many commenters do, or implicitly believe in “white” (male) supremacy. Sad.
3
Where on the genome of white men like David Reich is the gene favoring an increased propensity to look for explanations of inequity that let them entirely off the hook? Just curious...
3
Two thoughts: (1) No matter the ultimate results of this research in terms of how it aligns or does not align to racial stereotypes, race, in the US, was socially constructed. We have been radicalized, white folks included. From the time of folks landed on the continent (and launched a genocide against native folks) there has been a pitting of people against each other by those in power for economic and political gain, starting with Bacon’s rebellion when white indentured servants and black slaves tried to join forces and were defeated. Gradually over time immigrants not initially considered white (Irish and Italians for examples) were brought into the white fold to increase voting blocks and economic power and to drive a deepening wedge between white-passing folks and black folks and native folks, among others. So, we can’t erase that history. This was not genetics; it was greed and power.
(2) Additionally, I’m am curious about the legacy of trauma in this research. If peoples are systemically oppressed through slavery or genocide, does that trauma affect genetic material and could the affects of that explain some of the genetic differences being identified?
6
Only if 1. the trauma afforded some advantage to people who developed a particular gene mutation associated with it, and 2. If it occurred much longer than 500 years or so, more like 50,000, to allow the advantageous gene to spread among a significant proportion of the subgroup.
It would certainly not explain anything in the genetically recent past.
1
@Michael Robertson,
Your #2 is an excellent point and should be expanded on.
There is certainly an interplay between nature and nurture over generations.
If you expose a mother to stress, substance abuse, environmental toxins, and so on, there could heritable changes in the offspring as compared to the genetically identical mother without those inputs. This could be epigenetic effects or mutation.
But also, non-heritable effects can have an effect on the next generation-- an abused child may become an abuser, to cite the obvious example. So, you have the potential each time to create some issue in the offspring, which may or may not be physically heritable.
But the narrative that somehow it all goes back to having ancestors from Africa and the superficial phenotype of appearance is useful to some and attractive to many, as you say.
1
Commendable ideals. But the human animal does not function on ideals. It is insightful to use gender differences in this debate, but not where the author has gone with it — or feminism has gone with it.
The differences between the genders — and the social structures that are based on them — come from the production of the most important wealth a species has — progeny. All sorts of behavior will be crafted to guard and promote that wealth — to the extent of oppressing one gender by the other. Only actual slavery as practiced in the African slave trade can compare.
But there are yet other reasons why humans discriminate between races, and they go deep into the psyche of all humans. Who does not look like the tribe is suspect. This survival trait is what the author should be concerned about, not good science or political correctness.
We need to see ourselves as the fearful, anxious species that we are. That is far more fundamental to our natures than intellect or reason. We need to expand our suspicion to our entire species, and then maybe we can live in relative peace.
5
A chimpanzee shares 99% of homo sapien dna. The 1% of DNA that defines humanity has a past which is less than 500,000 years and a present which is epigenetically changing . And yet our survival on this fragile planet depends on our common response to protecting our future resources. That should be the objected goal of grouping our differences with our similarities.
1
I have always wondered how so many people can stubbornly cling to the notion that "race is not biological", especially in the age of DNA tests, which can tell you what race you are by analyzing your biological makeup.
10
Two thoughts to add...
(1) The importance of this article is intensified when considering the implications of the time when humans begin, proactively, developing ‘new’ races by manipulating human genes
(2) This article omits the important element of epigenetics - while a person’s DNA might ‘say’ one thing, our environments impact how genes are expressed - nutrition’s impact on disease is a good example of this
John
4
Too often have we heard the debunked mantra that "racial differences don't exist" because race cannot be exactly defined. That is a fallacy propagated by the uneducated (or willfully ignorant).
Equality is a social construct. A poorly designed one, at that. Those who seek a moral justification for equality as likewise misguided. People should be treated respectfully even if they are biologically superior or inferior. The fact that you need falsehoods like equality as a reason for humane treatment shows a moral deficit on your part.
7
Good science indeed. Are we mature enough to handle it you ask? You need to spend less time in the ivory tower if you had to ask that.
2
Professor Reich is indeed brave to have written such an article. Suggesting that people may have different “racial” backgrounds, that different ethic and racial types may have different succeptabilities to disease or even height must be an anathema to the Harvard community.
Even the suggestion that there are differences between men and woman have been protested.
It will be interesting to see if Professor Reich is thrown out of Harvard for telling facts.
13
The logical conclusion from this thesis is that even in a perfect world where all persons were empowered to rise to their full potential, we would still have areas where some segments of our populations excelled on average v. others
8
This article simply confirms what has been known for awhile that races,genders and the ways they express themselves within societies are mostly biologically determined and not socially constructed. I highly doubt however that an article like this will change many minds. It hasn't in the past when confronted with such inconvenient facts. We are facing a radical,totalitarian movement which simply wants to erase and deny these facts for their equality ideals. We are living in extremely dark times.
15
“mostly biologically determined and not socially constructed”?
No, the article neither says nor implies any such thing. It only affirms the existence of genetic variation among different geographically distinct human populations. It certainly does not assert that distinct biological “races” exist in Homo sapiens, which remains a purely social construction. You need to read the article more carefully, without looking for support for your unfounded biases.
1
What is most remarkable to me is that this article even needs to be written in the first place. Scientists bound by the self-censorship of "don't ask, don't tell". Was the Enlightenment for nothing?
20
This means that we may have to revise what constitutes "merit," effort and "achievement" (in liberal doctrine worthy of reward) and what "ascription," or "gained by birth"--now genes--(as not a fair foundation of reward or not a basis of equal opportunity). Perhaps that old adage which said: "From each according to her or his capacities, to each according to his or her needs" will be the fairest way to reorganize and distribute goods in society after all.
4
I see 648 comments and hope to see my 1st submit later today and even this my 2d. I write these comments knowing that very few of us have the background to fully understand the publications of David Reich or, for that matter, this 8 year old publication that I am now reading:
AFRICAN GENETIC DIVERSITY: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping by Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A. Tishkoff 2008
Yet I believe that I, a moderately well educated American, and many other comment writers are entirely justified in raising seemingly simple questions like this one:
Can you, David Reich, state the genetic criteria that would make it possible to distinguish all African-Americans from the rest of us?
I ask this because he shows no recognition in his OpEd of the genetic diversity within the African continent. Campbell and Tishkoff (see above) noted in 2008 that a then new study of STRPs and INDELs in 3000 living Africans "indicates the presence of at least 13 genetically distinct ancestral populations in Africa"
If most self-described African-Americans, e.g., Michelle Obama, trace their line of descent to only one of these 13 populations, what about the other 12? My Somali friends here in Sweden see themselves as different from West Africans, some by pointing to the color of their inner arm thus using exactly a criterion used by Tishkoff et al in studies of "genes for skin color"! Take it from there.
Dual citizen US SE
5
What's that got to do?
If there were 13,000 genetic lines in Africa and 5 times that many elsewhere it wouldn't change the fact that genetic differences among populations influence (influence--not determine) their culture.
1
If there are 13,000 genetic lines influencing “African” culture, what entitles us to talk about a genetic basis for a single “African” race?
The socially-constructed racial groups include members with various genetic lines. While this does allow for higher concentrations of certain genes within racial groups, it also means that the racial group itself is not a natural kind but rather a social construct.
You could try to redefine “race” in a way that is more consistent with current science. For example: make race just another word for “genetic line” so that there’d be, e.g., 13,000 African “races.” But that’s just conceding that our current conception of race has no genetic basis; it’s a social construct.
2
@ Demolino - Nowhere did I write what you apparently think I wrote. Since you only offer an incomplete sentence "What's that got to do?" I do not know what you wanted to say.
You seem to think I wrote something about the genetics of a population influencing the culture they develop but I did not write anything at all about that.
Thanks for replying, would you like to clarify?
The issue is not that any serious person would deny that populations from one relatively separate gene pool, where people bred with their cousins for millenia might have minor differences from people from other gene pools. The problem is as old as scientific methodology itself --- confusing correlation with causation, and using terms in ambiguous ways that mean different things to different people. In this case, it centers on the use of the term "RACE."
For example, sickle cell disorder is common in certain malarial regions. Those regions, particularly West and Central Africa have populations with dark skin tone who would casually be considered part of the so-called "black race" by common standards. There is little doubt that the incidence of this disorder is higher here than among Koreans. One might be tempted to say that it is therefore another example of a "biological racial" difference -- blacks versus east Asians.
But the casual use of the term "race" is used unscientifically to include as "members of the black race", Africans from Ethiopia, Sudan and parts of Tanzania and Kenya because they share skin tone and some other external characteristics with West Africans. Yet sickle cell disorder is less common among the "members of the black race" than among some other populations not considered "black." The issue is not that there are no differences among geographically distinct gene pools.
PART ONE OF TWO
8
Dr. Reich says we should learn from male- female differences, which he attributes to “huge tracts of genetic material.” He is incorrect, with an error so basic that I’d be surprised to hear it from one of my biology undergraduates.
The genetic differences between males and females in our species are very small. Of our 23 pairs of chromosomes, only one pair is sex- specific; and they do not actually code for male - female differences. The tiny Y chromosome of males has few active genes, the most important of which is the sex-determining region (SRY). Quite simply, if an SRY is present, the individual makes testosterone and develops with male features; and if no SRY is present, the gonad makes estrogen, and the embryo develops as a female. That's what the Y is all about.
Accordingly, If a male embryo lacks an SRY on its Y chromosome (through a mutation), it will develop with female features. And if a genetic female winds up with the SRY gene, it will develop as a male. It all comes down to a single gene!
The close similarities between the sexes are evident from the fact that estrogen treatment of a male yields female features; and treatment of a female with testosterone yields male features. In other words, males and females have the potential to have features of either sex, depending on their hormones (as embryos and at puberty) which in turn depends on whether or not an SRY is present. So much for the “huge tracts of genetic material” Reich alludes to.
8
My reading of this op-ed has me thinking that the writer used the embedded, hard to remove gender prejudices as a reference. The presence of a Y chromosome carries many societal advantages. Levelling the male-female playing field is challenging. The alleged genetic differences between populations, mostly imaginary (Eugenics) is even less but more malignantly resistant to change.
Aren't genetic differences always tiny; like a small axe?
1
Bogus.
While it is true that medical diseases/states can be associated with genetics (or wholly due to genetics) e.g. sickle cell in those from African descent, the acetylalcohol dehydrogenese enzyme differences in east asians, etc, behavior is an entirely different animal from medical diseases.
Studies of behavior are poor because they are inherently biased to the culture and values of the very human researcher, The brain is a complete mystery, far more difficult to study than any other organ system. When I look at an MRI of the brain, I can't tell if a person is biologically male or female, let alone how they identify, what their sexual preference is, or what race they are.
People become what they are trained to be. How a person appears (racially or otherwise) tells me nothing about a person's history, however it does tell me how that person has been treated in life by others; this is what blacks have in common with other blacks, what asians have in common with other asians, what hispanics have in common with each other, and yes even what white people have in common with each other. Women have experiences that only other women will identify with and the same is true for men. We all live in different realities with viewpoints that are informed by our own personal experiences; the corollary to this, unfortunately, is paranoia towards The Other.
40
@ Vstrwbery NY - see the fine comment two above you about sickle cell. I have submitted a reply praising especially that part of the comment. Sickle cell is not restricted to Africans. I am recommending your comment. My 2d comment is 3 or 4 above you and presents views that I believe are parallel with yours.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
Since the geneticists are so curious, perhaps they can research why "tribalism" is such an ingrained trait among humans. Does it go back to the competition for resources among our ancient hominid ancestors? Is it a primeval survival skill we will never outgrow? Would we have been less judgemental, aggressive, fearful and insular if we had generated from giraffes? Or bunnies? Our "race" is homo sapiens. There are many substantial differences among humans but none so great that prevent us from interbreeding and creating fertile progeny. If there are no hard boundaries in nature that mean "this group here is one species, and that group there is another species", then so called "racial" differences are even less significant. After all, we interbred with neanderthals at one time.
8
Racial stereotyping is claiming that if some characteristic is observed in some people who share other characteristics regarding race with others, those others must share that same characteristic without any other effort to confirm that proposition. In particular, some races are inherently better suited to serve the purposes of others who are better suited to rule. Racism really is a way of excusing the systematic refusal to respect the golden rule by inferring that nature or God approves it.
The recognition that people with common ancestors may on average share some traits at higher rates than those with other common ancestors does not justify drawing conclusions which are not actually supported by facts. Sickle cell anemia does not support the notion that white people are superior nor that African Americans are inferior.
3
In the past 5 years I have written 100s of comments that are critical about uniquely American concepts of race. I have expressed a wish that the Times would present a series on this distinctively American approach to thinking about human difference, an approach illustrated by 1) The USCB approach to classifying us Americans, 2) The number of articles by US medical researchers that set out to compare health of two groups of Americans, one called black, one white.
Reich is a major figure in genome research so I cannot question anything he says that is purely based on that research. But I can offer these critical observations about his approach as a columnist:
1) He fails to define African-American.
2) In his example of identifying genes that predispose to prostate cancer he refers explicitly to "the fraction of genes contributed by West African ancestors" and found 7 risk factors "more common in West Africans".
3) Nowhere does he say anything about the frequency of these genes in the African groups that I know well thanks to 22 years in Sweden, Somalis, Eritreans, and Ethiopians.
Those 3 observations lead me to ask:
Why do I never see studies examining the variation in, for example, lung cancer mortality within the population "African Americans" in relation to the so-called fraction of their ancestry that is European?
Times, make this the 1st in a series, next up Svante Pääbo whom I once heard express views quite different from Reich.
Dual citizen US SE
5
74 neurological genetic variations are more common in Europeans with more schooling than less, according to Reich. Not really.
Daniel Benjamin's research, according to what I found, concerned 126,559 individuals, not 400,000. The impact of certain genetic variations could account for 1 month difference in schooling. Combining all effects explained less than 2% of cognitive differences.
Of course there is a genetic component to intelligence. The studies by Danielle Posthuma, however, compare people with extremely high IQs to normal people. The numbers she uses (IQ > 170) are suspect. IQ is a statistical construct. Those with IQ > 145 make up 0.1% of the population. Over 170? In a country the size of America, or in the EU, there may be 2,000 or fewer such people.
Yet Posthuma was able to get genome wide data on 1,247. Her research is behind a paywall. But there are IQ scales that fit different data. They identify IQ for what one finds in good students. Not intellectually gifted Einsteins. Posthuma may have found alleles associated with attention and retention. Not intelligence.
Remember, Africans have around seven times the genetic variability of the rest of the world. That makes any generalizations suspect.
9
@ Brian - I take heart because the 8 comments between yours and those up to my 2d comment all provide calmly expressed thoughtful criticisms of Reich as journalist.
I too emphasize what you state in your final 2 sentences. Reich focuses on one of at least 13 genetically differentiated African populations, a West African subset.
Adding my recommendation of our comment
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
This clearly written article dares to speak about genetic differences between human groups. Still, David Reich is shy when approaching the subject of the inheritability of intelligence.
It seems to me that in a society which has been fascinated by looks: beauty, size, strength, muscle, for at least 50 years (a tendency probably driven by movies, TV, or any kind of image carrying technology) it is surprising that the ultimate taboo may still be the genetics of brains...
Who cares for brains? Does your IQ, education level amount to much in today's society? I am not sure. Human genetics might be the last sanctuary for intelligence. In most other settings, looks have taken over...
9
@ Jean Roudier - No one who is moderately well informed says that variations in intelligence cannot be linked to genomic differences. The best informed say, I believe, that there may be so many genes involved in contributing to various kinds of intelligence that it will be unable to bring back eugenics (horrible thought) so that super intelligent people can be created.
Richard Lewontin made what for me was a fascinating statement in an essay in the New York Review of Books a few years ago, title "Is There A Jewish Gene". Just one of many who have expressed their thoughts but I enjoy re-reading it every once in a while when a column like Reich pops up.
Dual citizen US SE
@ myself in reply Jean Roudier - correction of a phrase. "it will be unable"
21st century counterparts of 20th century proponents of eugenics are hoping that genome research will identify the set of genes that have positive effects on being able to think at higher levels. We have been there in the US and Sweden. In 1922 eugenicist proponent Herman Lundborg founded the Swedish Institute of Race Biology with the concrete goal of gradually removing from the Swedish population those whom he saw as deficient, with the Same (Lapps) being one of his targets. Paradoxically, he finally married a Same woman and I believe had a child with her.
I believe that there is a solution to this problem: stop using the term race and replace it with ethnicity or ethnic group. The term race implies predetermined realities that cannot be changed, which in turn implies that improving race relations 1is impossible. By focusing on ethnicity or ethnic groups, there is the added benefit of including culture and learned behavior as well as genetics tied to location and heritage of the specific group. This has the added benefit of eliminating stigma and, g-d forbid, a return to phrenology.
4
@ GL NJ - See at least the 10 comments above yours. We are a growing number who support your suggestion. In Sweden and Finland ethnicity or country of birth are the most commonly used descriptors. In both countries governments have considered whether there should be legislation stating that race terminology is not to be used.
I work for many Swedish medical researchers - translator, editor - and as far as I know no researcher would ever use race. At one time I think 3 or 4 years ago I heard Svante Pääbo make a strong statement at a Nobel Prize week seminar ridiculing American views on race. Do not know if he still thinks that way.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
And here is the core of Reich's misunderstanding: [Genetic testing] "... measure[s] with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years." So much NOPE. I run into biology colleagues all the time who think of 'races' as the residue of 100s of 1000s of years of geographic isolation. And, paleoanthropology shows us that (1) humans, even before our species, traveled and trade; (2) it's a cline, not a line, meaning there's no clear boundary among populations because people marry out of their own group with great regularity; (3) we know that as early as H. erectus, humans were traveling since some populations migrated out of Africa as far as east Asia; (4) our earliest H. sapiens ancestors originated on the African continent and, again, portions of that population migrated out; (5) people who migrated, unsurprisingly, meet other people. There is no such thing as an isolated population that exists for long enough to create different races! Even for island-bound populations in the Pacific, we are not seeing different races (although we do see certain specific traits that become fixed in the population due to founder effect).
Good grief, all this man had to do was read work on human evolution. There's lots of it.
8
Basic biology High School and Anatomy Physiology Nursing College: we are Animals - Mammals - Human Beings. No separated races no different biology and anatomy physiology, just human. If you walk into an operating room and see a patient having heart surgery, if you cannot see their skin you cannot tell anything except it is a person. If we “intermarry” we have normal healthy kids no different species problems.
Race is a human conceit to keep people down and harm them
5
And none of us are perfect, regardless of genetic inheritance.
We have all been abundantly conditioned over thousands of years of brutal capitalistic control by the simple awareness that "you go along to get along" or shut-up and get to work.
There is very little racial difference in this equation.
2
No one needs to wait until there are confirmed differences in intellect among different races, it is easily observable with one's own two eyes.
3
The fact is that researchers who master in using hammers (gene science) are using hammers where it makes no sense to use hammers (human behavior). First, we have to develop a theory of how genes affect human behavior. Second, we measure the effect of genes on behavior.
Right now, gene scientists who statistically link behavior to genes are engaging in empty, anti-scientific empiricism. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that genes shape human behavior. Any statistical relationships in this instance are purely specious.
The worst aspect of it is that the people that specialize in studying hammers (genes) and their relationship to human behavior have an incentive to find an affirmative relationship between the two. Otherwise, their time, resources and careers was wasted. Thus, yes this is an area ripe for research fraud.
3
The genetic differences between populations seems quite minor compared to environmental differences. Lead levels in childhood surroundings, smoking and drinking during pregnancy, and abuse are more significant than minor genetic differences between populations.
5
I've been waiting for this article for about sixty years, since I was a teen and assaulted with the "race is ONLY a social constrict" garbage . It's clear it's perhaps impossibly complex but there is no place in science for unsupported assertions. Do the research. Keep at it. Let's not be so afraid out ourselves. We can all handle it. At least better than we have so far .
8
The we have the phenomenon of co-evolution in which similar phenotypes are produced by similar environments. Could separate "races" have evovled on the same planet at about the same time due to a specific impetus from activities in the earth? Could those races be so similar that "mixing" produces off-spring that are more fit for survival rather than less? It would be logical that we are becoming a more viable species. And then there is that incalculable of 'free will'.
It is perhaps a sign of our times that one needs simply claim that one is confronting an "orthodoxy" in order to propound the most orthodox of views. Dr. Reich's argument is predicated on the same assumptions that guided research into racial characteristics -- that is to say "scientific racism" -- from the 1830s to the 1940s. It's unclear why he and his peers need so desperately to preserve this particular, historical (and deeply unscientific) concept of race in order to accomplish otherwise noble goals of ameliorating sickness and human suffering.
6
Can someone please explain to me how the denial of the existence of statistically significant genetic differences among historically distinct, geographically separated populations (be it humans or any species of animals or plants) conceptually different from the denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect? How is today's persecution of scientists whose research touches upon these differences (perhaps, in hopes to develop better medical tests or therapy regiments, or to discover new cures to diseases such as malaria) conceptually different from the persecution Copernicus, Galileo and Giordano Bruno suffered at the hands of the Holy Inquisition?
21
Because this excellent article cites Dr. James Watson's (presumed) statement that Jews "were high achievers because of genetic advantages conferred by thousands of years of natural selection to be scholars", I'd like to offer my own opinion of why Jews tend to have a higher level of intelligence than other groups. I posit that two effects, one arising from internal forces and one from external, had very small effects, for one generation over the previous, promoting higher intelligence. One is the phenomenon mentioned in the description of Dr. Watson's remarks. The strong social pressures to raise and train scholars led to wealthy Jews frequently seeking Torah scholars as husbands for their daughters. Thus, the scholars and their offspring lived in relative comfort, leading certainly to healthier and possibly a greater number of children, thereby slightly increasing -- even by as little as 0.1 percent -- the overall group intelligence each generation. That's the internal cause. The external cause is based in the fact that, not infrequently, Jew were subject to murderous attacks. More intelligent Jew were more likely to survive these predations, as they were better able to scheme their way out of pogroms and, thanks to the small margin in intelligence, better able to avoid capture and murder. Let's call it another 0.1 percent each generation. After nearly 100 generations since the descruction of the Second Temple, these tiny advantages become statistically significant.
7
Re Mr Schwartz excellent note, see how few likes has this spot on comment collected. I guess it "harms" our current sensibilities.
1
Prof. Reich is correct: geneticists should not be prevented from creating scientific knowledge that further differentiates the genetic differences between historically separated human populations. Such differences are the predicted result from the natural process of evolution, and such new knowledge is not only of historical interest but can clearly identify genetically based health risks. However, his case would be better made if he stopped using the term 'race" altogether, and instead, invented and used a new term (perhaps genogroup), since 'race" is not only unscientific, it's so ambiguous and loaded with meanings as to render any proposal incoherent.
2
The confusion we have with race is that we attempt to separate it from the culture it is associated with, and the nagging truth about how long that culture may have been around. Is it possible that being first is not necessarily that after all. Our surface judgements mask our fear of the underlying truth which is held at bay through separation, impossible to maintain, with our continual wars and too many football games played.
Wow, most of the comments seem unhappy with the topic and Reich's perspective. Assuming most writers are eager to call others science-deniers in other contexts, this seems at least hypocritical.
Yes, this is a sensitive topic, and one over-loaded with moral and political issues. But to insist, as some here have, that this science is taboo does not do much beyond avoidance or perhaps satisfy a chosen political agenda.
9
Critique of this article is not "anti-science," as some readers have claimed. Reich deserves to be called out for making inferences that are in no way justified by his own scientific expertise. Imagine for a moment that European society had never come up with the contemporary (and, indeed, as one reader noted, the particularly American) understanding of race. Would Reich's research/evidence lead us to such a conception? No; it would simply tell us that, on average Norwegians are taller than Italians, and that certain West African populations have higher incidence of prostate cancer than Belgians (and most likely than Ethiopians or Congolese. To go from there to grand categories of race or, even worse, judgements about individuals of a particular geographical or ethnic heritage is not just unscientific, it's ahistorical and frankly irresponsible. Reich says that his aim is to take back the concept of race from racists, and I believe that he probably means well. Ultimately, though, by naturalising an historically contingent notion, he only empowers the racists. Reich might be a world leader in the important work of linking genes to disease so that better treatments might be developed. But race is a social,and not a biological, pathology.
1
Professor Reich earnestly argues for the study and application of genetic differences to predict and alleviate disease, and raises a false flag in conflating genetic differences with cultural stereotypes. As an Afro American woman who practiced law for 28 years, I learned to exploit, whenever possible, the insidious stereotype of stupidity. I won many civil cases by pretending to be stupid and then guiding the judge to punish my opponents for their lack of preparation and presumption. The cultural stereotype of thievery created simmering resentment at being followed in stores, being ignored by retail help, being talked down to in everyday interactions. Like many of us, I developed high blood pressure. What Dr. Reich does not understand is that enslavement of West Africans happened for purely economic reasons. Race theory served as both moral and legal justification for European enrichment and wealth-building by declaring my ancestors chattel that was bought, sold and served as collateral to build personal fortunes. There was and is no genetic basis for this, just greed. Please find the greed gene.
7
PART THREE
Simply put, if an agency is looking for a bone marrow match for an African-American child, it is not wrong for them to focus on screening people in the black community. But that is only because the odds are higher that they might find one of the child's "distant cousins." So in advertising for people to be screened or discussing this in the media, it should be put in those terms, not in the terms that somehow, the unscientific, popular, "street version" of so-called "race" is the core of what the screeners are looking for.
1
"We should both recognize that genetic differences between males and females exist and we should accord each sex the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of those differences."
So, men should be able to play on women's sports teams if they want?
3
In 1978 the great biologist E.O.Wilson had a cup of water poured over his head by protesters at a conference who chanted, "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide." because of his theories of sociobiology. Wilson said of the incident, "The 70's proved that universities were not a very good place to have new ideas. Political correctness ruled."
Wilson's theories of sociobiology are now commonly accepted. It must take a great deal of courage to be true to science when it is politically unpopular, yet if theories prove to be of substance, like it or not, they will ultimately prevail. Instead of trying to intimidate and stifle scientists, we have to figure out how to apply what they learn with decency, fairness and humanity. Thank you to David Reich for this honorable and astute essay.
13
One problem that always intrigues some of us concerning the social construction of race is the historical relationship between whites and non-whites, what African American Harvard scholar W.E.B. DuBois described as the power relationship between white majorities and non-white minority populations in the United States, and the other political relationship between white minorities and non-white majorities outside Europe,the United States and other majority white national populations in Australia and South America.
SImply as a problem of scale, comparison between socially constructed races is always historically shaped by political power imbalances between them, starting with conquest as well as ethnic cleansing and enslavement, the way non-white majorities become racial minorities. The other scale problem of racial comparison between majorities and minorities is that results of genetic differences beg the question of whether a larger number of whites will produce a larger proportion of genetic outcomes than a much smaller sample of the racial minority. Shouldn’t all genetic comparisons between whites and African Americans, for example, be controlled for different social factors,as the numbers of each sample should match as well? To compare millions of affluent whites to far fewer less afffluent African Americans would necessarily produce proportionately more wealthy, better educated whites over generations than the African Americans as would volume of business customers.
2
A more pressing social and philosophical issue is for people to claim that they have THE truth, when at best they have A truth.
We live in a very large and complex universe, with many dimensions and facets.
The folly of the eugenecists was the same as fanaticists of all kinds - they were so convinced of their rightness in one respect that they forgot to be humble about their ignorance in every other respect.
Harvard or not, what we know in the grand scheme of things is very little.
2
Reich shoots himself in the foot by framing his argument as a defence of genetic conceptions of race. There's absolutely no need to do this. He's simply noting that some genetic markers have relatively high correlations with self-reported race—which is different. African Americans, for example, are descended mostly from a small number of West African regions. There is likely a lot of regional genetic commonality there.
This says NOTHING about there being a biologically distinctive black race. Genetic diversity across the continent of Africa, as Reich well knows, is collosal. There's greater genetic distance between South Aftrica and Tunisia than there is between Peru and Sweden. Our social construct is an attempt to generalize a near infinity of traits from a couple of dominant genes for skin color and hair texture.
Reich muddies the waters, in a pointless and self-defeating way, by framing an otherwise sound argument with a confusing fallacy.
1
This is sound advice.
There are numerous slippery slopes to racism and bigotry, some underguarded against, some overguarded against. But we have a general idea of most of them at least.
There are also numerous slippery slopes to politically correct intolerance, anti-intellectualism, anti-science and dumbing down of education. These slopes are less well appreciated and generally inadequately guarded against.
6
Some noninterventionists on the Right have taken to making a "genetic" case against democracy promotion. Nicholas Wade says democracy doesn't work in Iraq (doesn't it?) because of the gene-based behavior of Iraqis: "Hussein is more appropriate for you Arabs." It takes woeful ignorance of that nation's history to see its political present as a product of its people's purported propensity to distrust outsiders.
Anthropological beliefs affix worldviews. Wade claims genes tell us a lot about democracy's struggles in certain areas. That is conjectural, but we will clearly learn more about this as time passes. As we learn, it'll be interesting to see if the findings affect region-specific foreign policy debates. How best to tend a garden in a jungle? What of the interface between genes and culture? Wade tries, maybe wrongheadedly, to answer questions that deserve scrutiny.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR200603...
Let's not miss the man while inspecting the machinery. Stand a centimeter from the Mona Lisa and see nothing. Back up and it's a masterpiece. Secular people often blithely say the light of science can save us from the darkness of religion, but religion has something important to say: We're more than our biology. Liberals back themselves into a corner thinking science will ratify all of their beliefs. We have moved a great deal beyond our differences. Most genetic findings will elucidate little and shouldn't halt that movement.
Bravo. And I'll say it again... Feel others pain! How to behave becomes obvious when you do. It's simple. Try it!
2
One of the painful necessities of championing science is that you sometimes have to accept truths which may be uncomfortable.
8
Breathtaking! Race needs to be rescued -- in the age of Trump?!? Please.
For starters, race and racism are resurgent globally. We need not fear for the demise of these distortions of human difference. These social constructs continue their zombie existence -- even in David Reich's own writing. Rather, we should fear their zombie specters infecting scientific observation.
True enough that genetics reveals differences between human populations. But these differences are poorly aligned with race as generally understood. Reich himself distinguishes between northern and southern Europeans, but these are not generally seen as distinct racial groups (at least, not since the early 20th century). Some of the most revealing genetic islands are limited to villages, not even nations.
That Reich himself stumbles over the distinction between the genetics of human diversity and the creaky language of race underscores that race (as most people understand it) reveals the socially constructed illusion. But rather than admit the inadequacy of the word "race" to define anything useful or true, Reich attempts to invoke his own definition. Such is the ugly power of the racialized view of humanity.
Humpty Dumpty might observe, "There's a glory for you." But I side with Alice's objection. 'The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.' Time for scientists to kill race and invent a new word that embodies useful genetic associations.
2
oh stop. you're making (in this case) the left wing intolerants and identity politics apologists nervous. they bang all day (correctly) on how the climate deniers and flat-earthers are scientifically ignorant yet when science dosent fit their dogma, they go bat crazy and start shouting-down those who scientifically demonstrate facts that make them confront their own scientific ignorance.
that there are small genetic differences btw races is so ridiculously obvious its not even funny. ever seen an asian with sickle cell? me neither. how often is tay-sachs seen in say eskimo populations? like never??
that every race (even the 4 that make up "white" people he discusses) wasnt influenced to some degree by the climate, native fauna, flora and bacteria of whatever part of the world they came from, their genomes altered slightly to produce optimum reproductive fitness, is ludicrous. its evolutionary biology 101 to those of us who live by facts and not dogma.
and you're being far too polite to the people who refuse to be dragged kicking and screaming to reality regards the difference btw sexes. that there are no two distinct sexes but some ridiculous "continuum" is the kind of left-wing ignorance paralleled only by geniuses like the anti-vaccine crowd and others.
28
St Augustine of Hippo was a Berber whose mother tongue was Latin. He was not Black. The sub-Saharan ancestry in the Maghreb dates from 800 AD or later, after the Arab conquest, and the beginning of the trans-Saharan slave trade.
6
All people of all races should intermarry and share their genes so that our descendants inherit the strengths and advantages of all.
9
Dear Professor David,
please get to the point. Reading this article made my mind numb. Remeber that this is the NYT a general publication for general audiences not a Geneticists publication. Whatever point you were trying to make got lost in your inability to speak in a language that other not so distinguished thinkers can actually understand.
ZZZzzzz...
7
I'm not convinced with this argument because it is still not apparent that average genetics across populations are even close to as significant as individual genetic make up (much less experience and behavior) or linguistic / cultural differences among groups with historically high fluidity and dynamism (driven by meme theory or some derivation of it). I understand the argument around taboos providing a fertile field for fantasists, but priorities are essential. My view has always been that "racism" is real and to be battled, but "race" is sterile fiction. Is it worth studying certain sub-population genetic make ups to assist in individualizing medicine. Yes. But any grander conclusions or broader efforts to create hierarchies in society are fraught with peril and no prospect of return.
6
So, does this mean we can stop our national race fetishism?
5
Each of us are children of two parents as were our parents. Their are about 7billion people alive all the children of only two parents. To think that distinctive traits would not result among those with common ancestors would have to depend upon a conviction that these traits could not be passed down, that they are not based upon genetic differences. But unless a trait can be shown to be shared by all of a certain racial grouping presuming that it is is an example of racial stereotyping—generalizing from a specific without confirmation.
The history of racial stereotyping has continually reflected people trying to justify the suppression and exploitation of whole groups of people by others. Those others attribute their dominance to superior abilities bestowed by nature.
2
It seems clear from what scientists have discovered over the past 80 years that genes determine every little piece of us. We are not what we eat, or what is around us in the home, we are what is in our DNA. It is another inconvenient truth.
7
The arguments in this article are interesting, but we need even stronger research and subsequent evaluation to determine how society should react to differences for the benefit of all. That is the challenge, I believe. I taught people with reading and learning disabilities, and acknowledged their differences, but the goal was not to judge them, but to help them to reach their possibillties and take advantage of opportunities to do so. And, to enjoy, not criticize people's differences. Unfortunately, there are too many who used people's differences to enhance their own need for feelings of superiority. Competition for "winners" and the designation of some for being "losers" will be a hard habit to break.
1
The different concepts of race in different cultures definitely contributed to the music we know as Jazz. When the French controlled New Orleans, mixed race people were known as Creoles, and had institutions and educational opportunities comparable to White French people. When the Americans took over New Orleans all people with any African blood were lumped together and discriminated against. This led to a great mixing of cultural styles as highly trained Creole musicians were then working with more purely African players. The hybrid of the classically inclined and the rhythmically gifted became Traditional Jazz. Jelly Roll Morton and Louis Armstrong, both geniuses of this new music exemplify these different strains.
3
There is a massive flaw in the circular logic that this field (and this article) uses to justify its existence. It can be found in this quote, “With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.”
Consider that foundational assumption for a moment. Take a social construct that humanity can be broken into subgroups to justify slavery/oppression, accept it as fact, create your own subgrouping by region (the author chooses 7 different racial groups, Australian really?), discover very small genetic similarities within these groups (these populations of humans lived in relative isolation within themselves for thousands of years so makes sense), and then say that there is a genetic construct to race.
?
This entire field is built upon the SOCIAL premise that humanity can be split along racial lines (first skin color, then region). The wording “differences in genetic history THAT HAPPEN TO CORRELATE to many of today’s racial constructs are real,” says it all. There’s no HAPPEN TO about it, you are accepting the SOCIAL premise that we can split humanity into different regional subgroups and should accept these subgroups as identifying labels of each other.
The label of “White” and “Black” has changed and will continue to change for social reasons, not genetic.
Race is not social and genetic. It is only social.
7
The fate of modern scientists of biology, science of genetics, with respect to always increasing and often subtle findings that people, individuals, races, ethnicities, the sexes have clear biological differences from each other?
These scientists are in the position of Bruno who was burned at the stake for cosmological suggestions along the lines that there are many stars, many worlds with potentially many different lifeforms, which is to say the problem with the human race has never been that in actuality many different forms of flora and fauna and difference within our own species exist, but that the human race apparently cannot stand difference within itself and without, which is to say humans of any group, any religious, any political/economic persuasion, always force other humans to be perceived and to think and to act as themselves, and humans of course always exploit if not destroy all other species of flora and fauna.
In short, humans just can't stand difference. People who point out difference are hated whether they intend to point out these differences in a negative sense or not, and people who do not point out difference are celebrated whether their groupthink leads to insularity and disaster or not. People just despise difference, differentiation, separation from the norm and all other species are on the marked list for humans. But the truth is there must be incredible difference in nature and within the human species. Bruno would probably say as much.
1
The article reminds me of the admonishment: When I meet a man upon the street I treat him with courtesy and respect, not because I believe that he is a gentlemen, but because I believe that I am.
11
Thank you so much for this article. Ii have been wondering about these issues ever since I read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen J. Gould.
2
Humans are like ants. Yes, we have individual differences like ants but ant colonies are made by network of ants, creating 'super-ant' intelligent products like ant hills. Similarly humans are nothing without networking. Hence comparing individuals is moot. Our 'intelligence' is a group product of time and space (history and geography). 'Developed' economies extract more 'intelligence' out of their citizens because of their advanced infrastructure. That's why poor countries that came out of poverty in the last 50 years did not individually become smarter but collectively did. The expression 'city slickers' comes to mind ...
I read this well considered article, thought it brave, and was impressed it was published within the New York Times. Then, I thought - what about the comments?
They were basically what I expected - people who would call themselves "open-minded", if asked, who nonetheless subscribe to a very strongly anti-science view of evolution and genetics, at least when it doesn't fully align with their PC views about humanity.
It's shocking so many otherwise intelligent people cling to ideas like, "race is a social construction". More challenging is people who ostensibly believe in evolution but refuse to believe populations who migrated to wildly different environment and were separated by 40,000+ years would somehow magically be equivalent in every way that matters. Many of these people even suggest the idea of racial difference is somehow unacceptable, while, given the group (NYT readers), it's not hard to imagine they support the idea that measurable racial disparities in outcome are evidence of racism, rather than evidence of racial different, or at least some mixture of the two (rather than simply evidence of bigotry).
I've read that the educated tend to be even more eager to reject that which does not confirm their pre-existing biases. The comments section to this article seems to provide support for that concept.
For those clinging to the idea that race is a construct, the future of genetic science must be as scary as the idea the sun doesn't orbit the Earth.
16
It is a fair bet that most of those here fulminating against genetics and evolution were humanities majors with little or no exposure to basic biology or the scientific method. That physical features are genetically determined is too obvious to belabour. That cognitive and behavioural characteristics are at least 50% determined by genes has been known for decades, and as the accuracy of the science has improved through modern genomic studies, that percentage has increased significantly.
Denying that human groups differ genetically is no different from denying climate change, the safety and efficacy of vaccination: it flies in the face of all data in order to maintain comfortable political convictions, and in the case of the left, to signal virtue and timid adherence to progressive orthodoxy. On the right, science denial seems motivated largely by selfish resistance to changing one's behaviour for the common good.
That we are even having any of those discussions is a condemnation of the state of science education in the US. That very few politicians have any science education is terrifying.
4
Our mutual history of "race" based on enslavement, genocide and discrimination is a good reason for scientists and culture creators to tiptoe around genetics.
Short term it is probably good for culture.
The fact is separated human populations have distinct differences. Some advantages and some disadvantages. In both cases, these differences are mutations that occurred in an individual first and were passed through their line and can be passed outside their initial population group.
Long-term maybe a 100 years from now this race talk will not matter.
We are moving towards post "race" and in fact post homo sapien.
For the past 3000 years, we have naturally been migrating to cities. Creating the opportunity for more people to have children out of their traditional cultural group. If you have a Labradoodle, they call it heterosis or hybrid vigor ;)
And then there is the not so natural way. Crisper.
Low-cost genetic engineering with the precision and ease of editing a Word document.
This tool is probably one of the most important things ever created. It will change our World.
It will save endangered species, cure your mom's cancer and probably help some guy to run under 9.00 within the next couple of Olympics.
It comes with a host of problems that our society will have to unpack and work through. But I imagine these problems will be based on the massive disparity between the rich and the poor. Something I don't see going away anytime soon.
1
The question really, is this: if there were a group that was systematically i.e. genetically, disadvantaged when it came to acquiring economic and social goods, how would you structure society to remove the inequality? I take it that figuring this out first requires recognizing the root of the problem. Surely, this was one message that Reich is trying to get us to accept? If we can't accept the root cause, then fixing the related problems will be much harder.
Alternatively, we can encourage an open society, with lots of intermarriage, so that, in a few decades or so when we're all cafe au lait colored, there will be no temptation to identify those who get left behind with any particular skin color.
1
Unfortunately, science fiction has already predicted that once such mass intermarriage melds all skin colors, humans will move on to discrimination based on eye color.
1
"substantial biological differences among human populations"
It would be more accurate to say there are gene clusters, in which frequency is a genetic variant is higher than elsewhere. This does not preclude all genes occurring in some frequency everywhere.
It would be dangerous in this time of populations mixing to assume that someone who appears to be from one genetic cluster for certain visible traits does not in fact also have other traits more common elsewhere. In medicine, this could lead to overlooking things.
"Race" does not even mean the same thing in all places. It is a non-scientific term. It is however a non-science shorthand for something real, the clustering of certain characteristics.
My brother and I have been tracking down family history to explain our mix of characteristics, which is not entirely stereotypical of any one cluster. Certainly my Filipino-American kids are not stereotypical of any one cluster. Yet where our ancestors came from, termed "race" at the time in old documents, can in fact help explain our mixing of differing clusters of characteristics.
Science is now finding that genes are not as determinative as once thought. Expression of genes is controlled outside classical genes of DNA. Expression can even be turned on and off, and that can be inherited, not entirely unlike the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, even if he too was wrong on many details (and more of them).
There is much to learn. We ought not decide before we know.
10
Professor Reich is misinterpreting his research findings. All he has found is a regional variation in genetic ancestry. Wherever the mutations that led to increased risk of prostate cancer risk arose (and such mutations are random events) that the mutations would be found in primarily in the originating population rather than well dispersed populations is precisely what would be expected.
His findings no more indicate race than finding that some gene that leads to Sickle Cell Anemia is more common in certain African populations, a gene leading to Tay Sachs is more common in certain Jewish populations, or a gene that promotes lactose tolerance is more common in Europeans, etc. In each of these the mutation has tended to be concentrated in the population in which it arose. There is far more commonality in our genetic heritage than these relatively minor differences that arose by random mutation in particular populations and have remained primarily concentrated in the originating population.
However, there is value in knowing that a particular population is more likely to carry a gene for a particular illness. This knowledge allows for better education and more focused diagnostics ... but it does not indicate "race," only the group(s) in one's ancestry. Whether such group ancestry constitutes membership in some "race" is indeed a social construct.
8
As a college professor ( molecular biology and genetics) I early on decided to not worry about a students race or social status. It was much more productive to treat each as an individual with a unique set of strengths and weaknesses and leave any preconceived ideas behind.
10
I thank you, professor Reich. I did learn a few things from reading the article, and for that I am eternally grateful to you.
1
The truth is that Genetics, and DNA, hold the secrets to all things that can help or hinder the future of the human animal. Understanding geography, through genetic testing establishes the differences in gender, disease, abilities for most everything, personalities, etc. The facts are, that we are similar because we are human, and there are the differences because of biology of the species, on a spectrum of gender, physical characteristics, and most everything. The studies of Twins at the University of Minnesota starting in 1979, about twins raised apart, to see what role, each played, genetics, and environment. For the most part, the studies have showed that genetics plays the primary role.
7
The examples Prof Reich offers do not seem to me to support the concept of biological race. These studies look at degrees of incidence of certain clusters of genetic mutations among different populations; the mutations are not confined to any one group. So even if a higher incidence of a given cluster can be found in one group than in others, the criterion for genetic identity remains the cluster of mutations and not the initial group. Moreover, different studies focus on different clusters--the 74 variations studied by Benjamin may not include the 20 studied by Posthuma--and there is no suggestion in this essay, at least, that all the different clusters being studied for connections with human intelligence are distributed among groups in the same concentrations. Some may be found more among east Asians and others among sub-Saharan Africans. The incidence of these variations in a given group will also change over time. Reich cites one example of such change in Iceland over the course of a mere century. That change may have to do with higher fertility rates among people who don't go to college. Of course college is a fairly new phenomenon, at least for most people. If higher education becomes universal in Iceland at some point, this genetic distinction will no longer correlate with having a degree. And then there is the question of how we define and identify intelligence. Is there a scientific standard for that? Sexual difference looks pretty straightforward by comparison.
1
It would be helpful if scientists also put numbers in perspective. For example, if there is a 10% risk of prostate cancer, there would be a 17% risk of prostate cancer with a gene that increases the risk by 1.7%. That means that even if you have that gene, there is an 83% chance you won’t get prostate cancer.
1
We must follow the pursuit of truth, wherever it takes us. Our challenge is not to misuse it to oppress our fellow humans.
10
The real threat has never been finding out what reality is made of. How could it be? Reality doesn't change because we begin to understand it.
The real threat is broken empathy. If you cause pain in others, regardless of genetic make up, they are suffering. If you don't care, you are the threat.
5
Two comments on the first paragraph.
1. Montagu's first questioning of the race concept was in 1941 (Journal of Heredity, 32, 243-247).
2. More importantly, Brazil's race categories (tipos or cores), unlike those of the US, are not based on ancestry. They are based on what you look like. That is why siblings in a large family may be called by a variety of different racial terms, and may be treated differently socially based on their differing appearances. This is a concept that Americans have great difficulty getting their heads around.
2
There is another not often mentioned factor in racial differences if that is what they can be called. When humans existed in matriarchal society during the early agricultural era, women favored exogamy which encouraged diversity. Once patriarchy took hold, male leadership enforced in-tribe breeding, even to the point of incest. This concentration of characteristics was useful for perpetuating male rule but detrimental as a whole as it led to racism and other forms of ethnocentrism. Now that feminism has raised the possibility of female equality, diversity is now being celebrated again. Still, patriarchal values continue to enforce the teaching of racial differences and purity. Everything seems to boil down to the war between the sexes.
There is a big difference between a matriarchal human society and female dominance over males. A matriarchal society is one in which inheritance of property passes through the female line. Behavioural dominance of males over females, or what has recently been called 'the patriarchy' is the case in the majority of mammals and nearly all primates (for you English majors, humans are primates). It probably dates back to our early evolution a hundred million years ago. The pretence that male rule is a recent development in humans is, as we lefties say, purely a social construct.
What is the evidence that early agriculturalists were matriarchal? And, excluding rare examples of deliberate sibling marriage as in the case of ancient Egyptian royalty or very small isolated human societies, what is the evidence that any humans anywhere are/were not exogamous? For that matter, what is the evidence for endogamy among any social primates?
Biological differences obviously do not excuse any form of discrimination, but pretending that they don't exist, or that acknowledging them is tantamount to eugenics, racism, or sexism, serves simply to muddle the waters and impede social progress.
3
Males do not generally dominate over females in Nature. The king of the jungle myth is totally false. Animal species do not have any concept of genetic patrimony and either did stone age human populations. The understanding of genetic inheritance was part of the female agricultural culture in the Neolithic era which domesticated plants and animals. Men were not included in that knowledge. Call it the the Garden of Eden if you will. When men discovered the secrets of breeding and their part in it they blamed women for their exclusion. This is the basis of sexism, also known as history. Of course the revelation that women created culture and civilization is antithetical to all concepts of monotheistic male god "progress".
The genetic relatedness of populations is nicely visualized using phylogenetic trees (see e.g. Duda in Nature 2016 doi:10.1038/srep29890)
It should be uncontroversial to note that the clustering of populations by DNA relatedness correlates well to observable phenotype. If the term "race" is fraught so be it but the phylogenetic grouping of lineages into clusters can be largely reconstructed using only phenotype data: ask an innocent child to sort "like with like" photos of faces and you might get groupings like male and female, smiling and sour, but you could also reasonably expect to see Korean grouped with Japanese, French with Polish, Zulu with Sotho, etc. in the same way as these can be placed according to their degree of relatedness in a phylogenetic tree.
It would be odd to avoid generating or testing the hypothesis that average differences between lineage clusters might extend beyond the observable phenotype to medical and behavioral outcomes - it has not been ruled out by scientific evidence, and generally data that support the hypothesis is accumulating in the age of large scale genomics studies.
Sadly there is an urge to suppress both this uncomfortable idea and the also discomforting potential antidote: gene editing ala CRISPR cas-9 and similar methods. Equal access to the blueprints of Olympians and Nobel Prize winners, rather than considered to be a human right, is cautioned against, ostensibly to preserve a world that is neither brave nor new.
2
I find this to be a fascinating and necessary article, very smart and informative. It addresses explicitly the often-neglected need that more scientists should attend to, which is to bring science more effectively into mainstream conversation.
In particular, I liked the truthful, intelligent and respectful invitation by the author to get us past our knee-jerk response tapped by political correctness, or by its close and dreaded cousin, racism. Yes, those two are not yet as far apart as we like to tell ourselves they are.
I hope other people making a living in basic science will see read this piece and be inspired by it to become better communicators of science.
Science is an awesome, beautiful and majestic pursuit -- the exact qualities of Nature, which it tries to describe with as few distortions as possible.
oz.
4
PART TWO OF TWO
The problem is with the words "race" and "racial" which are used to IMPLY distinctive gene pools in the scientific community, but when used in common, including journalistic contexts, it is a very fuzzy, very unscientific term attempting to grab some of the prestige that genuine biological science deserves. This use of the fuzzy term "race" to imply congruity with the scientific concept of somewhat distinct gene populations is the source of the problem and must be addressed. That's why it is so dangerous to talk of "racial" differences and feed common prejudices when one is really just talking about distinctive gene populations that might have characteristics that correlate, to some degree, with other genes.
I find reading the comments almost as instructive as Prof. Reich's work. To read the convoluted rationalizations, rebuttals and demands for new definitions, points to fear of what might be found. People seem to be already preparing for their denial of the facts they don't want to hear.
11
I was more than a little disappointed by this essay's tendentious portrayal of the late cultural and genetic anthropologist Prof. Henry Harpending of the U. of Utah, a member of the National Academy of Science. Henry was one of the wisest and most original thinkers I've know. Here's my 2016 obituary:
http://takimag.com/article/the_scientist_vs_the_splc_steve_sailer/print#...
2
When I think about the existence of human racial types, I often think of man's best friend, the dog. With intentional and intensive selective breeding we've got a world full of I-have-no-idea-how-many breeds or races of dogs, and then all their mutts. And we accept this fact without thought, or even enjoy this canine genetic hyperbole. Now, I am not proposing this, but I'm sure we could do the same to ourselves and, in contrast, create a most dystopian world. Even without racial divisions our being male and female we have not handled well the fact that we are male and female. I doubt we intermarried with Neanderthals. More likely it was viking style rape and pillaging.
One solution to racial/genetic problem is that we marry outside our "race". I did and am the proud parent of two mutts, erasing 40,000 years of isolation in our family line.
1
Just what you said (paraphrased ): we should afford everyone the same rights and opportunities regardless of these differences--which applies to individuals.
That said, racial differences are real and have real-world consequences. The Chinese, not burdened by our white guilt, have no illusions about their goals in Africa. They simply pay off the local strong man and take what they need. It does not occur to them for a nanosecond to try and introduce a modern technology-based civilization there.
No? Let's check back with one another in 30 years.
6
The comments here show how much people are really afraid of what genetic studies of racial differences will show. Sort of like how the NRA is afraid of what research on gun violence may show.
Let's do the science and let the results speak for themselves - whether we like it or not.
13
To my mind, a nice and balanced article. 100 years ago the idea would have been that race determines everything. Now there is a notion that race can't mean anything. Though difficult (impossible?), this article may miss both Scylla and Charybdis.
16
Probably the most honest and accurate observation anyone can make concerning race, ethnicity, sex differences, individual differences between humans is that apparently humanity has to hope there are no real differences, and if there are differences they must be covered up, because it seems the human race no matter the race, ethnicity, sex of a person is characterized everywhere by an incapacity to tolerate differences between people--that is the significant racial and species tendency of the human race.
Apparently all politics must be a silly, childish uniformity, groupthink, of this or that sort, whether we speak of uniformity of religion or socialism or fascism or what have you and there are clear limits to democracy because people simply cannot stand differences between each other, can't live with individual difference, individuals not swallowed up in some group or other. There is no theoretical problem with humans having racial, ethnic, sex differences other than the fact that people cannot live with these differences. Nor can people live with species other than themselves apparently, flora and fauna, the natural environment; people make everything themselves, part of their little group, or destroy it.
In other words, there is no problem with wide variation within and between lifeforms for human beings other than the fact humans can't stand it, they hate all these differences, so they gloss them away, or incorporate or destroy these differences. What a pathetic species.
15
Spectacular first paragraph!
The article doesn't adequately discuss the role of environmental factors and epigenetics in affecting the genetics of a population. Won't environmental factors, if consistent over time, change the genetics of a population? If one population has greater access to high quality resources such as food, water, shelter, warmth, etc, than another population, won't both populations adapt to these conditions over many generations?
26
How about inbreeding vs. exogamy? There's a real can of worms.
"An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ."
This is pretty much what James Damore and Larry Summers said about male/female differences. I agree with the gist of what is being said here. I'm not sure, though, that we are prepared to have this conversation. For several years I taught a segment of a course on "intelligence." It was challenging and interesting. We explored controversies, and we raised all the questions about population differences. We read not only scientific treatments of the notion, but we also read poetry and fiction that explored the nature and value of "intelligence." I stopped teaching it recently. It's just too risky given the current environment in the universities.
I appreciate the courage here, and I hope the intellectual environment shifts so that we can properly prepare ourself for this discussion.
34
Intelligence. My ancestors were considered subhuman because we were the aboriginal people of Scandinavia and herded reindeer. My husband’s Italian family’s fellow Italians were shown a tennis game with no net and asked what was missing as a test of “intelligence”. Of course they had never seen a tennis court in Southern Italy. Intelligence, depends on who is doing the testing, their bias and their goal. My money is on intelligence having nothing to do with being Saami, English, American WASP or Italian.
1
It has been a long time since IQ tests included tennis games or baseball scores. Intelligence is the ability to deal with complexity and abstraction, to learn from the past and prepare for the future. That is what modern tests measure. All the groups you mention are European and have an average IQ of 100. Some other groups have higher averages, others have lower, some dramatically so. These difference have serious implications for some societies' ability to modernize, govern themselves, and participate on the international stage. When James Watson, one of the most important scientists of the 20th century, said that, he was pilloried by the left and forced to recant, just like Galileo. In academia, he was burnt at the stake.
4
What would happen if it was discovered that there was in fact irrefutable genetic evidence that one "racial group" was intellectual superior to another? Just as the proof (or not) of freedom of speech is tested only when someone is allowed to openly say things with which we disagree; or freedom of religion is tested only when someone freely practices a religion markedly diverse from our own; the founding fundamental principle of America - that all men are created equal - would only be tested if there actually were a real genetic difference. And so what if people from African descent are on average faster runners or better basketball players, and northern Europeans are on average better mathematicians? Does this somehow change the fundamental concept that everyone in America is entitled to equal treatment by the government? No. In fact our ethos as a country is only tested if in fact we recognize and accept that genetic differences do occur; and we still hold to our fundamental principles.
23
Strongly agree--but eventually this becomes a serious problem. If, as the Declaration says, we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with unalienable rights--well, that's a clear ground for an equality that overrides any differences that might have varying social value. But Americans are growing increasingly non-religious.
It's not easy to find a replacement for that way of grounding equality. We can just stipulate equality as a principle that we don't want to give up--but why? For what reason? That question will become increasingly difficult to answer as our knowledge increases and when a more rational organization of society might be better achieved by sorting people out for different roles based on their different traits.
1
"We can just stipulate equality as a principle that we don't want to give up--but why?".....Because we believe that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or put another way we believe that no one is entitled to privilege or compelled to suffer disenfranchisement by the accident of their birth. The opposite of believing in that principle is to accept that our lives should be governed by the subjective whims of others.
1
Thank you for such an intelligent and measured discussion. I will buy the book. It is confusing to me, however, the number of commenters who criticized this essay because they thought it was an argument for assigning values based on "race." I guess that just supports Professor Reich general thesis.
18
What's becoming bizarrely familiar to me, is to hear scientists from generation after generation suggest that "This is it, this is the truth." It's obvious there are regional differences in populations of humans and that those carry with them varied genetic components; Lewontin said it, Gould said it, and Dobzhansky said it. There are over 200 genes that influence skin color alone, and many of those are also associated with other anatomical and physiological functions elsewhere in the body, and there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 genes in the human genome and they all interact somehow, either epigenetically or anatomically or physiologically with other genes or their products, and the environment. It's somewhat akin to looking at Ferraris and suggesting the horse symbol makes them fast.
Think more of the Ferrari traversing a city, and how much coffee the driver has had, and a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk in front of it, and then consider what the pedestrian had for breakfast, and consider the shoes the pedestrian is wearing, and consider the other cars, and the ambulance that makes everyone stop, and the light snow falling, and then, you have one tiny fraction of an understanding of how fast that Ferrari can go and why. Let's collect data, that is what humans are good at. We're still, apparently, not very good at interpreting it.
39
While Watson's or Wade's comments may deserve scientific scrutiny and be subject to dispute and, indeed, may prove flat-out wrong, it is incorrect to call their personal conclusions "hate filled"? To do so sets subjective and artificial limits on what can be scientifically debated or concluded unrelated to empirical evidence or merit. Recognizing genetic advantages and disadvantages is not per se "hate filled" or fraught with moral judgment, even if the traits at issue correlate to long held tropes or canards.
12
Dr. Watson and Mr. Wade may use the ambivalence of others to posit their claims more strongly, but their thinking does not "start with" others who are not prepared to make such observations. Their thinking is all too common and seemingly requires no external impetus. Indeed, they reside in the person, likely from their own background and learning. That's where those beliefs (aka racism) start, and where they must addressed. A parallel to your argument could be made with advocating more strongly the difference in men and women, which you describe as more clear. Shall we discuss Men/Mars, Women/Venus, for the sake of dissuading those who are sexist? All the while ignoring all the sexes in between.
I have never regretted the genetics course I took in the late 90's as an elective. I think the author's good points beg the question of just how criminal, detrimental, and damaging it is for one culture to enslave the citizens belonging to another culture (or group)--denying them access to education and other economic spring boards. Cyclic poverty of any group could be discussed as a slow genocide in action considering many with the same DNA triggers for success are simply denied access to the tools to bring them to full status in their society. It brings an entirely new dimension to the argument and necessity of equal access, affirmative action, and equality as well as the human crimes being committed globally against human populations based on various characteristics.
3
I'm so glad Reich brought up Nicholas Wade. The 2014 book "A Troublesome Inheritance" was beyond irresponsible. It received a near uniform backlash among the population genetics that he cited, who were clear that their work was being misrepresented. A lot of the other writing that Mr Wade does, including in the New York Times, is good. And his history in the scientific publishing industry is respectable.
But the 2014 book was execrable. We need to be clear about how modern genetics can be abused, by even informed and educated people.
3
Dr Reich -- Your article is certainly thought-provoking and welcome. I hope your good intentions bear fruit. I encourage several attitudes:
1) Humility - Your findings are not that important. This is a difficult portrayal for one's life work, in an academic arena where perceived importance is directly related to funding. However by keeping the hyperbolic adjectives in check, you discourage overapplication of your findings. Dr. Watson wants a genetic explanation for Jewish intellectual achievements, however the genetics will not lead to improvement in anybody's intellectual power or education. Your prostate findings ultimately mean West Africans should be checked for prostate cancer more frequently. Duh.
2) Emphasize the bell curves - "men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength". Yes, but if we place the 2 bell curves of strength for men and women on top of each other, there is a huge overlap. Many women on one tail are stronger than most men. Many men on another tail are weaker than most women. Individuality should be stressed with these types of graphics -- standard deviation numbers are not sufficiently demonstrative.
3) Continue to speak out against the racists -- your callout of Nicholas Wade and James Watson is excellent, as is the letter to the NY Times from you and your colleagues. It has to continue. I wish climate scientists were as vocal in calling out the deniers.
4
Whatever is the changing social perception of, and attitude to, the concept of 'race's, people of different geographic origins look different in their skin color, facial traits, body structure, etc.
1
Earlier notions of race that equated human races to sub-species have been disproven, a fact that well-meaning social science types tend to have in mind.
But what our increased understanding of human variation has left unchanged is the fact that humanity can still be divided into groups of genetically similar populations. These genetic groups, or clusters, are very real and reflect communal histories of interbreeding and partially isolated evolution. The 90% prevalence of lactose intolerance among adults with East Asian ancestry is an example of what this sort of genetic similarity means.
The reason these clusters of genetic similarity aren't simply called races, however, is that the number of them you find depends on how you analyze the genetic data. Some analyses show 3 major groups, while others show up to 20 or more. Furthermore, there is overlap in every genetic marker chosen, such that no set of markers is robust enough to define race rigorously at the genetic level.
What this means is that if by race you mean genetically homogeneous human groups, then races are unreal and the term is a social construction. But if by race you mean clusters of genetically similar humans, then human races are manifestly real and the concept of race is highly predictive of individual genealogy, not to mention predictive of population-linked health risks, like Tay-Sachs susceptibility among Ashkenazi Jews.
When it comes to the concept of race, we don't need less science. We need more.
15
I still think we should call races "breeds". I know it's kind of base but that is closer to the truth.
We have NO problem at all putting dogs into categories of "breeds" to differentiate them, although they are all the same species.
Why do we insist the human animal is any different?
1
The writer is suggesting that issues concerning cognition will probably prove the “white” people are smarter than “black” people. The writer never made assumptions the other way, or, that it could be possibly proven that “white” people are more aggressive, dangerous, angry, hostile, manipulative, or the like than all other people. An argument can be made that history supports such a theory. Because the author does not set forward such arguments or propositions but instead suggests that genetic science will probably show that “black” folks are less intelligent, I question whether even he could conduct scientific experiments free of great bias. My point is that people are rightly very uncomfortable in flirting with a science that may quickly end up resembling eugenics.
44
When scientists comes up with a genetic test that explains the "moral depravity" whitenessed among "Europeans" (whites) that led to large-scale, institutionalized, international slavery over centuries and the full-scale attempts at genocide of Jews and other populations during WWII, then I might believe there is some earnestness to understand the "true" question of nature versus nuture. Until then, I am a bit dubious of the goal... I will, however, read Reich's book. Hopefully, he will clearly delineate his understanding of the term of race, and all that it encompasses, as well as population statistics and biological inheritance.
4
The genocidal gene you mention proliferates among all racial groups and on all continents. All racial groups have practiced genocide. The most recent have been in Africa and ASIA. Slavery has flourished on all continents. Africans ran the supply side of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Europeans did not invent slavery, but they took the lead in abolishing slavery,
29
..."So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those difference..." One could argue that this holds for genocidal tendencies, eventhough they can be found across all groups, as you say... Despite recent events, history suggests that these tendencies are magnified in Europe (greater frequency? Greater magnitude of incidence? Not clear... more research needs to be performed). Although similarities exist across groups-- all get (prostate cancer, all have members with low "IQ" scores, all have variations of height, incidence of MS, kidney disease, etc., does not suggest that there are not important differences. Here I agree with Reich. I simply suggest that the depravity seen in Europe during WWII is the equivalent of a 48 inch vertical leap in the NBA.
1
"In the United States, historically, a person is 'black' if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not 'black' if he is known to have any European ancestry. If 'black' refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?"
As is so sadly often the case, privilege causes a well-meaning white man completely to miss the point. The fact that a person considered "black" in the United States can move to Brazil and be considered "un-black" is of no moment. What matters is that, in _neither_ country is such a person considered to be _white_! The purpose of racism is not to discover whether a person is black or not, but to discover whether a person is _white_ or not.
Ask yourself: "Are Jews white?" You make think that Jews are white, if you're Jewish. But, if you're not Jewish, the chances are excellent that, whether you're black or whether you're white, you have no real idea whether Jews are white or un-white.
Ask yourself: "Are Latinos white?" It's fairly certain that _some_ aren't, the really dark-complexioned ones, the poor ones, the Mexicans, and the ones from the Caribbean, at least. But, what about the others, especially the ones of European origin, from Spain and Portugal? Again, you have no real idea.
Clearly, racism centers around who is _white_ and not around who is _not_ white. Nobody cares whether a person is black or not. That's why there can be no such thing as "reverse racism."
7
ancestry, not race.
5
One of the factors in modern human evolution is the way in which society rewards some and thwarts others genetically, by adequate jobs and income enabling successful reproduction and child-raising, vs lack of jobs and income. Employers pick and choose in ways that reward certain characteristics and punish others. To be hard-working is allegedly a desirable trait. But one of the hardest-working men I know was hit by a layoff in the oil drilling industry several years ago, and he and his family have gone from one difficulty to another. An Army officer supervising him for a temporary job moving furniture called him a tank, with substantially more hustle than an average soldier. But because of some legal difficulties, he is cooling his heels in a county jail after revocation of his probation, with worrisome prospects on release due to medical bills and fines he is expected to be asked to pay. He's pretty smart, from a smart but poor family. One of his near relatives taught high school physics and went on to earn a doctorate, and is now teaching at an ivy league university. He could do something like that to, become a successful engineer or lawyer. But he's crushed by the legal system and beset by some family difficulties, all stemming from the slump in the oil industry and living in a very unequal community of rich and poor.
3
I thoroughly recommend this entertaining, scientifically rigorous book on this topic:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/adam-rutherford/a-brief-histo...
I've pondered these concepts for years, and arrived at the fact that all of us have met supreme examples of the extremes that humans can 'be' both good & bad. What appears to be the strongest trait we all relate to is a depth of caring from one of us to another, and/or to our fellow creatures. There was a picture yesterday of the African keeper of the last northern white rhino on it's death bed - such sweet touch & the picture said it all - I felt an instant bond with that African - and what it told me was that his heart was a good one, he knew empathy, kindness, what love is & the very best of us as humans. Why would I think of this other human as in any way inferior to my 'white' self ? what possible rationale would there be for that view ? And yet we have multiple 'white' hate-filled humans who would say so. Therein lies the fact of the matter - the heart is the true judge !
1
not mentioned here is epigenetics as to traits inherited. Grand children of war/famine survivors will likely have different "switches" activated in genes passed on then those raised in homes with books education nurturing households.
7
"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Charles R. Darwin, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (John Murray, London, 1871).
Dr. Reich asked himself, "Did this research rely on terms like “African-American” and “European-American” that are socially constructed, and did it label segments of the genome as being probably “West African” or “European” in origin?"
The questions alone expose a lack of reflection on the anthropological, and sociological features of racism. He is apparently comfortable categorizing "European-American," "African-American," "West African, and "European" as different races. His research group has spent 12 years and millions of dollars chasing a statistical anomaly associating higher prostrate cancer incidence in African Americans. A representative early publication is;
Freedman, M.L., et al 2006. Admixture mapping identifies 8q24 as a prostate cancer risk locus in African-American men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(38), pp.14068-14073.
Haiman, C.A., et al 2007. Multiple regions within 8q24 independently affect risk for prostate cancer. Nature genetics, 39(5), p.638.
A decade later and there was not any real progress, nor any indication that there is any clinical utility for the race based claims made by Dr. Reich. See;
Mancuso, N., et al 2016. The contribution of rare variation to prostate cancer heritability. Nature genetics, 48(1), p.30.
6
The supposed justification for reinventing racial categories was that African Americans developing prostrate cancer would be some how helped. That was Dr. Reich’s justification for us to “… no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.’ “
Several later studies have failed to support his reported association in the first place. In particular, an analysis of the same DNA segment identified by the Reich research group within a targeted population of Barbados descendants of African slaves found no supporting evidence. See;
Cropp, C.D., Robbins, C.M., Sheng, X., Hennis, A.J., Carpten, J.D., Waterman, L., Worrell, R., Schwantes‐An, T.H., Trent, J.M., Haiman, C.A. and Leske, M.C., 2014. “8q24 risk alleles and prostate cancer in African‐Barbadian men” The Prostate, 74(16), pp.1579-1588.
The what was also missing from Dr. Reich’s editorial was the fact he had not found a race, nor a racial criteria at all. He and his group found that African American males with prostrate cancer shared a small number of DNA variants. Some African American men without prostrate cancer also have those variants. Some African American men with prostrate cancer do not have those supposed cancer “genes.” In fact, Dr. Reich admits he can at most predict 1/3 of a familial risk- even between siblings.
1
This is a great piece, and I think the most important sentence should mitigate the concerns of many expressed here. "Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.". The point being, I believe, is that you can simultaneously acknowledge genetic differences that lead to average observed differences in many traits, such as health, while understanding that in any individual, those small differences that are detectable at a population level are meaningless.
2
It seems to me that the differences cited by Wade and Watson are fully explainable as cultural phenomena. Pre-industrial European farmers absolutely had to get their crops in the ground as early as possible in the Spring or they faced starvation from an early frost in the Fall. Farmers in tropical climates like Africa had more flexibility in when to plant and may have used things like moon phases to set planting dates. I expect that you will find similar differences in East Asia where people are all in one major racial group but those in the north (Korea) have only one shot at a rice crop while those in the south (Thailand) have the luxury of three crops a year. These differences are obviously more cultural than genetic. In everyday parlance Koreans are described as intense, while Thais are seen as laid back. The European-African differences cited by Wade are the same.
23
@TH: Interesting thoughts. Possibly correct. Deciding what is correct about the relative influences of genetics and environment is, and should be, one goal of genetic studies. This is an outstandingly difficult question and we can't expect much in the way of definite answers for many years, but we have some improvement already over previous ignorance. Well-thought-out effort can advance the techniques and eventually give at least better answers than we have now.
2
"Pre-industrial European farmers absolutely had to get their crops in the ground as early as possible in the Spring or they faced starvation from an early frost in the Fall."......I have thought it interesting to consider that human civilization advanced faster at the margins. If living conditions were too easy, there would be no purpose to innovation and development; and if conditions were too harsh the effort required just to stay alive would consume all the time and energy that might otherwise be directed toward innovation and development.
8
@Spitzer: Interesting indeed. You remind me of the observation that peripheral regions may advance more than central ones in an established area of civilization, by absorbing part of the civilization's ideas and methods and adding their own, but regions that are way outside don't have that property -- though I may be exaggerating this phenomenon.
2
Your argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what race is and, importantly, what it has been. You treat race, which you accept as a social constrict, as if has it signified in the same way across all time, which is in direct contradiction to your beliefs of the mutability of race (which you are committed to as you believe race is a social construct).
I don’t understand why you want to re-infuse biological meaning into such a construct, when the evidence you provide shows that the relevant science requires attention to the individual’s genotype - not similar phenotypic expression among a group.
Phenotypic expression cannot tell the scientist (or anyone) anything, conclusively, about genotype, as I understand.
You are attempting to re-racialize insignificant biological differences among humans - to revisualize race (or to promulgate the visualization of race)... and to what end?
What are your qualifications, further, for making these assertions? Have you thought about race outside of a scientific paradigm?
2
Racial, sexual,religious,economic, political are all differences that we must learn to live with and make more room for if we are going to survive on this tiny planet. I fail to see how establishing a genetic basis for "races" changes that challenge. The problem is not what good science is telling us, it is how people in power use that information to maintain their power. I am speaking of white European power dynamics and the value judgements that the status quo will want to attached to certain races for which there is no scientific backing.
1
I think it's time to eliminate the term "race" when referring to population groups. Not only is it inaccurate - "whites" aren't very white (more pink or tan or brown), some Asians seem darker than "blacks," etc - but the term contains too much baggage.
5
Yes--and it also doesn't capture how light skin and factors such as height operate within "races" to, apparently, rank people. On a visit to Mexico City, I noticed that people in higher positions and with more wealth tended to be lighter skinned and taller--especially compared to the shorter and darker skinned people selling things and begging on the sidewalks. On visits to Peking University and Tsinghua University, I noticed the same thing. Comparing professors and students there to country people or poorer city people on the streets was sort of shocking. I understand the wide spread of mestizaje in Latin America, which involves the historical mixing of races, and so how hierarchies could be still a "racial" matter, but the East Asian/Chinese stratification surprised me.
2
People who grow up with good nutrition grow taller. People who work outside in agriculture or construction get darker skin. So people who grow up in a big city with wealthy parents will be darker than people who grow up in a poor village. In the case of China these probably explain this difference, since China was never colonized by light skin people coming from somewhere else.
1
I would like to contribute some additional thoughts:
1. Traditional definitions of race are not as linked to traits as they appear. Take the prostate cancer example, the race self-identification helped with identifying the variation that increases risk for prostate cancer. However, it's that genetic variation, not necessarily any self-identified race, that is contributing to higher risk. The variation might be higher in West Africans, but that doesn't mean it ISN'T in the rest of the population; ignoring the variation in the rest of the population would lead to people who had that variation, but were not identified as African, being missed. Further, there being a higher frequency of that variation in Africans does not mean most self-identified African Americans would have this variation. Genetic variation should reinforce the fact that it's the genetics, not the region or self-identified race, that is causing the difference.
2. Genetics, which might predispose certain outcomes, does not fully explain all outcomes. If society focuses on the inevitability of genetic factors, they are liable to ignore or forget about the actionable societal and environmental influences.
Genetic differences should be acknowledged, but that doesn't mean they can't be mitigated or should be conflated with races.
7
Interesting article. Science will undoubtedly upend and annoy egalitarian far left ideologues who claim life is a social construct. What is amazing is the fact media does not cover ad celebrate the profound biological differences among the ethnic/racial groups. The correct focus should center on how different we all are, how little we actually have in common, i.e., diversity..
4
I have always disliked the term RACE.
We are different tribes at best. The term seems to have just to many sociological, political, and cultural negatives, to be a useful term.
To many times we humans like to point out things and call them reasons to dislike each other, and the Star Trek, where the two guys one black on the left side and one black on the right side, were at war with each other, taught a good lesson.
So let us get rid of Race as a word we use to subdivide humans. And get on with getting out into the rest of the universe.
5
What is the left so afraid of? If, as they insist, race is just a "social construct" and differences in intelligence are due to environment rather than genes, then they should welcome these studies.
11
We need to dub millennials the "Race against Time" generation and engage in open discussions about real scientific conundrums otherwise the void will be filled by opportunists and bigots. It's important to remember that IQ was just one marker of success in a very narrow ecological niche that metastasized to unsustainable proportions over the 20th century due to environmentally destructive industrial practices. Our generation finds itself in the position of disproving Ernst Mayr's assertion that intelligence is a fatal genetic mutation... I'll leave you with a quote from a dude who knew some things:
"Our species and it's way of thinking are a byproduct of evolution, not the purpose of evolution." - E.O. Wilson
5
My understanding is that based on the latest surveys, African Americans are on average ~75% Sub-Saharan African ancestry not 80%. Small difference I guess but a measurable one nonetheless.
How could a group of people as large as those identifying as “African American” possibly share any significantly similar genetic ancestry?
1
The race is human, the breed of human is tied to a geographical region. We also know that humans have been migrating around the planet for more than 10,000 years so these races as the author calls them have not remained pure and isolated.
Most educated people know that no two human beings are exactly alike. The differences, sadly, tend to be categorized into the socially constructed "race". So until geneticists can identify a totally new species that looks like humans but do not share core DNA, I will continue to hold the ideal that "race" is an artificial creation of ignorant human beings. Now of you wish to talk breeds based upon genetic variations, I will be willing to listen. I will still maintain that it matters not if we retrieve, are a good companion, or guard, we all still want to have food, safe shelter, and a good life so again, we are divided by people into geographic groups or work groups that contain human beings.
1
Humans are a species, not a race. The author assert racial characteristics evolved when human population were geographically isolated. They still are to a great extent. The author addresses the fact that many people have mixed racial ancestry. The author does not assert that any toe humans are exactly alike. The term "breed" applies to stock of animals or plants within a species having a distinctive appearance and typically having been developed by deliberate selection. We substitute the word "race" in reference to humans. You accept the fact that breeds of animal are genetically different. Why can't you except "breeds" of humans are genetically different?
5
In zoology and botany, a race is a population within a species of animal or plant that is prevented from interbreeding with a neighbouring population by an impassable barrier such as a desert, mountain range or stretch of water. Hence, Darwin referred to the different populations of finches on islands in the Galapagos as races.
9
Colenso, Your definition is correct. However, geneticists have not used the term "race" in over 100 years. Your definition actually describes "ecotypes".
1
Indeed the study of genetics has demonstrated that thousands of years in isolation of different groups created variations in our genetic codes (whether those changes happened because of adaptations or spontaneous mutations), but that still does not prove that these differences are of a "racial" basis.
It seems that descendants of Northern Europeans or West Africans have some genetic frequencies that make them more prone to a particular type of intelligence or disease, but the fact that their skin colors or phenotypical characteristics may differ is the result of another set of genetic mutations and, thus, only seem to be correlatetional and not causal.
This is what disturbs me so much about such a defense of genetic differences among the so called "racial" groups. What the interpretation of the data seems to suggest is that different geographical and ecological adaptations do make some of us slightly different from others in some very specific ways, but it in no way says anything about the existence of racial categories. To show this, you will have to prove that a large number of genetic characteristics are in fact associated with skin color and phenotypical characteristics, and this is simply impossible.
Unknowingly, Dr. Reich seems to be making the same mistake of the people he criticizes, which is arbitrarily selecting differences in genetic codes of some members of ancestral groups and attributing them to a social construction that we call "race."
Genetic evolution creates the variations in physical phenotypes we refer to as racial characteristics. The term "ancestry group" is largely a substitute for the term "racial group." This is why we don't refer to South African actress Charlize Theron as African American. But you feel more comfortable saying ancestral group than race, by all means use it. That way you can make the same points as David Reich without being accused of being racist.
3
"Males and females differ by huge tracts of genetic material — a Y chromosome that males have and that females don’t, and a second X chromosome that females have and males don’t." Hmmmm seems like the culture is attacking this scientific underpinning.
Notwithstanding, I thought science was teaching that genes are not immutable, to a point, and often don't express in certain conditions. I just say this because the piece reads a bit like genes are destiny perhaps unintended--unless that's the assertion? (on average of course!)
3
This honest article could help open up discussion about what we all THINK is the real significance of the genetic differences among us.
All of us, I think, hold onto ideas and emotions that would be better acknowledged openly than repressed. Hiding our real feelings is poisonous. For better and for worse, we have, as a society, cocooned ourselves in a gauze of political correctness. It is not just to protect others - we employ it to protect ourselves.
We really can't get anywhere as a society in terms of racial discourse by shielding our cards from view. Maybe it's better to put our cards on the table.
4
This is a tempest in a teapot. Anthropologists have never denied that there are differences between populations, such as West Africans and Northern Europeans. But populations are not races. European Jews are more likely to be carriers for Tay-Sachs than European Christians, but they are also more likely to be carriers for Tay-Sachs than Middle Eastern Jews. Type A blood appears most often among Blackfoot Indians of Montana, Aborigines of Australia, and Lapps (Saami people) of Northern Scandinavia; few would call this grouping a race. Pick a trait and you can find its variants (height, skin color, eye color, blood type, and so forth), but they occur in a "nonconcordant" fashion, that is, there is no population in which all variants line up sufficiently to warrant the designation of "race."
7
Discussing genetic differences in intelligence is like viewing a painting of a cat through a kaleidoscope and thinking you are simply looking directly at a cat.
3
Very nice, this reads like a Socratic dialogue, wonderful; I'm printing it and pasting it to my frig door. Long live philosophy.
1
I feel sorry for David Reich and other population geneticists if they have to read these comments. Their efforts to "educate" the public aren't going very far.
9
Will, I agree. David Reich would be better advised to write an article about modern genetics, which has little to do with the genetics they may have learned in high school biology decades ago. In reading these comments, I am appalled at the ignorance of science shown by so many of the commentators here.
1
This was intellectually rigorous until it got to the study of white people in the U.S. going to college and trying to show a genetic basis for that. Then, screech, off the rails. Sorry, but that is just ridiculous and veers into the “soft” social sciences, not biological science. Throwing around big words, doesn’t make stupid ideas more valid.
1
Too bad Reich felt he needed to tip-toe around these issues to placate the tantrum throwers, the ones who throw tantrums when faced with an unpleasant fact like a two year old. The tantrum people are irrelevant because they have abandoned rationality. Who cares? Do you care about the drunken rantings of a wino on a street corner? Same thing.
4
The author should be careful with his less than subtle suggestions that whites may be genetically superior to blacks. No race is superior to any other.
Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
Published February 22, 2008
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/02/22/whites-genetically-weaker-than-b...
“White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.”
2
I am always impressed by the fine and accurate science reported in such outstanding science journals as "Fox News".
1
What if the scientific study's results revealed that blacks were more intelligent?
Just a question.
3
Not a problem. Simply redefine what constitutes "intelligence."
3
Can one see "race" in haplotypes? How much "genetic ancestry" makes a person "African-American" or "European-American" or "Asian-American" or whatever? It would seem that these "biological facts" about race are constructed by the desires of the person looking to find race in biology.
How much "genetic ancestry" makes a person "African-American"?
That question is irrelevant. As the Dolozel affair showed, all that it takes to make a person "African-American" is simply claiming that one is African-American.
Yes, genetics is inconsistent with right-wing racial stereotypes -- but it is also inconsistent with the left-wing belief that genes have NO influence on behavior. As The Times’ Bari Weiss described in a March 7 column, any questioning of the current dogma that gender is a social construct is enough to get a campus lecturer censored by protesters as a “fascist.” Yet university libraries are filled with thousands of journal articles on psychological and neurological differences between the sexes -- studies that are never consulted by those campus protesters who, one assumes, are far too busy ever to go to the science library. I remember the dubious look I got once from a humanities prof when I remarked that anyone with more than one child knows there are genetic differences in personality between children.
16
Funny how David Reich trumpets his embrace of gene science & then promptly trots out stereotypical political correctness in disparaging those who have drawn straightforward conclusions from simple observation about "race", basically calling them bigots & denying much of it matters. Sad.
3
those who have drawn straightforward conclusions from simple observation about "race"
How can a "straightforward conclusion" be drawn from "simple observation" about something that doesn't exist?
Therefore, "all men are created equal" is a BIG lie! The truth is we all have our unique combination of variations, which is the foundation of diversity even within the same race. The entire liberal concept is corrupted to say the least. They created an unnatural world and they force others to accept their lies. Worse, they talk the talk but never walk the walk. It may really need to take a Harvard professor to point out the nakedness of liberalism. The king doesn't really wear any clothes!
There is no hope unless liberals can finally be honest with themselves and with the rest of us. The only way sustainable is to build a true color-blind society based on merits. College application should be de-identified. Race, income and social status should not be factors. The current system is merely that white masters decides which racial minorities get better treatment through affirmative action. Their own status is protected by legacy program.
I can see hypocracy everywhere. Of course liberals have racial bias. We all do. It is in our DNA. In fact, our ancestors didn't evolve in isolation. The kill Intruders and people from outside. Racial purity was kept through violent force. Altruism can not work in a diverse society. Similarly, the concept of democracy was developed in homogeneous societies.
Wake up. Race in Homo sapiens was developed through ethnic cleansing. Even today, our "animal instincts" are still dominant. Stop lying and face the truth.
3
"Therefore, "all men are created equal" is a BIG lie!"....No. You completely don't understand what that means. It means that everyone is entitled to equal rights. That no one is entitled to inherent superiority by virtue of the accident of their birth.
2
Therefore, "all men are created equal" is a BIG lie!
In what sense is it a "BIG lie"? Are you saying that, e.g. a word like "physically" or "mentally" is to be understood as occurring between "created" and "equal"? Suppose that someone else says that the missing word is "socially"? How do you refute that claim?
We, the world over, are homo sapiens. Home sapiens originated in Africa, therefore we all are, genetically. "black". In the United States, being "black" is a political construct.
2
Imagine white churches everywhere, if the image of Jesus was suddenly replaced by one of Middle Eastern or North African or Semite descent? Darker skin, darker hair, even darker eyes, short stature, features so unlike the blue blond with white flowing hair they were taught to worship.
1
As a scientist, I appreciate your argument. Your timing, however, is abysmal.
2
Having read and enjoyed Nicholas Wade's book Before the Dawn I picked up his Troublesome Inheritance book and was shocked and disgusted at Wades racist views parading as science. Glad to hear he was called out.
David, next time please include links such as to this letter you mentioned and to your 2016 study,
1
This is a profoundly important article. And illustrates the very dangers it proposes to guard against.
By suggesting that studying genetic differences between men and women is a good place to start to avoid the evils of eugenics etc, the author falls head first into the trap. Genetic differences between men and women are as routinely used to discriminate against women as genetic differences are used to discriminate against blacks (or Jews in Hitler's era). Indeed genetic discrimination against women may be worse than against blacks and more widely accepted. Jim Watson lost his job for saying blacks were genetically inferior intellectually. Larry Summers did NOT lose his job for saying women were genetically inferior intellectually.
It is the belief of scientists like yourself that the genetic differences between genders or between races underlies the stereotypes and positions in society that we see that almost defines discrimination.
A scientist who wanted to understand the genetic basis of intelligence would compare the genes of smart white men to dumb white men, or smart black men to dumb black men. Not compare races, or genders. As every scientist knows – to do genetics of traits you start with things that are the MOST similar but differ in just that trait. All of modern biology advanced on that realization. To do otherwise, is to be driven by prejudice, not science.
A public debate is urgently needed on this topic.
2
Why is this column on the editorial page when it's so obviously just an advertisement for a (probably very boring) book?
Coyotes and dingos can mate; they are the same species. But they differ in intelligence and temperament and anybody who has seen a few can tell them apart. Duh. Why the Harvard professoriate think people are going to cough up to buy a book that simply reiterates what every farmer or herder has known since the dawn of time?
4
Given what Reich is strongly hinting at, it seems that the great sin of Wade, Harpending, and Watson is that they may have been prematurely right.
God knows how much worse off we'd be if we had started to prepare for these unfortunate results many years earlier. As we all know, it's always better to prepare for something at the last minute.
2
A valiant attempt for a loaded subject, as illustrated by this published statement in the N.Y. Times article.
"(I'm angry at) the use of the word “race” as a noun or adjective. The human genome has been sequenced and it has been established as the scientific consensus that “race” as a biological category, a genetic typology or a scientific reality does not exist. "
When the use of the word "race" itself is seen as evidence of a distorted mentality, any explanation, even one as erudite as this article, is viewed by many as biased. Wikipedia, which achieves balance by an elaborate process of resolution of viewpoints, usually describing the controversy, is stuck on the article: SCIENTIFIC RACISM ...is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority; alternatively, it is the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes or genotype into discrete races.
Dr. Reich's article must be classified, but how? If "race" is tainted, then how do we denote his subject. Do we create a type of cold multi-faceted genetic numerical identification. I personally attempted to remove the description in the Wiki article that would categorize this article "psuedoscientific" but the consensus, not only reverted my effort, but was not disposed to find a solution.
This article is a beginning, but with no accepted terminology, how can we even address the issue raised.
22
Al,
I wish I could like your comment a thousand times.
Bravo, David Reich. It needed to be said. In light of the explosive popularity of trans issues, the comparison to gender is especially apt. (No doubt that’s why you made it.) Now, I will superstitiously cross my fingers and hope that you still have your job come Monday.
1
"It is true that race is a social construct."....Well what is race? Should it be based on genetics or morphology? It is silly to argue that there not substantial differences. A mere child of four immediately and dramatically recognizes the difference between someone who is "black" and someone who is "white". Shall we ignore this truth? Why must we pretend that there are not real differences - look for example at the finals of the Olympic 100 meter dash or an NBA basketball team. How many "white" faces do you see? Why must we hide and pretend there are no differences? There are differences; they are real and sometimes important; when we insist on denying that fact we play right into the hand of racists.
49
Sadly, dangerously, these are nuanced ideas about race and genes that a world spiraling toward trash TV mentality cannot handle. It's like going into an asylum for the criminally insane and giving lectures on explosives and firearms because "truth is important."
After what we've seen the last decade, it is certainly true that most of our species can't handle the truth.
The truth WILL be weaponized. Stupidly. Cruelly. Destructively.
3
The truth shall set you free. Diversity is a strength it implies a difference. There really are a multitude of ways to be a happy successful satisfied humane being. A society that accommodates them all is stronger because of it. Everyone has something to add. Thank God there are people who have real differences from me. Honesty in the end will destroy the perverse pleasure of racism.
1
Thank God there are people who have real differences from me.
What kind of difference constitutes a "real" difference, Bri?
This sounds like a straw-man argument, I am not in academia so maybe there is more going on there than meets the eye but I don't get the sense that anyone is being prevented from researching differences in human populations.
The problem is that behavioral and intelligence related research are an obsession of the racist types hence the greater reluctance to give such researchers the benefit of the doubt. Of all the scientific problems there are to solve, if you as a scientist decides your main interest is in finding out if whites are smarter than blacks, I am afraid you're immediately climbing up my racist suspect list.
5
The problem is, on the racial front, we are being asked to embrace genetics, despite the fact that most African Americans have European ancestry, some people who consider themselves white have African ancestry (e.g. Gail Lukasik, who found out her mother had “passed” for white), and our census categories lump people together very generally — so African immigrants are in the same category as African Americans, people with Japanese ancestry are in the same category as people from the Philippines and India, and people with Arab or Mexican ancestry are in the white category with people from Russia and France, and of course there is a Hispanic category (based on language) but not, say, an Arab category.
And yet, at the same time, as the author describes the noticeable genetic differences between males and females, we are being asked to set aside these differences in favor of gender identity, which can lead to, for example, such people who wish to be regarded as female, who should be getting testicular exams, or the move to detach pregnancy and gynecology from the female experience.
Why is being male/female, which in most cases is very clear biologically and genetically, negotiable, while ethnic background, which is for many Americans a case of mixed origins, supposed to be crystal clear?
1
Having read Nicholas Wades book “A Troublesome Inheritance” I take issue with Dr. Reich’s assertion that Dr. Wades relies heavily on Henry Harpending for his documentation suggesting that “genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes”.
In fact the book is 250 pages long and reference is made to Harpending only on pages 201-204, 206-208, 213. Even there Harpending is only one of several people sited as part of research done at the University of Utah for a study that sought to explain the success of Jewish people based on genetic factors reaching back a 1000 years.
The study pointed out that on average northern Europeans have an IQ of 100, but that Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of between 110 – 115.
Wade states that would lead to there being 23 Ashkenazi Jews with an IQ of 140 or greater for every 1000 Jews, and would help explain the large number of Nobel prize winners and others of intellectual distinction despite being such a minority group. (hardly race baiting)
There is no point in attacking fellow scientists who do not speak out of maliciousness, be it Wade or Watson.
They both speak from a point of using science to make life better for everyone and all races as does Dr. Reich.
3
What definition of _IQ_ does the study use and how is it tested for?
"a study that sought to explain the success of Jewish people"
Hence, the "study" sought to "explain" what its author already believed to be the case. That's pseudo-science at its worst.
Lamont MacLemore Kingston, PA 4 hours ago response part 2
but the real crime in this total denial of differences in inherited abilities between individuals and groups is that it forces people to blame difference in success on everything under the sun - if blacks (and obviously there are many very intelligent and highly successful blacks) as a group do not do as well as whites than it must be
the teachers
the poverty
white racism
and on and on
where as Occams razor would assert that simple inherited differences in abilities and interests accounts for most of the difference
and we could finally accept the incredible amounts of sacrifice from taxes to the 350,000 soldiers who gave up their lives in the civil war for the benefit of blacks as being worthy of the tribute it deserves
and that extends to Watson the man who originally discovered the double helix
1
to Lamont MacLemore Kingston, PA
first off it should be pointed out that Aristotle, Archimedes, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Gauss and Newton are not Jewish.
So saying that Jews are smart as a group says little about the individual.
But Jews nonetheless are smart. that there is a correlation with IQ should come as no surprise given their success - ie Nobel prizes.
Why is it so terrible to admit the possibility?
IQ stands essentially for ones mental age over ones physical age. That is to say their are specific learning stages that all human beings go though.
No matter what you can't teach a 3 month old to read - but some children can learn to read at 1 year of age - most children can learn at 5 years of age. That is what is meant by IQ. Presumably most Jewish children develop a vocabulary early compared to other groups. 120 IQ - would mean on average they learn to read at 4 and a half. This is a figurative example.
Interestingly this months issue of National Geographic is devoted to debunking the myth of race - the exact opposite of the articles assertion.
Personally I will drop my subscription - i read it for scientific articles - when political correctness takes over - i bail - as do many others.
Reich is right on in this regard.
2
Could it could it be that differences in peoples are cultural and not genetically based?
2
Underlying this piece are the assumptions that certain differences in behavior and cognition are bad. It is these assumptions that are social constructs and dangerous.
The author notes with distress,e.g., that an anthropologist asserted that a certain group has "no propensity to work when they don't have to." Steeped in the Protestant Ethic much? An organism that conserves energy! Shocking! Practically sinful!
So what if genetics ultimately shows that Eastern European Jews are smarter than other Europeans? Or that East Africans are faster runners? Do these traits make them more human, or more valuable and more deserving of high social status, than the rest of us? If so, why? And would the answer be the same no matter what society they were embedded in?
35
I honestly don't know whether the ignorant attempts to make this excellent article prove that white folks were superior all along, or the ignorant attempts to ignore what the science says, depress me more.
A suggestion, folks: people differ. They differ genetically. So what? Our laws and Constitution don't promise to make everybody equal; they promise equal treatment under the law, and something resembling an equal opportunity to make what you can of yourself.
It's also silly to force moral rules on science: in fact, it's Lysenkoism of a sort. The fact that African-Americans are more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia doesn't make them better, worse, or undeserving: it simply makes African-Americans more likely to suffer from sickle-cell anemia.
And it sure as heck isn't an excuse for systematic racism.
10
Research on population groups that have no clear boundaries such as "self identified African Americans" seem essentially useless as a point of comparison to other vague groups such as "Europeans". It is the equivalent of studying an illness where the participants self diagnose and no exclusion criteria are used.
The author notes the difference between "black" in the USA and "black" in Brazil. A genetic comparison of these two populations would reveal nothing of value.
A very confusing article. Practically every human being (non-scientist) already understands that there are [average] differences among population groups among a variety of traits - some of it genetic, some of it environmental. We ALREADY champion the fact that DESPITE these average differences, everyone should be treated equally under the law. What Reich is arguing for is already in place.
1
We ALREADY champion the fact that DESPITE these average differences, everyone should be treated equally under the law.
We _claim_ to, but we don't. Check out the number of comments stating that Stephon Clark, a young black man, *deserved* to be shot to death by the police in his own backyard.
The "racial' difference in prostate cancer rate and severity of the cancer strongly correlates to the level of testosterone.Higher in African Americans mid range for people European descent and the lowest in East Asians
4
How does this play out when say most African Americans are mixed with another race? To say one is 100% pure Black in this country is laughable considering our history. Just look around at how many shades we call black - from almost white to milk and dark chocolate. How does my white genes affect the study? I simply find this study suspicious.
Wait, so are Northern and Southern Europeans different races? Are West Africans a different race than East Africans? South Africans?
Yes, genetic traits exist in population groups. The problem is that these population groups don't map to racial categories and accurately reflecting them into a racial hierarchy would require hundreds of "races".
1
"...we now know that genetic factors help explain why multiple sclerosis (MS) is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans”. Another piece of grandiose ignorance from a male Harvard professor. Genes are not sufficient to cause typical MS, and abundant evidence shows that environmental factors are essential. Comparable to Lawrence Summers conclusion that women (genetically) lack the intelligence to be great scientists. As we all know.
What are you talking about? Reich never said genes "cause" MS and Summers said that there are innate differences between males and females.
1
Interesting to see that the Yale-Harvard rivalry isn't confined to the football field. In any case, the quoted statement does not imply that "genes are ... sufficient to cause typical MS." To say that "genetic factors help explain" why a given disease is more common in a given population is not to say that "genes" cause the disease.
1
You may need to seriously re-read Reich and then re-read Summers.
The advance of science and ethically troubled concepts such as race, ethnic, sex difference between groups of people and individuals in society?
My view is a profound strategy for society must be formulated. Ideally we want humans more intelligent, creative, self-disciplined, autonomous, psychologically stable, yet capable of working together. So somehow we must combine Darwin with all we mean by nurture over nature toward even a Lamarckian outlook on life, which is to say take the genetic material of ourselves and somehow not only ethically respect genetic difference but ramp up nurture over nature beyond positive social reinforcement such as education toward exploitation of new findings in science that in many instances demonstrate the genetic basis of a person can be influenced by environmental forces and be transmitted to offspring,--in other words we must somehow move from being slaves of our genes, subject to Darwinian selection, toward a controlled project of nurture over nature to point of Lamarckian development, being able to alter ourselves in process of existing and being able to transmit these alterations to offspring.
We need to know exactly, in other words, how much we must depend on genes to change (Darwin) and how much we can improve nurture over nature to point of Lamarck and "bend" the currently existing person to point this "bending" can be transmitted to offspring. All this of course made ethical and toward intelligently hypothesized future human.
First step: Get the NYT to stop introducing race into every conceivable article (and into a few where it isn't). Don't identify people by race unless it is an essential part of the story, which is unusual.
If an unarmed person is killed by a policeman (a frequent article, although the event is rare), the subject is the use of excessive force. Race is not part of the story until the NYT makes it so, unless there is some evidence the policeman's acts were affected by racial animus. That should not be the assumption.
If the article is about a disease, or education, or employment...or about almost any other issue, race should not be dragged into the discussion. It's not part of the story. The story is that X% of people die of Y, not that X may be somewhat different for different races. Even such obviously race-associated traits as sickle cell or thalessemia occur in all populations, though with differing frequency.
2
How shockingly terrible: an actual scientific basis for ethnic (racial) distinction. All modern hominids, and their immediate ancestors, descend from Homo erectus via some two million years of evolution. Adapting to terrain, climate, diet, predators and diseases; all the while driven by genetically-determined behaviours handed down from earlier hominids and even earlier anthropoids. Must have been tough becoming human.
The author danced around the issue of behaviour as an evolutionary characteristic but it must be considered in discussions of humanness. Example: non-human anthropoids exhibit "homosexual" behaviour. This was very likely fixed in the genes of the earliest hominids when they split from the anthropoids and comes down to the present day. As one of the TABOO subjects I have never heard any mention of this in genetic literature, let alone suggestions of research. Other human behaviours probably have a genetic basis, including some that seem to have an ethnic connection.
All human characteristics have an evolutionary basis even some that are now non-survival. If we cannot discuss, let alone research, this because it makes some people uncomfortable, then what value is science.
4
As I read this, I keep wondering what would happen if dogs as they exist today were human.
1
Fascinating to read this interesting piece and then the comments appended to it, particularly the Time's Picks. It appears that the arguments put forward by Reich are a bit too complex and nuanced for many of the commenters.
So in simple terms (for all the racists salivating over this idea:)
1. Someone discovers a cluster of genes that correlates with "intelligence".
2. This cluster is somewhat less prevalent among African-Americans.
3. When I deny college admission to an otherwise qualified AA candidate, that is not to be considered racial bias, correct?
The thing is, GATTACA aside, in the unlikely event that we ever get to the point where we could characterize genetic "intelligence" with sufficient resolution, you could just ask for everyone's "intelligence genome" and then rank them accordingly.
So, the concept of "race" is still arbitrary and meaningless. Sorry, guys.
1
You can't abolish racism by claiming that race does not exist. You abolish racism by saying yes different races do exist and so what.
1
It was found recently that white Europeans contained lineage from neanderthals and people of African decent did not have that same genetic composition. That means the only "pure" Homo sapiens are descendents of Africa and white Europeans are not of "pure" genetic makeup (Hitler would not be pleased).
This finding was received with jubilation from the media with many news orgs reporting this finding as yet another reason why racism is both factually and morally incorrect.
Now imagine if the findings came back and the results were switched? Do you think these scientists would have a career after publishing such findings? What people fundamentally do not understand is that scientific results of genomic research should not guide social public policy- how we treat each other in society.
Take a counterexample. Scientists found a heart failure drug that happened to work better on African American cohorts than the white european cohorts (Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine). Fantastic new, right? We found a group of people whose lives can be saved by a drug! This was not the case. News organizations bombarded the public with cries of racism and profiling. Race was completely a social construct, right? Any deviation from that dogma should be immediately thrown out and the perpetrators of such science should be de-platformed. Medicine is inherently guided by Bayesian inference given the uncertainty of the practice- population (or race) data is a crude but currently useful tool.
1
Anthropology has declared "race" as a non-viable concept for more than a hundred years. Even before DNA analysis, it was clear that "variation within groups is greater than variation between groups." Franz Boas' opposed the concept of race. Ashley Montagu's Classic work: *Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,* skewered the Nazi doctrine of race in 1944. The American Anthropological Association has an extremely valuable exhibit on race both in touring exhibits in museums and also in an online version. Everyone should understand how fallacious "race" is as a concept, and how it has been misused to suppress, terrorize and denigrate people all over the world.
The Online exhibit can be accessed at
http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html
3
!. many societies are not mature enough to handle scientific findings. A huge proportion of Americans reject evolution and believe the earth is only 5000 years old.
2. If, as the author explains, "race" is little more than an artificial proxy for geographical roots, why not classify according to maps rather than skin tone?
3. The author found a possible source of increased incidence of a phenotype (prostate disease) by explorining a 2% difference in genotype between "races." That was very lucky and useful discovery but conceptually ignores the 98% similarity in genotype and 90% similarity in phenotype. The "race"-based insight this provides for medical treatment of individuals appears to be marginal.
4. As the author himself notes, applying statistical conclusions to specific individuals is, at best, a dicey undertaking. Knowing that a statistical black man has a five times greater chance of a disease than a statistical white person will not make any real man's prostate examine any less necessary or more pleasant.
The author has fallen into the fundamentally "racist" cognitive trap of even even trying to categorize by race. Categorize by continent, region, ancestor's climate - fine - but categorizing by skin tone color strips borrowed from a paint store is unscientific and morally unsound, and politically and socially irresponsible.
Surely, a man as smart as Dr. Reich can think more clearly than this.
1
I think we can all agree that differences within a population group are very great. Individuals range from a-baby-born-with-no-brain to Einstein, or beyond.
2
To Dr. Watson's (alleged) assertion about Jews being mostly scholars - there is a painful explanation behind that sub-truth. Jews have been persecuted for centuries in Europe and elsewhere. There have been Inquisitions, Pogroms, etc... where Jews have been rounded up and tortured and killed. They have had to live in a state of uncertainty and expect to have to leave on very short notice. Now if that was your natural state of being, you would adapt or perish. If your assets were farmland or factories, when the soldiers or mobs are on their way you will not be able to liquidate them and raise cash as you leave. You will lose everything. But if you had gold or artwork or something you can roll up and take with you, your odds got better. The best option of all was if your assets were intellectual - then your most valuable assets could walk away with you and never be taken away from you as long as you live. So those who were scholars survived and those who were landed or in "brawny" professions, perished. Eventually most realized having knowledge skills was critical for survival and it stayed that way.
Without the pain and tragedy you can find a similar community in the US if you look at the Indian American community. You often hear people say, "Every Indian must be a doctor or Engineer, look at how many of these folks are around!" It is unnatural selection by the US visa process - educated Indians get visas uneducated usually don't. Genetic tests there will be interesting.
5
While I think there is legitimacy in the underlying Case David Reich is making, in my opinion he isn't careful enough in identifying the lack of correspondence between what might be usefully categorized as different populations in terms of particular genotypes and those of 'race' as commonly understood. For example, he discusses a particular inheritance from 'West African' populations. This category quite probably corresponds neither to the useful genotypic category (it likely averages different populations to create a category of 'West African' that contains a higher than average prevalence of a genotype from one unidentified sub-population,) nor is it a 'racial' category! On the continent of Africa there are many distinct genotypic populations, unidentified by racial (socially constructed) categories. How much variance between the likely socially constructed category of 'West African' and the Khoisan of Southern Africa, for example? More on average than that between 'West African' and 'European'? Most likely. The basic consensus that racial categories do not meaningfully describe differences between human populations remains unchallenged by Reich's argument. What the evidence he provides suggests is that there are biologically useful categories of human populations to be identified based upon particular genotypic variance, which only extremely lazily correspond to 'white' 'black' etc. Unfortunately his analysis fails to fully articulate this, which is very unfortunate.
1
Are Dr. Watson questions insidious, or hypothesis that deserve to be tested?
2
To be to be brurually honest then we should replace the word "race" with breed, as is utilized for the remainder of the animal kingdom. For example: The West Eurasian breed propagated the African breed both for servitude and created the necessary social conditions necessary to perpetuate that reality.
The most outrageous race construct of our times that most ignore is the term "Hispanic." Even 23andme claims there are variants particularly to Hispanics. And they claim to be very scientific even though the truth is that what are called "Hispanics" are people of European, African, Asian, and Native American descent. "Hispanic" refers to "Hispania," the Roman and Greek name for the Iberian peninsula where Spain is. Therefore, those from areas Spain colonized and who speak Spanish and have Spanish names are called "Hispanics." But many born in those areas are descendants of Europeans other than Spain. For example, many In Argentina are of Italian descent. And in Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, many are of African descent, but other European countries other than Spain. But what most Americans refer to as Hispanic are actually Native Americans from south of the border, including Mexico, Central America, and South America. However, these countries are populated by people of different races and ethnicities. So, why are they referred to as Hispanics? And Hispanic as a race. Are American blacks referred to as Anglos just because they speak English and have English names? No. So the term Hispanic to identify a race is totally incorrect and leads to inaccuracies when used in identifying genetic variants.
1
Hispanics are not a racial group. They can be of any race or combination of races. In the United States, they lobbied for and received recognition as a "protected language group." This is what differentiate them from other Americans who are descended from ancestors who spoke languages other than Spanish. Blond, blue-eyed actress Cameron Diaz is Hispanic. Most Hispanic Americans self-identify as white. As of 2010, 50.5 million or 16.3% of Americans identified as Hispanic or Latino. Of those, 26.7 million, or 53%, also identified as white.
1
So just ignore the scientific results that you do not agree with.
Slippery slope here.
5
This is the best general-public article on the question of genetics (science) and race that I've ever read. Excellent job, Professor Reich.
In reading through too many of the comments, however, I'm reminded of Charles Darwin's response to his overwrought critics: "Great is the power of steady misrepresentation." (Or as I was fond of saying on bad teaching days, "You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't make him/her think.")
1
It would appear that genetics is more geographic than "race" related.
1
As much a “social construct” as “race” is the proposition that “all persons are equal”. There is even less scientific basis for the latter.
1
Glad to see this in the NYT.
Those on the left who claim that race and gender are social constructs, despite the science, remind me of those on the right who deny climate change.
Sometimes the facts tell us things we wish were not true.
2
Excellent article. Informative and sensitively explained by David Reich.
The author has touched on a pivotal discovery in evolving science and medicine: Genetic population variances - aka biogeographic genetic differences, aka "races" - exist proveably at the molecular level.
However DNA itself is not always destiny. Just ask the first folk who spent a billion dollars parsing the first genome. In many cases there are tempering influences on morphology. In other words, if you could take a photo of a person's genetic blueprint, what you'd see is a vital, but isolated deterministic part of what that individual becomes.
Biologically alone, a gene's output is influenced by RNA transcription and potential mutuations therein; gene expression nudged by snp variants, our microbiome, etc.; never mind epigenetics based on methylation marks.
As for traits such as intelligence (acquired learning + innate computational capacities + cultural pressures to be educated + resources available), we've added in environmental and social factors to get something of a witch's brew.
Careful when conflating genomics that correlate to physical attributes (height, skin colour), vs. those being attributed to racial stereotypes based on personality and behaviour. It's entirely possible numerous correlates for the latter will be uncovered as further population and individual genomes are parsed. For now, can't we all just join hands and celebrate our shared humanity?
MarkDSwartz.com
I agree with much that David Reich has written and argued here; yet, I fear that is remains unclear for many readers that he carefully refers to the average when discussing genetic predispositions for disease or behavior in certain populations. Enabled by high-powered sequencing technology, researchers have found hundreds of genetic variants that are significantly associated with certain traits or higher risk for a number of diseases across human populations. However, most of these variants have very little power to predict a disease risk or trait value for any given individual (exceptions are large effect variants such as those in some “breast cancer genes”, see A. Jolie).
Let me give an example: one of my sons carries a genetic variant that gives him about a ten-fold higher risk for juvenile diabetes compared to those of us not carrying this variant. This sounds scary, and these odd’s are indeed considered highly significant. Scientists get excited with much lower odd’s, such as a two-fold higher risk or even a 1.1-fold higher risks because such genetic variants may teach them about the underlying biology of a disease or trait. Yet, in reality, in my son’s case, the likelihood that he will develop juvenile diabetes is 3%, in other words, of 100 children with this genetic variant, only three kids will develop juvenile diabetes. Do we worry? Not at all. We have his blood sugar checked annually and watch his sugar intake just a tad more carefully than for our other kids.
1
It's always funny to read scientists say, "We found exactly what we were looking for." Doesn't that really sum it up?
Why not just call different populations genetic pools or regional pools or population pools? One of your examples is northern vs. southern Europeans; I see no reason to use "racial" categories at all. You seem to obscure your own research by doing so.
I don't see the controversy here. Mr. Reich is merely saying that race is a political construct, but a genetic reality. Understanding the outcomes of different genetic differences is in its infancy. We shouldn't even think of using race for making political decisions until the science is much more complete. Conversely, we cannot be afraid of the science because we may not like the outcomes.
3
The diabetes example in my earlier post illustrates the benefits of genomics research – we can tailor preventive medicine and modify behavior – yet at the same time we need to acknowledge our limits when making assumptions about individuals. Enrichments of certain variants in a population of patients or members of an ethnic group means little without further research into mechanisms of action. When Reich writes that selection has acted recently on a behavioral trait in Icelandic people, he means that (allele) frequencies of genetic variants associated with this trait have changed – this may or may not have anything to do with the associated behavior.
Lastly, the scientific community has agreed – at least in the Western World – that human cloning and CRISPR-Cas9-enabled human genetic engineering (if inherited) is off the table. We don’t touch it, it is not ethical. Why do we have to dive in the thorny issues of intelligence and behaviors like delaying having children, which are ill-defined and influenced by a host of social and economic factors? Have we not learned from our fellow scientists in the last century who were fascinated with nuclear fission? I am sure insurance companies, the armed forces, politicians and others would love to have us identify those predisposed to reckless behavior, violence, or servility…whatever trait. I say let’s focus on diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer’s and the many other scourges of humanity. There is plenty of work to do.
1
A funny (and entirely rhetorical) thought crept into my mind while reading this short lesson on genetics. How would Mr. Reich respond to those who don't believe in evolution but instead believe in creationism? If God created man in his own image, what would God's DNA look like?
We will never be able to discuss genetic differences between ethnic groups until more people understand more about genetics and evolution.
This lack of understanding of the genetics of human biology and behaviour fosters an important misunderstanding of racism, which is a very poor word to describe the complex evolutionary reasons for human groups to dislike, mistrust and attack those who are not like themselves.
Even the most liberal of us are aware of the 'otherness' of others and prefer our own kind. Our own kind may not be defined by skin colour, either. It could be defined by gender, religion, sport, suburb, country. customs, culture or wealth. But we will have preferences. It is a genetic imperative that there is an 'us' and an 'other'.
People termed racist are responding viscerally and naturally to things many of us value, as are those who are sexist, ageist, anti-environmentalist and so on.
Those of us more liberal in our attitudes due to our own genetics, education, experiences or relationships need to appreciate the power of otherness. Diversity can be made to work, but not by ignoring the genuine differences between groups. Hatred or fear of the 'other' has to be combated with education, persuasion and even legislation in the full awareness of the impact of evolutionary genetics on our behaviour.
3
Perhaps someone will be able to make a sharp distinction between "population" and "race" stick in such a way that we will be able to recognize the shifting boundaries presented by the concept "population" in any particular genetic study, and the pernicious effects which still linger with the concept race. I did not see anything in this article that gives me confidence that the words African, race, population, ancestry, are not entirely fungible still. I do not think at this point geneticists have yet regained the public trust this writer rears losing.
One major issue with your piece is that certain academic "disciplines" actively reject evidence-based science as racist. The scientific method, to gender- and racial-studies departments, is inherently racist. So, evidence-based science in regard to race and genetics, as you propose, is attacked as racist itself. In its place in many of these departments is qualitative evidence of whatever thesis is in the student or professor's head.
2
Reading through the comments, once again the Left shows it can be just as anti-science as the Right whenever the facts don't support some preconceived world-view.
3
A stunning argument against political correctness. too many of us (the number should be zero!) actively suppress or even deny facts that might be "inconvenient" because they can be used, in distorted ways, to appear to support racist, sexist, etc. views. This is just as bad as denying climate change because your living depends on extracting coal or oil, or as was common 50 years ago denying that tobacco smoking causes cancer because your father owned lots of stock in Philip Morris (as did a friend of mine at the time).
Fortunately, human curiosity is such that (I think and hope) the long-term trend will always be towards the truth, despite the recurring efforts of those with vested interests to deny it, here and there, from time to time.
3
I am troubled that so many people who have commented seem to have so little understanding of modern genetics and of what this carefully written article is all about. I prefer not to use the term "race" because of this misinterpretation. A much more scientific and non-emotional term that I prefer is ""ecotype", which applies to ALL plants and animals. Ecotypes are populations that have been separated from one another for long enough to have evolved distinct and separate characteristics based on the environments (ecosystems) in which they have evolved. If separated long enough, some of these different ecotypes may evolve into different species. When humans moved out of Africa and radiated throughout the world, they changed into different "ecotypes" within different continents. Because there was never total isolation from one another, there was always "gene-flow" between populations that prevented formation of separate species of humans. If a traveler from space had visited earth, say 2000 years ago, they would have seen that people from different places like Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe looked different from one another because the separate populations had become adapted for the different environments in which they had developed after leaving Africa. No ecotype was better than any other; they just were different from one another. To say that all people are exactly the same shows an ignorance of science and a disturbing inability to see obvious differences.
3
This research is legitimate, and the author is right to defend himself against accusations of racism. But what is the endpoint? What if the day really comes when we can read the genes like a book? Will unlucky individuals get healthcare support, or will they become uninsurable? And imagine being turned down for a job because of your genetic profile. Abuses are only too easy to imagine.
"We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that
is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly."
I would not be too sure of that. We know what the pseudoscience can do because we are already living with it. If the academic commnunity (yourself included) does not have any idea what the outcomes of the research would be, what are you afraid of? Obviously, the differences you expect will be more profound than male-female. It looks like either:
a) you are being held back from doing research you want to do regarding race and genetics, or
b) it has already been done, and publication is being suppressed.
Despite the beating around the bush, I agree that the "we are all the same" trope is probably not in our best long term interest. But judging from other comments here - we are clearly not ready.
What a brilliant, thoughtful piece this is. Every time I come across one like this, I'm reminded anew of what a bargain is a NYT subscription.
1
Why not improve the terminology? "Black," "White," "Asian," "African-American," "Native American," "Jewish," "Icelandic," and on and on, are all so vague that they're only useful to people who want to make gross generalizations. These are not scientific terms, and they shouldn't be taken as such.
A real scientist, writing a quasi-scientific essay in a newspaper? Wow! God bless the NYT. I am a middle age white man who will never compete with a Kenyan marathon runner, I don't know about my genetics but my waist line is a clue. Should that matter? Should my Kenyan cousins look down on me because of my handicap? Vive la difference! There is however another kind of difference highly important, perhaps crucial, when it comes to the Human family: culture. There are cultural traits that gives some of our tribes an edge in adaptability, the all important survival criteria according to Darwin. This socio-cultural equivalent to DNA trumps any genetic difference in my view. Tikkun olam!
1
While I agree with you, so long as tiki torches are proxy for the western intellectual tradition (gee thanks Steve Bannon), such findings will be abused to support a racist mentality. Unfortunately we are moving backwards (into WWIII, no thank you John Bolton). Using our brains and not torches or nuclear bombs has to be our next aim.
Wow,
Homo sapiens has an NE or effective population size of 10,000. This means we have the level of genetic diversity expected in a species with a very small population. Compared to other species we have very little diversity.
Further there is clear evidence, see Henn et al 2016 PNAS that much of the diversity out of Africa is deleterious.
This article is highly misleading.
I am a Professor of Biology with a PhD in Evolution from Washington U.
Thank goodness that someone finally speaks the truth.
1
Confusing the relationship between "race" and "population" is Reich's basic mistake. But he goes further: he cites studies which search for traits like laziness as if this idea is not itself a social construct. Ancient peoples did not need to work the kind of hours North Americans and Northern Europeans did/do. In fact, Northern Europeans worked far fewer hours than North Americans during Medieval times as the cycles of agriculture and religious holidays gave them almost a third of the year 'off.'
Reich doesn't understand how language works. This is his intellectual error. Also, as an educator who has taught that race is a social construct, he assumes I do not understand population genetics and do not explain that in classrooms. He is wrong. His fears seem borne of casual conversations in academic situations rather than extended discussion.
We may be developing populations which are measurably more susceptible to certain stress related diseases like cancer and heart disease because, ironically, the circumstances under which these populations live is determining these propensities. Tying this to "race" is an intellectual error far more dangerous than the one he is trying to critique.
The author may understand the science better than I, but he does not understand the effect of language. This is demonstrated in the language and rhetorical structure of his essay.
146
Before complaining about Reich's linguistic skills, you'd best think about your own. What part of what Reich wrote about Harpending's assertion supports the notion that laziness is (or is not) a social construct? Reich explictly points out that there's no scientific support for Harpending's claim. It's pretty hard to twist that around into your defense of work habits anywhere in the world. Really, it's simple: Harpending said it, Reich rejected it. Your beef is with Harpending (now deceased), not Reich.
Harpending and I were roomates for a year, back in the sixties when we were both in grad school. At that time, he showed none of the racist beliefs he seems to have developed later -- or, if he had them, he hid them well.
43
Reich tries to rebuke socioeconomic political educational legal conceptions of genetics and 'race' without adequately defining either. There is only one genetic human species. Thus our 'race' is human. But Reich prefers to hint at a darker deeper sinister significant 'truth, while keeping race in quotes where it belongs.
Donald Trump is very lazy. He has spent a third of his time in office on vacation.
Trump is an athlete. He has been playing golf 100+ days.
17
Reich doesn't seem confused to me. He carefully notes the existence of population differences without calling them "racial" or ascribing them to "race". (Quote: "It is true that race is a social construct.") He cites the study of "laziness" without endorsing it in the slightest. I'm sure you address real issues of race in your teaching, but I think you should reread the essay more carefully, trying not to inject your concerns into Reich's thoughts.
40
Clearly men and women are different. Women live longer and can bear children. Men are physically stronger.
But when we talk about employment and wages and insurance, people start screaming at one another. The differences are clear, but it is incredibly difficult for us to have calm discussions about how those differences might influence income, work habits, etc.
Ashkenazi Jews and Asians are clearly 'smarter' than everybody else, judging by IQ scores, ACT and SAT scores, college admissions. But if you state those facts as an academic or a researcher, you are unemployable. The 'facts' are irrefutable, you just can't say them.
I wonder how we could measure happiness. If you asked people if they wanted five more IQ points, or five more 'happiness points,' most of us would take the happiness points.
The happiest people I've known value family, friends and community above everything else. We're all human, having particular assets doesn't make us more human, or better humans.
135
@Michael H.: You seem to have made a simple error. You wrote, "Ashkenazi Jews and Asians are clearly 'smarter' than everybody else, judging by IQ scores, ACT and SAT scores, ..." For this discussion let's accept your categorization and your "clear" assertions, but you are forgetting that most Asians live in Asia. The Asians in the U.S.A. are the only ones who are likely to have IQ tests and ACT and SAT scores. They are also a tiny fraction of all Asians. What is the evidence that all Asians are "smarter"?
25
Based upon socioeconomics and education modern African immigrants are much 'smarter' than immigrants from anywhere else on Earth. That is a 'fact.'
Based upon their numbers and long -lived historical ethnic socioeconomic technological scientific prowess no 'race' is 'smarter' than Han Chinese. Nearly 20% of humans with 2200 years of winning success.
No IQ, SAT nor ACT test scores matter to nor measure 'race success' nor genetics.
8
The correlation between Ashkenazi Jews and Asians on high SAT scores still pales in comparison to the correlation between children from wealthy parents. So obviously rich kids are smarter! You see, the problem with your concern that people who "state those facts as an academic or researcher" becomes unemployable is that there are about fifty other germane takeaways from that data, in conjunction with a lot of other data points, that a thoughtful academic or researcher might have. And if the claim that this data proves Ashkenazi Jews and Asians are "smarter" is their primary one, it actually "proves" they're not so bright and pretty lame researchers. That's probably why they can't get work. But it's a lot easier to pass it off as a result of P.C. culture than as evidence of how un-nuanced their conclusions are--because it's that nuance that separates a scholarly conclusion from a pedestrian one.
30
To a biologist, the claim that human races are merely social constructs seems a political claim rather than biological reality, because the races correspond exactly to biological subspecies. That is, morphologically distinct populations of a species that occur in different geographic localities but interbreed at their joint boundaries, and produce offspring intermediate in their distinguishing characteristics. Thus, Rocky Mountain mule deer and Pacific coast blacktail deer are the same species and interbreed where they meet, but are different subspecies because they are different in size and coloration.
Not only does that definition clearly apply to the major human races, depending upon whether the biologist is a ‘lumper’ or ‘splitter’, it can also be readily applied to subpopulations within the major human races. In Africa, for instance, it is easy to spot the differences between a Masai, Kikuyu, Luo or Dinka, or scores of other tribal groupings. Or in Europe between a Dutchman and a Greek. They are physically distinctive, associated with particular parts of the continent, but can and do interbreed readily. If the subspecies (race) concept is uncontroversial when applied to species of animals, why should it not apply equally to humans?
16
@Mr Rumblethud: That is an excellent comment, very thoughtful and clear. Thanks for submitting.
Agreed, of course, when it comes to current observable visible differences among animals (humans included). It only complicates the matter when race as a biological reality, along with its doppelgänger, race as a social construct, are both constantly in flux--moving targets for scientists, and politicians alike. The biological truths of today risk becoming biological falsehoods of tomorrow; the socially constructed "truths" of today compete with other socially constructed "truths." Race is a word whose usefulness should rightly be questioned, perhaps even replaced with a word that better portrays its "ephemerality," so that we no longer read phrases by scientists--even well-intentioned ones--imploring us to treat everyone as an individual, "regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life."
That average genetic differences between evolved over the up-to-40,000-year period in which people groups were geographically isolated from one another is not surprising; that those have persisted and others may have arisen during the time periods since is also not surprising, given the social expectations of racial isolation that have been present in most societies over at least the last several hundred years.
I think it is problematic, however, to regard the evolutionary genetics of human beings over the last few hundred years through the same biologistic lens through which we observe other biological groups, human or otherwise.
1
I'm delighted to read an article of such high quality. And the same goes for most of the comments; it shows that there are many readers out there who have the intelligence and interest to address this most complex and vexing of topics. However, I would like to point out that the subject of this article isn't racial differences, it's a plea to be courageous and open-minded about scientific investigation. As our society becomes increasingly polarized, it's tempting to say "don't go there." Reich argues persuasively that we will gain nothing from that approach. While scientific research can be misused, misunderstood, or just disregarded, we must support the process. That starts with not shielding ourselves from looking at the evidence as it comes in... and then testing and re-testing it.
14
Thank you for this article. Although it may be uncomfortable to talk about there are differences in the races genetically. Why are we o.k. knowing and saying people of one race or another are more prone to certain diseases (which they are) but use the trope - "race is a construct" otherwise?
How come we now know that Europeans (and others) have Neanderthal DNA and most Asians have traces of Denisovan DNA and other races don't - but yet ALL races are the same? Right there in that evidence they aren't.
Ditto with gender. It might seem all warm and fuzzy in todays climate but there are obviously genetic differences in gender. It's ridiculous the point to which the delusion has gone (in this paper alone). How do they know they may have found Amelia Earhart's remains? By her bones - not how she was feeling day to day in terms of how she wanted to portray herself gender wise to the world.
12
Ahem. The fact is, certain groups perform better than other groups for reasons of nature, nurture, whatever. Claiming that we are all "the same" happy human race is just dandy, for a Benetton ad. And definitely for those who are currently better off and likely benefit from a perpetual victimhood culture among the less fortunate.
Understanding the reasons why certain groups underperform, even if they're genetic, is critical if one truly wants to bring those groups above a minimum threshold of personal achievement standards. Myopic people need glasses. Dyslexic people have special needs in school and typically have to need to work harder. Children within the autism spectrum need help to "play well with others." People are not equal, and expecting everyone to be naturally leads to failure (just look at Communism). Everyone has strengths, everyone has weaknesses. In a truly "happy world" everyone should be allowed to thrive to the greatest extent, on the basis of the former and the latter. Know thyself, and (here's the part about personal responsibility) work from there.
On a final, very personal note, nature may be an important starting point, but nurture is, well, NURTURE.
5
Do not forget that humanity is the most invasive species and that the different places were humans developed, had different requirements that may induce genetical differentiation due to local adaptation
3
REICH: "Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound. In addition to anatomical differences, men and women exhibit average differences in size and physical strength."
For roughly forever, people have regarded profound biological differences between males and females as utterly obvious.
However, in our brave new world, two professors at supposedly respectable universities can publish a book advocating the end of "sex segregation" in sports, apparently without those professors acquiring the reputation of being lunatics.
Sex Segregation in Sports: Why Separate Is Not Equal
by Adrienne N. Milner (Author), Jomills Henry Braddock II (Author)
In academia, some sensible opinions about how the world works are not allowed, and certain other opinions that are not sensible at all are treated with respect.
6
I'm an engineer, not a geneticist, but it seems to me that racial differences are largely cosmetic, not substantive. Why do we want to classify people by skin color and not hair or eye color? It's mostly arbitrary, driven by some desire to draw a line between "us" and "them." We divide the human population, in our own minds, along gender, religious, racial, socio-economic, intelligence, and a host of other lines, most of which really don't matter. Drawing racial distinctions says more about our own insecurity than it does about endogenous differences between people. Let's get over it.
3
Science should never be used to confirm or discount any particular political narrative. Lately, science journal editorials have been advocating publishers of results of studies to write them in such a way as not to inadvertently give ammo to the political incorrect opposition.
3
Here is a little mental yarn for you Mr. Reich. I would like you to go back into your data and study the genetic predisposition for empathy, making empathy one of the most desirable traits one could have. Then I would like you to look at populations that self select for empathy and study their societies. Then we can hold up those races and classes of people as the holy grail in desirable genes.
See what I did there? Genes are interesting and can yield many interesting facts, but it is the dominant humans in any society that will put a value judgement on any given trait. I happen to think empathy IS one of the most desirable traits one could have. It lead to understanding and inclusion and less war and tension among people. Yet, somehow I think in this particular era we live in, empathy wouldn't make the cut in importance. Maybe in time as humans evolve, they will begin to see this as valuable, but we are truly limited by what a society deems important at any given time. The value of certain genes may not make the cut today, but may be the key to our survival for tomorrow.
1
A good article in many ways, but it glides over the critical point: it is certainly true that humans vary in their genetic makeup, and this has implications for a host of very real issues. One could make a case for the reasonable use of "racial" as an adjective. However, it is not, and probably never has been--certainly not for many millennia--possible to divide homo sapiens into distinct "races" and assign individuals to membership in one or the other on genetic grounds. That is a social construct, not biological, and it's pernicious effects are well-known. Using the adjective "racial" to describe biological differences creates confusion, and tends to legitimize the false notion that the noun "race" has a real biological referent.
When I took a genetics class at the UW in 1967, the genetics department was certain that they would have a cure for cancer within the next decade. It had to do with the mechanism for cell division. Since the grassroots group, NAMI formed in 1979, we have put more effort into research into schizophrenia and other brain disorders. We have cures for some types of cancer, but not others. We have treatments, but not cures for mental illness. How did geneticists get so distracted from these problems that really need attention?
"What makes Dr. Watson’s and Mr. Wade’s statements so insidious is that they start with the accurate observation that many academics are implausibly denying the possibility of average genetic differences among human populations, and then end with a claim — backed by no evidence — that they know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes."
Three days ago the Times published an elaborate statistical study demonstrating disproportionate rates of financial failure for "black boys" despite advantages of family wealth and independent of geographical situation. The headline of the article attributed this unfortunate fact to the "punishing reach of racism".
The authors don't actually make any case to support the headline. Their article doesn't establish any causal relationship between racists's behavior and black boys failures. Neither do the authors offer any evidence that black boys strive to succeed academically or financially but are thwarted by systematic race based impediments.
Given that the authors don't establish that the cause of the phenomenon is racism, it is possible that the beautifully illustrated statistical study is evidence for a causal relationship between genotype on stereotypical behavior.
Of course it may eventually be provable that high financial failure rates are in fact due to societally enforced constraints or simply due to conscious individual choices or, given the complexity of human behavior, due to other factors.
8
If you want to see how a scientific double standard applies to these matters, compare the claims in the article you just presented with those of Wade or Charles Murray or Harpending.
Absurd extrapolations are allowed to make the claim that the low income of black males is due to "racism". How much leeway in speculation and evidence is granted to the other side?
4
It is curious that in this well-thought-out presntation the author doesn't mention research into how much genetics can be affected by environment. Scientists are increasingly finding out that Lamarck wasn't entirely wrong. As an example, putting babies in an enriched environment might well actually affect their genetic capacities for learning. So much is currently up in the air. The moral, as with the story of the elephant and six men of Hindustan, is "each is partly in the right and all are in the wrong."
So let's all ignore the scientific results that we may not agree with, right?
Be careful, slippery slope ahead.
3
MJ - but climate science is good science. Genetics is bad science. We want to save nature and promote nurture.
There is a kind of myopia that I fear in this sort of discussion. When a scientist says that datum A produces result B, what sometimes is left unsaid (because it may seem obvious to some but isn't to all) is that it isn't the ONLY thing going on. To take a well known example, it is true that black people are vastly more likely to have sickle cell anemia than whites, but that's not the only thing going on (And really, it's not about being black, it's about having African antecedents. But I digress.) Sickle cell anemia is a defense against malaria. Without knowing all the data, one might conclude that the condition exists solely as a scourge and detriment. Of course, this doesn't make sickle cell anemia a great thing... but it does help to put the genetic reasons for its existence into context to know that it exists for a specific reason.
When scientists say, "We've discovered this part of the genome does X," it is incumbent upon them to always follow that up with, "but there may be other things going on that we haven't discovered yet." Or if there is other stuff, explain that too. It isn't data that we need to fear. It's ignorance.
And the best way to fight ignorance is with communication.
1
I really appreciate open-minded thinking and analysis, which seems so important for scientists and also seems to be the intent of this article.
I wonder what role genetics plays in fostering extreme pursuit of power and control. That's a type of survival mechanism, sure, and we all have survival instincts but our capitalist society seems to focus on individual "success", with too little empathy and help for those who aren't so programmed. And with far to little appreciation for other approaches to life!
Perhaps genetics helped to generate our rather rampant systems of capitalism and politics. Maybe we need medical treatment for that!
1
There is variance between populations, and then there is race. They are not the same thing. The former is an observable phenomenon, while the latter is wishful thinking.
The concept of race was immanently useful for justifying things that would otherwise be completely unacceptable. It was so useful in fact that concerned parties keep returning to the well, long since run dry, in hope of finding something of substance. Purely in the interest of objective science, of course.
Imagine what could be done if "race" and racial disparity could be put on sound scientific footing! No more worries about equal opportunity, exploitation, an ugly history and its legacy of poverty. No more holding back the impulse to genocide. No more restraints at all. Ayn Rand and Caligula in flagrante delicto. At the rate we seem to be going lately, we just might get there.
1
Differences between men and women; my favorite. Do we look different? What makes anyone think that our brains' output and processes are the same?
Can the differences between male and female dogs be attributed to culture? Upbringing? Of course not. The same holds true across species and humans are just another species of animal with a larger brain.
To explain the differences in behavior between men and women as a result of environment is absurd.
We're different, and it's great. Get over it and spend research time and money on something that's not obvious.
4
There is no doubt that cohorts from different geographic regions show some common phenotypic traits that may be a result of the influence of environment on the expression of genes. Isn't that the point of epigenetics?!? But to what meaningful end will the categorization of those traits lead when there are more than enough markers to identify the important distinctions without devolving to categorizing them as race? It seems as though you are pushing to fit the round peg of science into the square hole of social constructs. And again, I ask, to what end?
1
Are there differences in the countries of Norway and Nigeria?
Yes, there are. But it is considered racist to point them out.
Therein lays a problem of scientific study.
If the results aren't PC we'll just ignore or negate them.
Careful where this is all going.
3
It's true genetics has changed our understanding of race. Let me suggest that genetics underpins our inherent our capabilities to observe, define, and categorize differences between individuals of our species, all people do it. We classify, group and organize instinctively. Denying it is a lie.
Further there's not that much of difference from one person to the next, but that's typically not the way we experience the world, and its possible given the social situation for us to easily magnify those differences. We are contextual creatures by nature as well.
I'm not as easily convinced that education is the only solution. We also need to have leadership and a better social contextualization. None of this is likely to come quickly. So while the science is there, there's lots of mis-information and prejudice to be overcome.
Thank you for speaking out on this. It's just as important that science not cave to the PC, as it is that the science needs to be sensitive to the ethical implications and misuse of their findings. Keep on working.
1
Perhaps it would be more useful to think in terms of cultures rather than "races". People of one culture, whether of geographical, social, religious or other origin, tend to socialize within that culture, creating genetic differences over time. For instance, the Amish in the United States have distinct genetic traits but are not, to my knowledge, characterized as a "race."
Just about any technology can be harmful in the wrong hands but this is especially true for genomics. We humans are always looking for differences to help us make the best choice among competing options. Who we choose to marry, who a university will admit, what applicant a business will hire, or who an insurance company will cover for medical or life insurance, all come down to how different traits are defined and valued. Will our DNA become another tool for others to define us and value us? It will unless we develop universal laws and regulations that guarantee our privacy in respected to our genetic information. Genomic research has enormous potential. It will help us advance medicine and understanding diseases, and it is a great tool for unraveling the mysteries of human evolution. Genomics is here to stay and I'm grateful for it. However, we need to have the right to keep our DNA private. Otherwise this technology will certainly be used as a tool for discrimination and inequality.
While Reich articulates a number of well-reasoned points, I think he overlooks the difference in perspective that exists between him, a professional geneticist, and most people. I think it's essential for people in his position to take extreme care to provide accessible context to their findings. It is, after all, the specific role of a geneticist to ascertain, among various potential "categories" of people, which are genetically legitimate, and, with extreme specificity, how those categories manifest genetically.
In discussing, for example, average gene expression among people whose categorization is based on something racially suggestive like geographic ancestry, geneticists should be very careful to frame this categorization with others of similar genetic significance. In other words, what other potential "categories" have the same level of genetic conformity as "[insert geographic region generally associated with one "race" or another] descent"?
A well meaning argument, but I think it is flawed. It starts with an assessment of genetic differences between races. Why not look for genetic differences linked to traits we care about. What are the genetic differences between high performing individuals (measured in various ways - educational achievement, social status, wealth, etc.) and people who score low on those attributes. Then you might find truly important results. If there is variation in genetic characteristics among high performing individuls, what else can explain similar achievement regardless of genetic characteristics? The answers to questions like this could suggest other influences that are important for high performance and that can be manipulated. The same for disease propensity (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, addiction, etc.) Life satisfaction is another characteristic that could be studied. Are there genetic commonalities among happy people? What other factors accentuate or mask genetic tendencies. All would have more practical application than a listing of genetic similarities and differences between and within races.
Good article. As a cardiovascular scientist and instructor it has been wonderful witnessing the genetic revolution. The concerns are valid, but perhaps the genome itself will save us. The 20,000 genes, the complex nature of polygenic traits (e.g. intelligence) and outbreeding in the human population will always make genetic arguments about collective "race" statistical; and therefore equivocal for any individual or even a cohort. It is good to see scientists with a social conscience and have them engage the public. Thank you Dr. Reich.
I think most readers of this paper would like to live in a world where every human starts off with an equal amount of abilities, where it is up to individual will to determine the success of all humans; genetic luck would have no role in this egalitarian society. I count myself as one of these readers.
However, actual reality rarely resembles our wishes. There is no question that there are differences across races, many of them uncomfortable. The 'bad guys' all acknowledge these differences, yet the 'good guys' dance around all of the issues in order to be polite and inoffensive. I think that in order for the 'good guys' to win (and thereby create a better society), these differences will have to be acknowledged and actions must take them into account. A 'good guy' with a realistic worldview that accepts inconvenient facts likely will be a better leader and decision maker than a 'good guy' with a naive, feel-good worldview.
2
A good essay but somewhat incomplete and easily misunderstood.
I wish Mr Reich had included discussions about the complexities of gene expression . He neglected to include discussions of epigenetics in his essay. The genotype of the individual which is the DNA sequence is not always associated with identical phenotype which is the manifest expression of the gene. Medicine has tried to manipulate genetic expression to change the clinical manifestation of a given disease. A good example is the use of gene silencing or enhanced expression of a gene in cancer therapeutics. Another example is the use of medicines to change the clinical severity of sickle cell anemia without changing the gene.
He also assumes that genetics expression is a static phenomenon.There is accumulating evidence that it is a dynamic process depending on interactions with the environment. The Dutch famine study which showed that a cohort of pregnant mothers who were the victims of malnutrition had adverse health and cognitive consequences on both mothers and their babies. There is also evidence that the North Koreans population on the average is a few inches shorter than South Koreans. These differences in phenotype is not because of any significant genetic difference between WWII and post-WWII mothers or between North and South Koreans.
The genotype-phenotype correlation in behavior and cognition is most probably much more complicated than suggested by Mr Reich. Further study is needed.
A basic distinction is that nature is inherited while culture is learned. What is learned however requires, builds on a base of the inherited; it is largely a form of tinkering with the given and as such is limited. Culture, given time, often forms what we call second nature. And that can be significantly reshaped.
Xenophobia appears to be an evolved, inherited behavioral instinct, common among many many species. But culture tinkering with that basic fact can, given time, do much to shape and reshape it.
Racism and its categorizations and generalizations, builds on innate xenophobia and is largely a cultural construct, shaped by culture. We do have the power for more shaping, reshaping.
Language, its categorizations, generalizations, continues to be our best means for that work. Work on the language, but artistically not tyrannically.
Of course scientists should study differences and changes in the prevalence of genetic traits among different populations. But we currently do a really poor job of not selectively using their results to create elaborate social and political fantasies.
Nothing in this article should actually change the old consensus that race and ethnicity are not scientifically meaningful for any public policy purpose. There is too little of a correlation of race with genetic traits, the genetic traits themselves influence but don't determine behavior, and our understanding of the effects remain limited.
So I will still just record my race as "HUMAN".
1
There is one diverse race aka human. Neither color nor ethnicity nor national origin nor faith are 'race' markers. Popular literature confuses 'race' with species.
While this is a serious sober scientific discussion that refutes popular misunderstandings of 'race', it does not go far enough to clearly deal with the biological reality that there is one modern human species that evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago. And the humans who descend from those who left Africa have comparatively substantially overall low 'bottleneck' genetic diversity there is significantly more genetic diversity in one Sub-Saharan African ethnic group or village than the rest of humanity combined.
One definition of evolution is a change in gene frequencies over time. Isolated populations in different environments can differentiate from others. The length of isolation along with the amount of ecological uniqueness make substantial differences probable.
The definition of species has evolved from a fixed concept focusing on a suite of common physical traits into the biological species concept that includes physiology, genetics, morphology, embryology, ecology and paleontology. One determinant of a coherent species is the ability to interbreed and reproduce fertile young. Leaving the most best adapted species over time is the essence of evolution by naturally fit selection 'success.'
Arguments about the significance of 'substantial differences among human populations' are fine.
2
The essential point is that whatever the correlations between genetics and behavior, etc, the variations within races far, far exceed those between races. That is not to deny the existence of those differences but to remind that it is unfair, unscientific and dangerous to prejudge an individual based on race.
The question many raise is, what use is having information about cognitive differences among the races? So what if these group-level differences exist--what policies would be possibly enact?
While I don't think scientists should stick their heads in the sand in any line of inquiry, I agree it's hard to imagine how this information could be used to make constructive decisions in education or the economy. It would be illogical to use group-level differences to sort individuals into different careers or classes. It's like saying we'll only choose from one race when drafting a football team notwithstanding the availability of individual player stats.
Except there is one policy I can think of that should be at risk given these discoveries: affirmative action.
1
Professor Reich valiantly attempts to persuade us that nothing science discovers down the road about race could be worse than suppressing scientific research in the subject today. Besides, he argues, the Pandora's box on the subject has already been opened.
Even though that box has been opened, we do not have to blithely go along with Professor Reich's conclusion that research today means things will be better (if not hunky dory) down the road. How in the world can science, qua science, assure that? How can science, qua science, prevent the misuse of the results of scientific research even if that research comes out of the loftiest of goals? Short answer: It can't.
Science is "value-free," but alas, scientists are not. They are burdened with the same range of values, and the same moral flaws, as the rest of humanity. They range in character from the wicked to the good, and nothing from within science can alter that.
I look at science with wonder and gratitude--but at the same time, I see it with a gimlet eye. Descartes used science to reason that because animals are goopy machines, he could happily cut open a live pig. What ended vivisection wasn't increased scientific knowledge about sentient beings (that came only relatively recently), but human conscience and ethics.
That's precisely what's needed in this discussion.
In reality, the scientific studies cited by Mr. Reich do not validate the concept of race, but rather that there are is enormous gene variability within a number of genes in the human genome. It would be amazing if this were not so, considering how the species migrated across the planet, and large sub-groups were (genetically) isolated from each other for many, many centuries. This likely explains both how different gene variants became dominant in geographically isolated sub-groups, and how correlations amongst these variations occurred as well. He argues that we should learn what we can about these genes, and uses evidence to support that argument.
However, the concept of "race" is imprecise, and the science of genetic differences argues against it having any scientific validity. His geographical examples do not correlate with any "race". In fact, his data are a powerful argument for discarding race as a useful term (his data reinforce the reality that they are determined by a small number of genes that encode for skin color). The race is in fact, human, the species is homo sapiens. Intra-species variability is worth studying, however as others have pointed out, only with great care. To try to resurrect the pre-scientific construct of "race" is not supported scientifically, and is perhaps a reminder of the seduction of over-simplification, which is genetically determined, and varies across individuals.
1
There is about one standard deviation of difference between the average scores of black and white Americans on all tests that tap general intellectual or academic ability. A lot of well meaning people either deny the fact or say no good purpose is served by talking about it. Charles Murray is unacceptable on some college campuses today for addressing the facts in The Bell Curve. (The Bell Curve also notes that the data do not prove a genetic explanation of the data, and that average data do not apply at the individual level.) Failure to deal with racial differences in test scores has made a mess of efforts to evaluate educational results across the country, and enabled some nasty acts. When the city of Little Rock elected a majority black school board a few years ago, the State took over the school system based on the low test scores at six schools. Five of the schools were almost all black. The sixth was a mostly Hispanic elementary school that miraculously got off the bad list in one year. (The kids had learned enough English to read the tests.) Failure to accept the facts about test scores enabled the State to call five schools under performing, rather than all black, and frustrate democratic control of the school system. Professor Reich is dealing with a serious scientific and social problem, and I look forward to reading his book.
2
These insights strengthen the already powerful argument that university admission decisions should be made without knowledge of the applicant's "race", gender and financial status.
1
Purely scientific physics research by well-meaning scientists led to the development of nuclear weapons and the potetial for man to destroy the earth or at least destroy civilization as we know it. Should that research and its accompanying great advances in human knowledge have been stopped in its tracks when this possibility was first advanced? Or should scientists have abandoned it on their own based on morality and the probability of its misuse? Would that even be possible? Is some power always going to be so intriguied by the ideas as to ignore any general consensus and push the research to its limits? Or is man's innate nature to understand the universe always going to override any other concerns?
Professor Reich raises deep philosophical and political issues here and I believe that, based on histroy, the research will always be done somewhere by someone. And we will always face the prospect of people like Kim, Putin and Trump being in the position to use it to it's worst effect. This is a serious discussion which we must have.
Of course there are genetic differences in population, but how does population equal race? The author observed that Northern Europeans are taller than Southern Europeans. But are they considered two different races? People whose ancestors lived near the equator have darker skin than those whose ancestors lived near the arctic circle. So what?
And didn’t we all come from Africa 150,000 years ago?
I get the population distinction based on geography and the factors of natural selection that are at work as with any organism, but I don’t get why we have to call it “race”.
1
While genetic science can make compelling arguments about how similar humans are, and how most variances exist between individuals and not groups, most forms of discrimination, including racism, are fueled by irrational fear and triggered by differences in physical appearance and culture. Those who hate the "other" don't care about genetics; they vilify people based simply on how they look -- the most basic, most obvious, and least meaningful measure.
1
The argument that just because different cultures view and construct themselves around race differently, flat out debunks the fact that there is such a thing as "Race" altogether, is deeply misguided.
Take the example of a COW.
In Western societies our "construct" of a Cow (from infancy/cartoons onward ) is in a field or tethered, fenced in, with a bell perhaps, then slaughtered/ milked and eaten. This construct is influenced by/influences the way we relate to a Cow.
In India the "construct" of a Cow is free, loose, fed by all, painted colors and revered as a God. This construct is influenced by/influences the way they relate to a Cow.
NEITHER construct negates the fact that there really is such a thing as a COW!
The same can go for RACE (or any concept).
70
Add to this the fact that "just within" 100 years genetic variation changes "measurably" shows how fluid (and dangerous) race is as a concept.
3
The European cow (bos Taurus) and Indian cow (bos Indicus) ARE different, not only in the eyes of the humans interacting with them. They have different appearances and different traits and are easily defined by DNA variants.
7
@ewo I will certainly give you the fact that race/races both genetically and conceptually are changing (especially in melting pots like Brazil). I can't wait for the day we are one big amalgam.
However up until very recently (before the advent of mass travel/migration) people and "races" lived in relative geographic isolation. Broken down more or less by continents. This on a genetic level alone developed (for better or worse) what we term "races".
From this point on in history we will no doubt be redefining "race(s)". That does not change the fact that, on a whole, people coming from different isolated areas (Asia, Africa, Europe, Indegeneous Americans) developed differently (as stated above-some have Neanderthal genes and some don't). It plays out in the animal kingdom and gives us Northern and Southern White Rhinos. Why do we insist the human animal is different?
6
The problem is much less about the small though measurable genetic differences (mainly non-coding and largely insignificant with respect to human potential) among populations; rather the fact that categorization of the different populations is based on race - with all its terrible social and historical implications. Indeed race and treatment of the "others", whether contrasted by religion or ethnicity, are always used by the dominant economic elites to maintain political control of the masses by redirecting justified public anger towards "foreign" scapegoats. Even within local subpopulations - imaginary differences among social strata (formally called breeding) is still used by the wealthy to justify their rapacious economic behavior and political suppression of everyone else.
64
All this is true, none is contradicted by the article, which is making an entirely different point.
3
Far be it from me to out-science a Harvard scientist, BUT...it seems pretty obvious just from his own words right here, not only that he's failed to make the case that race exists as a scientific fact, but more importantly that the potential for abuse in this still growing field can't be staved off by the power of his good intentions.
Take his excruciating detail in describing the increase in risk factors for prostate cancer between admittedly "self-described" African American as compared with European Americans. He found, what? a 2.8 % greater "African ancestry" contribution in ONE SECTION of the genome of African Americans? Greeeeat! Does that 2.8 % make those patients 2.8% more likely to be cured? Does the benefit of knowing and disseminating that 2.8% outweigh the 80% bigotry, stereotyping and oppression that is sure to result when those very particular scientific findings are translated to the crude discourse of our society?
Take his example on "genetic predictors" of behavior. He was quite blithe in making the leap from observing 20 genes that were predictive of performance on "intelligence tests" to concluding that it "almost certainly" measured "something" that could presumably be differentiated amongst different populations. Really? You really mean to tell me that every single environmental factor, including schooling, social class, economic class, diet and family dynamic were sufficiently ruled out?? Somehow I doubt that. Curb your racial enthusiasm, professor.
You should have stopped after the word “scientist”.
The free online course Useful Genetics (on EdX and YouTube) emphasizes precisely these issues, and demonstrates how they can be incorporated into an introductory course.
1
Mr Reich is stating things that are so obvious that any person can observe them. Asians, Africans, and Caucasians all look different. We can see genetic differences in height, hair color, and habitus. We cannot see genetic differences in behaviour or intelligence, but it is absurd to think that they aren't there. Now that we are on the verge of discovering these genes, we have to ask ourselves: what should we do about it? No doubt racists will use this information to their own ends. No one can stop them. But, one must always remember that every genetic trait has a continuum of expression, and that every person has a unique genetic profile (Identical twins excepted). There are, for instance, people with Down's syndrome who graduate college, and people without it who never attend. Variability in populations is enormous. To update Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: we need to judge people on the content of their character and not the make up of their genome.
6
If cognitive & behavioral variability are your chief concerns, control first for lead & mercury exposure, nutritional deficiencies, environmental racism & its impacts on cognitive development.
We'd all likely have had higher IQ if we hadn't been forced by European white industrialists to breath leaded gas fumes in inner-cities for generations, or consume decaying lead paint, or drink lead-contaminated water.
If Scott Pruitt is considered a white European, then perhaps we should screen white people for a genetic sociopathic proclivity to pursue profit by promoting industrial toxins at the expense of human health & life on earth.
Lets hope this new generation organizing now, having grown up in a generally 'unleaded' atmosphere, are regaining the intelligence the species requires for survival.
It will take a new pan-ethnic intellect to turn back the tide of complex existential disaster that industrial-age European 'intelligence' has unleashed on us all; the pesticide-industrial complex, the firearms-addiction complex, the opioid-pharma complex, the nuclear weapons & combat-industrial complex, the automotive climate-change complex which those 'smart' white European industrialists & colonialist warmongers have unleashed on the world.
1
If only white Europeans are the villains, how is it industrialization, nuclear weapons, automobiles etc have been embraced and used all over the world and by all racial groups?
Dr Reich makes a critical point that can't be reiterated often enough: in all tests of IQ, within group variance is greater than between group variance. In other words, there is a wider range of smart and dumb people among the individuals in any racial group than there are between any racial or ethnic categories. So, any differences we see among race or ethnicity are most likely the result of environmental factors, which is why the work of Watson, Murray, Shockley, et al., has never been persuasive.
3
The best way to acknowledge differences in human populations without promoting racism would be to educate people on the complexity and diversity of hominid development and of migrations, etc. within our own species. Of course, this would have to be preceded by instruction in, and acceptance of, evolution. Oh, wait.
1
Science has shown us that there are gene-based differences between races. The problem is that we tend to use racial attributes such as skin color to judge whether an individual before us might have certain genetic (or other "typical") characteristics. Genetic science tells us almost nothing about individuals (unless we have access to their genetic makeup, and even then, our understanding is so limited), and thus skin color or race is a lousy way to judge people. There may be differences, but to assume we know something important about a person from their apparent racial affiliations is foolish.
What many commentators seem to be missing is that accurately addressing genetic differences has moral urgency: healthcare outcomes are atrociously lopsided between persons of European ancestry and "persons of color," with self-identified "blacks" being the worst affected. Drastic health discrepancies are observed even when controlling for income, education levels, etc. The reason for these disparities are complex, and multi-factorial, and perhaps the greatest blame can be laid on subconscious (and conscious) racial bias in society and medicine. It is also true, however, that the vast majority of biomedical research has studied person's of European ancestry, with the results being applied to the population as a whole. This means that persons of color may be receiving an implicitly poorer quality of health care. This needs to be rectified.
For more information on health care disparities in NYC:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/data/data-sets/health-disparities.page
" It is also true, however, that the vast majority of biomedical research has studied person's of European ancestry, " only in the West. As someone who has worked and traveled extensively in East Asia, I can tell that biomedical research in China and Japan focus almost exclusively on citizens of those countries.
1
The problem, that this article doesn't really address adequately is not about human variation. Every family has variation and it can be shown, using non-technical terms here, to be associated with different regions of each parent's genome that each child inherited (and similarly for other kin).
The problem is not variation, it is categories. Even the word 'race' usually implies categories, that means isolated and with boundaries. Similarly, the word is a legacy term with an awful history and shouldn't be used any more for that reason alone.
Human variation, with some clear exceptions, varies more or less gradually over geographic space. Roughly, the farther apart they are, the more different, though essentially members of any such group can mate successfully with any other. It is obvious, as the author suggests, that some areas are more isolated from others, like the Pacific islands or Americas from Asia. But recent history has mixed genetic variation to a considerable extent even among these.
There is little really biological need to have categories, boundaries that enclose groups to which we give different names. Names can even be misleading in medical contexts, since past interbreeding can mix variants into different groups.
Denying variation is rather silly, as this article notes in its way. The issue is the intent of using categories. When that is done, there is often, if not usually, a classificatory--that is, a racist--intent.
1
Let the let the science speak for itself. It doesn’t care about emotion or morality, only truth.
2
This is an important article, more so being featured in the N.Y. Times. It lays out the scientific basis of race, the term used for human sub-species, (sub not meaning lessor) including clarification that race is never meant to be discrete entities, but rather stochastic phenomenon.
The author does identify an enemy, those who would over generalize to the degree that policy is influenced in employment, education and various social policies. While clearly opposed to "racists" and "sexists" those who invidiously discriminate, he chooses not to include the extremes of those who deny these biological differences.
An example is when the predominance of male fire fighters is attributed to sexism, while the reality is that lifting a human to safety requires physical strength that is not equally distributed. It is this, not sexism that explains the disparity.
An alternate title of this article could have been, "Denial of innate differences among peoples can be just as pernicious as invidious racism itself"
4
Racism is not just about racial differences. Christians and others, who wallow in magical thinking, look for any signs of difference to support their hope of being in the group of God's chosen. It separates them from others.
To the pure Buddhist mind, however, there is deep respect for all sentient beings. Now, Jesus Christ is more like the Buddha than like His Christian followers.
Everything is politics, especially religion. Politics is where the rubber of your philosophy meets the road of reality.
1
There’s an original Star Trek tv episode titled "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" which involves a planetary civil war that has killed most of its inhabitants. The Enterprise encounters 2 of the remaining survivors (who are both black on one side of their faces and white on the other side).
The 2 survivors appear identical to the Enterprise's crew members who question why they were at war in the first place. It’s only when one of them “rolls his eyes while bewilderingly stating the obvious” that he’s black on the left side and white on the right while the faces of his “enemy” are white on the right side and black on the left.
Yes, it’s just a tv show, but is it any different from our learned perceptions and how they've shaped our planet?
Definitely ,genetics is overlooked in racial discussions even though genetics is the basis of race and more important than anything else.Society itself is causing racial disparity because every difference is referred to as racist when in reality differences between races are natural.The fault of the person is not that because they may be good at basketball or one may be otherwise intellectually astute ,the reason may be that they themselves may be born with such attributes. Society ,or the other race is not always the victim of processes of the law ,or of prejudice but yet of the race which they've genetically been born into. Correcting gods decisions is the work of the soul.
1
A surpassingly brilliant essay, and a timely one too. Mr Reich embodies the two principles that scientists - especially in this domain - must adhere to: willingness to face the truth, no matter how problematic that may be sometimes; and a clear-eyed commitment to the principle that all humans are worth the same, even if some of us are female, or black, or Jewish, etc. We will never banish the ugly meme of "race science" by avoiding reality and/or pretending that some things are not true.
A a very important piece. And yet...
I have a friend who is the identical twin of a well known actor. The actor is gay, my friend is straight, married to the same woman fifty years. Clearly, DNA structure should not be given undue weight in human behavior or characteristics.
I respect the tone of this piece, and the writer's concern that a refusal by scientists to acknowledge possible differences between populations can lead to quack theories to fill the vacuum. Unfortunately, research in these areas will inevitably also lead to quack theories, because racists and sexists inevitably distort real research to their own ends.
Science involves an ethical process, and I think there is a case for not prioritizing research that can inevitably hand weapons to racists (and sexists), particularly when there is still so much we don't know about human behavior and how it operates. To pick one example, epigenetics studies are just starting to look at how stress factors can be passed on to offspring (and even grandchildren), and that should be considered in looking at the genetic risk factors for disadvantaged groups. When we look at any low-status group today (such as black people in the U.S.), we should be looking at their behavior not just as it is determined by DNA, but in terms of how their DNA interacts with their environment and stress levels. The more we find out about how social circumstances can alter people even on a genetic level, the less I feel sure that any of these studies are reliable.
We must accept the fact that, someday, science will be able to predict individual intelligence, physical capabilities, attractiveness, character, etc., with a high degree of accuracy, on the basis of genes. (Environment plays a vital role, but it has to have something to work on.)
Our society, however, has made a moral judgment in favor of individualism, and against generalizations based on heritable characteristics, because any given individual may be superior or inferior to the average of her or his genetic kindred, or of any other genetic kindred. Even if, statistically, Group X is deemed to be more intelligent, on average, than Group Y, there will always be stupid Xs and brilliant Ys; and our society has decided, correctly, I think, that individual ability, not group-membership, is the best basis for policy.
That is quite a recent decision, however, and it is still far from being perfectly implemented. It has thousands of years of tradition, and millions of years of evolution, against it. It remains to be seen whether modern individualism or ancestral tribalism will prevail.
My favorite part of the PBS program "Finding Your Roots" is the revelation of the DNA findings at the end. What is striking is that no one is "pure" anything. Dorothy L. Sayers wrote an essay about how all Brits were "mongrels" and were proud to BE so (the Anglo-Saxons, the Celts, the French, etc.). Since we are all mongrels, I think we should all be grateful and aware that we are all part of the human race and get on with it.
1
The phenotypic variation within a given race exceeds the differences between the races. What that means is that looking at a marker of a racial group expressed on one individual (like coloration) tells you little about that person, even if you knew that there were average differences between the two groups. The take out message is that knowing the race of a person tells you rather little about the individual traits of that person. It is not usefully predictive.
The problem is that humans, as social animals, have a compulsion to kiss up to higher social status and kick down lower social status persons. When race is used as a proxy for status, we call it racism. In our future nirvana society, will we will abandon race and use only trans-racial traits like zits, obesity, too tall, too short, or bad fashion to discriminate? Will we call that equality or happiness?
Oh, the humanity!
1
Semantics would seem a likely place to start. It's unlikely that people will disassociate "African" genetics from "black" stereotypes. But maybe a new language for medical genetic categories would be more useful
instead of saying [geographic]-type genes that influence [A], relabel them [A]-influencing genes" or something. Get George Lakoff on it!
It's correct that David Reich should fear wrong-headed retrograde thinking such as racism. However, the progenitor of wrong-headed thinking is not wrong-headed thought (that's a tautology) but wrong-headed behavior. The former is a subset of the later.
In most instances that wrong-headed behavior finds its root in the selfish pursuit of narrow material advantage. Jim Crow is an example. Less for you and more for me. Such thinking is simplistic, however, as we stand or fall together. You cannot diminish someone else without diminishing yourself and society as a whole.
Resources should be devoted not to teaching people "what to think" but "how to think" as a contribution to altering the foundations of wrong-headed behavior.
In the relation between activity and thought, activity is primary. Racists are not born. They are made.
Science is discovering the laws of nature. However, people can only make those advances based on the assimilation of both previous conquests and a high level of independent thinking. Independent thought requires the acquisition of critical thinking skills through "critical practice". Einstein was no conformist.
If the indoctrination of identity to nation and clan is superseded with an expanded appreciation of the complexity of nature, considered as a whole, people will learn to view their connections to others in the context of "both" difference and unity. Put simply - they will learn how to learn... the truth.
The ship will become self-righting.
1
I’d like to read more about epigenetics (sp. ?) and the effect those...’switches’ have on genetics’ expressions. Nurture is finally connected to Nature it seems- but the complications from that are still being untangled. Not to mention my spelling.
1
I agree. I go farther than David Reich by saying that there are more reasons to pursuing good science than confronting racists. It is certainly true that supposedly scientific arguments have been incorrectly used to perpetuate racial stereotypes. The NAZIs, who had many good scientists, produced useful drivel. Nonetheless, there is no danger to engaging in good science. We are not all exactly the same. I do not suggest that there are enormous differences between people. But there are differences. We should not ignore these differences.
In our classical genetics classes in universities, we learned that "at least 50 percent of our complex behaviors (i.e. quantitative traits) depend on genes while minimum 50 percent on our environment". We did not learn how long is long enough to make heritable changes in our DNA- considering prevailing climatic and other environmental factors and cultural selection processes. That would be hard to analyse either.
As science became just another profession and universities became just another for-profit industry, conformity and sycophancy exploded, mainly since late 1970s, in America, our science (including Genetics and other areas of biology) got more influenced by stupidity of religion and political allegiance. We basically reduced producing scientists and started producing loyal technicians (who can follow protocols and orders from thier bosses) and paper pushers to supply cheaper technical/clerical manpower for various so-called R&D industries. Declining quality of our higher education and research sector, significantly reduced ability to innovate are few of its consequences. It also took toll on our public policies as scientific understanding and trust on science dwindled among both public and law makers.
Rise of far right and election of a person like Trump are some of its consequences.
1
Of course the science of genetics has been twisted, too often, to support theories of racial inferiority or superiority, and it may be true one's genome may place him at greater RISK for prostate cancer, or certain types of hypertension, but of what practical importance are these risk factors, when in the case of the individual patient the choice is always either 100% (he has the disease) or 0% (he does not)?
From a practical point of view, it is as absurd to deny racial differences when the least educated among us make judgments based on visually apparent attributes daily.
Just look at populations of Americans of "African ancestry" in Washington, DC (and much of the South) and their blue eyes, light colored hair, facial features (their phenotypes) tell you worlds about the races of their ancestors--which no doubt included genes donated by the massah's sexual dominion over his female slaves.
Compare these folks to Africans "off the boat" from Nigeria and sub Saharan Africa and you can see the genetics without use of SNP or other genetic laboratory.
Fact is, as we meld in America, fewer and fewer of our citizens will be identifiable visually, as typically White, Black, Asian or Brown.
If hybrid vigor prevails, that day cannot come too soon.
Here's an example of the orthodoxy Dr. Reich's worries about, with my comments in brackets.
American Anthropological Society.
“In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. [No thinking person says they are unambiguous or clearly demarcated. That does Not deny their existence.] Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. [That does Not deny that the 6% differences might be significant.] This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.” [No thinking person denies we are a single species. That does Not deny the differences. Most importantly, admitting acknowledging racial differences does Not justify racism!]
Oh Dr. Reich, please don't hide behind science to subtly reinforce gratuitous differences within genetic variations of the U.S. population. Yet when you select examples, you, first, choose the prevalence of prostate cancer in those of African descent, yet, for European populations, the example you point to is: "74 genetic variations that are over-represented in genes known to be important in neurological development?" Is the latter example meant to emphasize better intellectual capability in Europeans? Why not use examples of the genetic prevalence of Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's, or Parkinson's disease, which may likely be more common in those who aren't of European descent. C'mon, my friend! You're confusing NYTimes readers with those who watch Fox TV. The truth is, within the HUMAN race, there will always be genetic variations because biology is perfectly imperfect, which is what you meant to say, but your examples ...
1
I've known brilliant "white" Americans with good educations whose lives were ruined by early childhood neglect and abuse.
"Nurture" makes an enormous difference: mental illness, addiction, criminality are all influenced by nurture. And, of course, fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect change an individual's abilities and course in life.
So, more important that worrying about race, is making sure that EVERY child in America is a wanted child. Women who want birth control should have it.
With all respect to genetics, your soul makes you and your life who you are. I don't believe it has a color other than the degree of Light that it holds and hopefully shares.
1
Spare me the concerned scientist posture.
If you are a researcher who believes that genetics predicts performance on an IQ test, you also have to concede that the differences in performance on those tests between groups has changed over time with the lowest performing groups showing improvement and performance among all groups improving over time. This disproves the thesis that intelligence, whatever that is, is genetic and shows that environment most certainly plays a role.
Is Dr. Reich asserting that there has been some dramatic change in the genetic makeup of all these groups over the course of two or three generations? If such a change occurred, it should be easy to find so where is the data?
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-...
51
Just as some people are taller than others, so some people are smarter than others. Like height, intelligence (as measured by IQ) is at least partly heritable. This much is not in dispute. Moreover, it is impossible predict a person's intelligence from their supposed race. As with so many traits, the variation in IQ found *within* supposed racial groups, however construed, is greater than the variation *between* those groups. Even Charles Murray (author of The Bell Curve) is at pains to point this out.
16
Some populations have small stature because they lack sufficient nutrition in their environment. If they are given food or improved farming technology, the next generation is taller. This does not disprove the idea that height is regulated by genes.
10
An addition to the variety of people called "black" - The British in India called the native south asians there "black."
I find it fascinating that the "white" population consists of an amalgamation of "four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago and were each as different from one another as Europeans and East Asians are today." I would love to know more about these four groups, where they lived, in what environments.
110
Irish Catholics and Slavic Jews had to earn being 'white'. But Africans had to 'pass' for 'white.'
4
"I would love to know more about these four groups, where they lived, in what environments."
Me too. I hope we see many more articles about this rapidly advancing field, and not just an invitation to buy the book.
7
The author misses an essential point:
For the racist, the assumption of inequality comes first, and if he thinks he needs science, he will find it. That has been true since Gobineau.
Nevertheless, where the author is correct is in warning scientists that, if they claim their present knowledge disproves racism, a change in that knowledge might undermine the argument against racism.
If racism is not a science, then a scientific rebuke of racism is futile.
68
Actually, it is you who missed the essential point.
The author made it very clear that various racial assumptions were totally ungrounded in science, and we are just beginning to understand the genetic variances underlying racial groupings because we have only recently become sufficiently sophisticated in studying DNA to do so.
4
The problem isn't bad science, (which is not science at all) the problem is misuse of statistics. One must be careful with statistics, which are poor indicators of any individual outcome and can be easily abused by racists. Certainly we can assume it is true that from a group of 100,000 people, there may be a single digit difference between one racial group and another on some minor point, such as a resistance to a certain disease. However, on the individual level, it's still far more likely that any random person of that racial group will have the same resistance level as someone from the other group. In other words, as a predictor of an individual outcome, the statistic isn't much use.
Where this causes problems is when racists use the statistic to justify evil. They say, 'black kids are statistically more likely to fail school, therefore why bother funding public schools in disadvantaged areas'. They say, 'black men are more likely to commit crimes, therefore police are justified in firing first and asking questions later'. Does this mean a randomly selected black child will be a failure at school? No. Does this mean a randomly selected black man will shoot a police officer? No. Does this mean people will justify racist policies in the name of statistics? Yes, it very well may. Statistics may be useful in broadly choosing a trend, but ALL policies should be focused not on statistics, but on individual outcomes.
98
Most of us are average.
3
Focussing all policies on individual outcomes is impossible.
1
Why is any of this useful? We are very close to the point where it will be easy and cheap to test for whatever genes we want to know about in an individual so why use a blunt probabilistic shortcut like race or country of origin? A shortcut which is growing much blunter with each passing generation of intermarriage. Mr. Reich, please take a deep look into your soul .... what is the real motivation for this line of argument?
81
Wait until those tests are banned for "disparate impact." Suppression of truth does not rest.
9
Genes are not destiny.
Neither our parents nor our environments are subject to our choices.
4
The love for truth is sufficient motivation.
10
Two of Reich's statements blow away the credibility of everything else he has to say.
First, Reich asserts that 40,000 years is "more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work." Seriously? We've been walking upright for millions of years, but our spinal columns have still not adapted. That statement alone is grounds for question whether Reich is anything but a quack.
Second, Reich suggests that you can control "for differences in socioeconomic background" between African-Americans and European-Americans. Part of the "socioeconomic background" of both is that the ancestors of one owned and brutalized the ancestors of the other for hundreds of years, and every one of us is the heir, willing or not, to that legacy. Until you can find substantial pools of European-Americans and African-Americans that are not heirs to that history, you simply cannot study the two populations free from the biases that are introduced by that "socioeconomic background."
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
12
Genetic science may prove useful in warning people of possible future disease based on their genes. It may help eliminate diseases associated with genes.
Beyond that it has never proven helpful. Not once. Not ever. Not when applied to notions of race. There are no good actors in this drama. Proclaim all you want that you're not a racist or imagine you're informing the discussion through science. Your intentions are irrelevant. We know how data of this sort is used.
The Danes of today are, some study says, the happiest people in the world. Is any country more civilized? Then explain Lindisfarne for me. Explain centuries of terror, of slaughter by this very same genetic group. Is it in their genes to murder monks, rape women? Or could culture be just a wee more important?
And Jews, those smart, smart Jews. Less than two-tenths of one percent of the world's population garnering over 20 percent of Nobel prizes. Is it in their genes or could it have something to do with living thousands of years in places where they were not wanted?
Culture is the key determining factor in human outcomes. And, if Scandinavia teaches us anything, it's that culture can be changed.
That 30-year study released this week on the outcomes for black males in America is a call for fundamental cultural change in the United States. Reinventing and reintroducing race into our culture, now, may have good science behind it but good science is not always a good idea.
9
"Most everyone accepts that the biological differences between males and females are profound."
Really? Good luck stepping into the "transgender" PC wind tunnel and trying to convince media outlets like the New York Times of this scientific reality. That would mean they would have to stop peddling the preposterous and utterly unscientific hokum which purports that it is possible for human beings to select and change their sex through hormones and surgery.
19
The social construct of race will instantly vanish the moment when God strikes everyone on earth blind.
Until that happens we will have to live with ourselves - Homo sapiens - a very flawed - scary flawed - species. Deal with it.
1
An opening of a needed discussion, the start of which is in the "Comments" section of the article, especially the "Editors Picks" list. What struck me is the finding that such "grouping" of DNA differences are becoming invaluable for understanding the distributions of diseases and some macro physical differences. Also found is that these groupings of DNA differences are also invaluable in rejecting common racial, anti-Semite, xenophobic(and so on) common stereotypes that are heard often from America First, Neo-Nazi, Anti-Semite, and KKK groups and from the current occupant of the White House and his followers (especially those followers who support any of the latter groups).
1
Instructive studies, revealing the richness of human diversity; our commonality as humans must accept the differences evolved via evolution both in nature and nurture. we all shall benefit in assimilating the complexities involved, and enjoy each other because of that knowledge, and understanding. No doubt, wisdom will follow, as the commonalities far exceed the differences. Racism is a stupid construct so to justify unjust dominance towards each other. Let's trust that reason will lead us to transcend petty behavior based on ignorance....and it's prejudices.
2
Racism is active and well in the center of Africa (Rwanda). There all government jobs are given to East Africans rather than West Africans. Both sides are equally dark skinned. Go figure.
11
Human beings originated in Africa. So did racism slavery and every other ism.
1
Historically the white race has slaughtered populations all over the world, is there a gene for that? School shootings, church shootings, horrific murders, is there a gene for that on the ‘white’ chromosome? Just curious?
11
Historically, almost all human beings of every genetic background have slaughtered populations all over the world. The only groups that didn't do that, were probably too geographically isolated to come into conflict with other groups, or to find themselves in competition or territory with other groups. African Americans commit a disproportionate number of murders in the US, btw. And, if you think other nationalities do not commit murders, please look into statistics in other countries like Honduras, say, or Brazil.
1
There probably is such a gene. So what.
1
There is no basis for even hoping enough maturity for treating each other with respect when even the scientists study differences which they themselves base on notions of race.
What if David Reich studied DNA without any reference to preconceived racial notions? What then, David Reich?
4
I avoid the word "race" but use ethnic group, to talk about a gene pool, that can have fuzzy borders.
2
As I enjoy pointing out to racists I encounter on social media, we all sprang from the same human. And that human had heavy pigmentation due to his close proximity to the sun. So when you get a nice suntan without burning, thank your BLACK ancestor. I always do.
3
As the article points out, racial differences evolved as human population groups evolved in geographic isolation. African have darker skins than Europeans because their bodies produce more melanin. This is an example of genetic evolution, a reaction to a sunnier climate.
I think Dr. Watson's racist ideas are rooted in his genetic history.
2
try sickle cell hemoglobins!!
1
Just wondering when there will be research into the genetic profiles of confirmed racists and other members of our sad species who can't go through life without believing that they are inherently superior to others and in virtue of that superiority have the right, indeed the duty, to build and maintain institutions (political, social, economic, educational, religious, etc.) in order dominate those inferior others. That frightened, pathetic racist breed are deeply sick and profoundly dangerous. Let's study their brains, their genes, whatever we need to explore in order to relieve them, and the rest of us, of their awful works.
4
If one is engaging, and a racist bully, well connected in to others like him, and heir to criminal fortune, what should society do about it? Especially if his financially endowed offspring show similar tendencies (as expected, science is real). A guy like that, his families criminal fortune, grows exponentially, with failed and corrupted stop gaps like ours in place. Hello Paul Benedict Ryan and Mitch Arnold McConnell.
2
In the early to mid 1970s John Charles Cutler, M.D. (who participated in the late stages of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the Guatemalan deliberate infection of soldiers, mental patients, and others) presented in a seminar presentation to the University of Washington Biostatistics Department a really poorly documented study of prostate cancer and other health issues that every higher level of occurrence of prostate cancer and various other differences occurring in American Blacks was due to ‘the much higher sexual promiscuity and use of alcohol by negroes”!
His statistics did not at all show what he said wrt alcohol or promiscuity. When challenged by two of us graduate students, he had no response you’d a huff and a puff. Sadly, those faculty who visibly disagreed kept quiet. Several others retaliated against us including one tampering with and falsifying the scores of the doctoral theory exam for Biostatistics.
The price of not getting funding from NIH was too high.
Hopefully, self identifying by race will in time be replaced by a much more sophisticated and positive looking at subpopulations of various genes and behaviors. Thank you for the article.
2
Be careful what you wish for. What makes you think having scientific evidence of your superiority would lead one to not engage in similar attitudes and behavior as a racist?
There are many differences between the IQ of various races and then of various populations of the same races -- simply put some are dumber than others and as a consequence, their countries are less developed, but this is a un un-PC taboo topic and each time I posted a comment about this, the thought police at the NYT never posted the comment. I noticed how this professor danced around this topic and merely implied it. We are heading toward a new Dark Age where all science that goes against the PC Religion will be discarded.
6
BS
2
Yeah I am suddenly "African American" and "Jewish" after being Sicilian my whole life.
5
The white American people with an exception of a few have no interest in addressing the racial issue. A a superior race must be in charge at all times and it is the white race. No matter the research it will always be the white race in America. Look at our corporate boards, professional positions all white people. Affirmative Action has opened the door for white women but not for minority women. Look at the destruction of our public school systems, charter programs all run by whites associated with wall street.
There is to much money as it has been in the past with slavery to address the government, corporate policies to ensure that minorities only go so far in this country. Have a discussion about race, the police just shot a young black man yesterday 20 times, Garry McCarthy a disgraced white police commissioner with the blood of black boys on his hands is running for Mayor in Chicago, the list goes on and you think these white people will ever have a conversation about race. They would have to acknowledge the past and that is not going to happen any time soon.
1
What does a “conversation” about race have to do with scientific research?
I want to know if there is a laziness gene, a greed gene or even genetics that predispose to denial of reality. Very few of us have the intellectual capacity to study genetics, even fewer of us have been given the opportunity financially or culturally. How many readers of the times actually finished or comprehended this articles content? The lazy gene?
8
Genetics are complex but not incomprehensible. I think the author did a terrific job of explaining recent advances in genetics and their impact.
Science, yes!
1
How about this as a racial determinant? If you are un-armed and the cops fill you with lead anyway, claiming self-defense, the overwhelming probability is that you are "black".
Do you have a source? There was a report out of Harvard a few years ago that found more police force used against blacks, but not more lethal force.
1
This is a long overdue start that should be closely studied by the white NYT columnists who constantly tout for the racism of the odious Charles Murray, who didn’t get mentioned in the article. This kind of discussion does indeed belong in college classes, and would not be red meet racism at kkk style conservative talk forums. My very pointed observation would be that whites like Stephens and bruni, and blacks like the fatuous jason Riley, many of whom claim to be or are in fact conservatives show very little of the common decency and respect for others that old fashioned good manners and education are supposed to.
It is a mark of progress that discussion over racial differences between whites and blacks has finally evolved from mere IQ to behavior.
LOL, "intelligence" is the social construct!
102
Uh, it is.
Have you ever tried to define intelligence? It's not so simple. And as nebulous as it is, it's even harder to measure.
6
The easiest way to define intelligence is to design a test to measure it, and then define it as the results of that test. Case closed! Anyone can play!
1
Although scientists were once racists who embraced the concept of "race", today there isn't really anything more to say on the matter...other than that "races" are superficial subdivisions that are now an anachronism with little or no meaning. Blaming scientists for racism today is just stupid, Mr. Reich. Racists today will remain racists because it's a convenient ideology for idiots whose minds are completely closed to learning and evidence.
1
Miscegenation would solve a lot of problems.
3
To each his own.
When scientists find a section of European Male genome that predisposes them to a negative behavioral characteristic then we can talk. Then we will see white men clamoring to not be judged by their race and sex. Then we will have the ability to have a more nuanced conversation.
Until then women and men of color will be harmed by bigots who use half-baked science to justify their bigotry.
305
If scientists found genes that linked Europeans to negative behavior, I doubt that Europeans would try to suppress or deny the science.
Like speech, the cure for bad science is good science.
10
"When scientists find a section of European Male genome that predisposes them to a negative behavioral characteristic then we can talk.".....Actually we have at least as far as the difference between men and women go. It is called testosterone. It is well know that the hormone builds muscle and causes aggressive behavior. The key is how an abundance of testosterone should be best managed in a modern society.
16
After having lived in some other parts of the world, I can assure you that there is as much negative behavior in Africa and Asia regarding race and sex as there is in among European Males. I've even seen some of it in females.
17
Smart guy who gets sucked in by his own preconceptions about “race”. Sure, there are genetic differences among populations but they don’t fall along the lines of what society deems to be “race”. To cite one example from the article, the author himself points out that people of Icelandic ancestry have a common genetic trait that the rest of the world does not tend to share. Nobody, I’m quite sure, is convinced there is an Icelandic race. Earlier in the article he talks about men of West African ancestry having a higher incidence of prostate cancer. I’ve never come across anyone suggesting “West African” is a distinct “race”.
Sorry sir, but we still have no reason to look at each other as coming from different “races”. Yes, there are genetic differences among gene pools which have been isolated for a period of time but these differences do not correspond to anything anyone considers to be race.
Race is a purely social construct. This article, while well-intentioned, only serves to support those who believe race has a biological component.
20
Since it is stated here as true that race is a social construct then I'm somewhat relieved to know as an anti-social person I can't possibly be racist in spite of everyday's daily cues from the news to make me feel I can't be anything but by virtue of the sole fact that I'm white. To make my relief complete, however, and just to be on the safe side, I'm now going to strive for total indifference to the entire issue. For all I know this research and article is just another ploy to screw my head and society's up even more.
7
You can unscrew your head by understanding that the average White person is a lot lot better off than the average black person, even with all of the daily cues you complain about. The average white person (rightly, in my opinion) does not have to fear being harassed while going through their normal routine or get shot by cops when being pulled over at a traffic stop, while the average black person (unfortunately, in my opinion) has to have some concern about their safety in each of these situations. I used to tell myself a lot of this was due to breakdown in authority and families in the black community till I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson's mom on CBS Sunday Morning mention she and her husband had "the talk" with Neil when he was a teenager, a tall, black one. It broke my heart to realize how we feel so sorry for ourselves and begrudge others the tiniest advantages and whine like little $jits when we should be grateful for the advantages we have and have the good sense to want it for other good people too.
2
I have had really bright students in my 20 years as an educator and some not so bright. I have had hard working students and some lazier than one could imagine. I have not seen a correlation to race, gender, culture or ethnicity and the school in which I teach is highly diverse, both racially, ethnically and in terms of economic class. Of all the students I have ever had in class, only one stands out to me as truly genius in his aptitude-- he was an immigrant from Vietnam who spent his first five years playing under pinball machines in the arcade his mother managed in Ho Chi Minh City. (What are the odds?!)
Yes, the 2500+ high school students I have known may be a small sample proving exactly nothing but here are my conclusions anyway:
1. Most people are inherently good. I have known only a few of these 2500 hundred or so--less than 5 actually, who struck me as sociopathic, or without conscience.
2. Most people are also fairly intelligent--but not always in the same ways. Some terribly bright kids often lacked interpersonal intelligence, were lonely, bitter, and anti-social no matter what we tried. Will they lead happy lives? Successful lives? It's a crap shoot. I hope they found happiness.
3. The lazy kids who nevertheless tested high did not do as well in college as did the average kid who had a work ethic and good people skills. Those two last traits seem most important. And I think that bodes well for all of us.
40
Regarding your last few sentences, why does it bode well for society that intelligent people who do not fit into social, educational, and occupational structures do not succeed in higher education?
Reich gives an example of how the racial categories used in the US helped identify genetic variations that correlate with prostate cancer rates. Since these social categories have a rough correspondence with populations largely separated for thousands of years this should not surprise us. But neither should it lead us to regard “race” as a coherent way of talking about genetic variation between populations.
East Africans, categorized as “black” in the US are more closely related to Yemeni Arabs, categorized as “white” than they are to West Africans. Likewise the Yemenis are more closely related to the East Africans than they are to Western Europeans.
The vast majority of the genetic variation between humans is to be found between Africans. Which makes sense since most of human prehistory occurred in Africa. Genetically speaking the variation among non-Africans is that of a small sub-set of African migrants. (With a smattering of Neanderthal and Denisovan to spice things up).
There have been few human populations that have been truly isolated for thousands, much less tens of thousands of years. These are exclusively small island populations and none of them correspond with any of the large racial categories found on censuses or referred to in American conversations about race.
Race is, regrettably, a salient social category. We should not allow advances in our knowledge of population genetics to be used to rehabilitate it as a biological one.
19
The difference between African and European Americans could be genetic for sure, but the author seems to be a little naive in saying their finds could "fully account for the higher rate..." Did he compare the average stress levels of the African Americans with the average stress levels of the European Americans? This is hard to measure, and I am surely not trying to make any excuses for anyone. The point is our genetic makeup is not the static thing the author sometimes seems to suggest - there is a change in our genes (not every one of them, but significant numbers to be noticed in testing) during the course of our lives, due to environmental effects. One way of thinking about it is if each of us came with a rulebook when we were born. As we grow up in different circumstances the book might have a lot more scratches and corrections in some lives and even when it is totally uncorrected, the quality of the paper and binding will be different for different people after say 30 or 40 years. Looking at each we know they are the same thing, yet looking rationally we can see there have been changes made. Something like that, except a lot more nuanced and complex.
1
As an undergrad, one of my formative discussions was with a field biologist. We were discussing frogs, and the subspecies and populations that existed across stated lines in the Mississippi River/Missouri River basins of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. As we were sitting around having a cup of coffee, I asked, cautiously, "Why don't scientists try to classify humans by sub-species or by population, based on geography and physical features, etc? We do it with frogs... And while humans aren't frogs, are we not all animals? Shouldn't we at least look for genetic differences and see what we find?"
After a pause and a knowing look that a grizzled master gives to an inquisitive student, my professor simply said "Don't we have enough problems as is?"
We do. And such research would only lead to more. In science, when you go down a path, you have to be prepared to be wrong as often as you are right, and all the outcomes from human population DNA research and analysis would inevitably be viewed as "wrong" by a large group of someones.
Are we truly prepared, as a society, to deal with the possible outcomes of an analysis of the genome differences among humanity's various populations?
In a word: no. We are not, as Mr. Reich hopes us to be, mature enough as a society to handle the outcome.
So press ahead, if you must. But go forward knowing you are approaching Pandora's Box, at least as far as society is concerned.
25
Great observation. Reminds me of the great Alfred Kinsey who studied the sexual behavior of insects, gall wasps, with no controversy whatsoever. However, when he applied the same scientific methods to humans that he used in entomology... well we all know the massive controversy that ensued. Kinsey's studies of human sexuality remain taboo in most corners of America.
2
I think you just kind of made the author's point for him. This is a man-made problem as much as a natural problem. Man is ill-equipped to tackle something as simple as global human starvation/easily preventable but deadly disease-control, how on earth can he be expected to deal rationally with something as complex as genetic diversity?
Nicely put. May I add that the Pandora's Box story ends with opening that box again to release Hope. :-)
1
In the past human populations were isolated by distance and geography.
These barriers have to a large extent been eliminated,. This reality has led to an admixture of population gene pools on an unprecedented scale.
Our new knowledge of the human genome enables us to identify the genetic markers associated with a number of diseases and potentially other traits.
With the resurgence of racism it is particularly dangerous to associate any genetic differences to socially defined races. We now have the ability to cheaply decode an individuals genome and identify genetic risk factors for that individual and his family. There is little to be gained by associating genetic differences across populations which are no longer distinct
1
If the purpose of genetic research is to ultimately discover how to manipulate the genetics of a human being, then no matter how benevolent the attitudes and intent, ultimately it will be misused, even innocently, and some will suffer as others will benefit.
Either genetic research benefits all, is available (which likely means free) to all, or it is just another cog in the Industrial Healthcare Machine and will be another benefit to be enjoyed by the rich only.
One has to be very careful when attempting to tweak Mother Nature, because the presumption is that one Knows Better.
It is without question that Humankind does NOT know better. We cannot even keep streets clean, properly educate our youth, much less put our country into the hands of competent individuals.
Yes, yes, just like guns, science does not kill people, but just like guns, when the tool makes it all too easy to do harm, then that tool - guns or science - should be monitored, restricted, even banned.
Because humans are the problem. Every time.
2
Let's not ban science, thanks.
Perhaps they'll be some schadenfreude from watching rich people tweak their genes in vain attempts of self-improvement.
Of course humans vary, and there can be population differences, often by region of origin.
Race is not the same as geographic origin. Race is assigning significance to physical differences between people, making assumptions based on those differences, and then hierarchically ranking people based on perceived differences.
Look at the variation that exists on the continent of Africa. Most people of African origin would be classified as "black" in the U.S., but do they all share a similar genetic background or predisposition to disease? Our current racial categories have little use in medical settings because they're imprecise. Consider the example of Sickle Cell Disease. The U.S. medical establishment historically looked at it as an "African-American" disease. Today, we appreciate that it's not fair to say it's a disease of black people, or even of African or African-American people; instead, it's a disease found in populations that developed in malarial regions of the world, including parts of Africa, SE Europe, and the Arabian Peninsula. Thinking for so long that it was an "African-American disease" or a disease solely of "black people" was clinically misleading.
I like what a previous comment said: we may be different--socially, culturally, genetically, etc.--but we should all be afforded the same rights and opportunities in our society. Suggesting that our conception of "race" has a genetic basis works only to justify dangerous misconceptions and inequality.
8
I agree. It's problematic to conflate a cultural understanding of "race" with a scientific coding of "race", even with the measured attentions of Dr. Reich.
I don't think that any of the "differences" point to a need for classification on racial separations. Environment and weather are going to affect the humans who live in certain areas. Humans are very adaptable and certainly a person living in the warm climate of Africa will use different parts of the brain then a person living in a cold and dark area like Iceland. Hopefully the day will come when history will look back on the nastiness of racial prejudice and see it as one of the darker phases of human development.
1
No mention of epigenetics?
No mention of things like nurture between the years from 0-3 which literally changes structural brain development?
No mention of ACEs?
The problem with the all-"genes" view is that genes are not static -- they also interact with the environment.
12
I'm about a third of the way through Prof. Robert M. Saplolsky's thus far excellent book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst.
The more I read, the more I believe that we should begin thinking of, and treating, racism as a disease. Particularly when one considers all of the woe this "disease" has inflicted upon humankind throughout our history and especially since the pestilence seems to be spreading (virulently, in some regions) across the globe once again.
5
Race is not a social construct - it is a perfectly valid biological concept and obviously there are different lines of descent which have some medical importance. It is the "races" as perceived generally by humans and in some cases embodied in law which are often social constructs. Aside from certain legal areas such as affirmative action where the historical classification is important race is not fully adequate to describe medically important characteristics. You either have certain genes or you don't and as a rule DNA analysis is how this must be determined, not by the existing or even more correct pigeonholing by race. When descent is relevant it is the particular genes which must be traced. People might usefully be characterized as having certain lines of descent, but these lines would be multiple and not always coincident with standard concepts of race.
3
In books, I've come across references to the English race, Irish race, Italian race, Jewish race, Yellow race, Red race, race of avant guard artists, race of unbelievers, race of the bald, and race of pleasure seekers.
It is not a concept of much use now. Except for comedy. The concept of what a concept is, is an analogy, metaphor: as the hand grips and holds so does the mind. But the concept of race is now like a grip of water. It does not hold, it slips away.
We persist in using it largely because of mental laziness and weakness. Going by immediately-evident physical appearance, such as skin color, in evaluating a person requires minimal mental effort and ability. Especially for those who stop there and do not think, imagine further: it is a handicap, a severe one, and perhaps we should treat them as severely disabled.
5
This article reveals a few interesting facts before hiding behind the cliches of political correctness, where it is safe.
A person's race can usually be determined by appearance and always by DNA analysis. The different races differ significantly in average IQ and in rates of crime and illegitimacy. These differences are sufficiently durable geographically and historically to indicate genetic causation.
Despite taboos and sanctions against the research, genes for intelligence and criminal behavior are being discovered. As more of these genes are discovered I am confident that it will also be discovered that these genes are present in each of the races, although not in equal proportions.
3
I believe you are the one of the voices of pseudoscience warned against by Dr. Reich.
2
You do realize that modern man came out of Africa-think about it. Have you seen the recent conclusion of the appearance of “ Cheddar” man in Britain- early ancestor of modern British? He was very dark skinned with blue eyes.
1
What is psuedo about the science of genetics? More specifically, what did I say that is not true?
What are the practical ways to ensure that racist players' "ideas" are called out and decried, while Science is championed? "...the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent" is promulgated by specific axe grinders, particularly on the right. In addition to media efforts, We The People need concerted efforts by Science to affirm facts and expose charlatans. Flat-earthers are present in every human area, and demand rigorous fact-checking.
2
Yes, we should understand the ways that genetics may influence differences in propensities for disease across populations. But given the complex role of environmental and cultural factors in human development, we should be very careful - skeptical even - of arguments that conflate correlations between genes and behavior with “race.” The issue isn’t whether there can be genetic differences across populations. The issue is using race to “predict” behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different individuals whose skin color or background may be different. As an example, the author cites a study that purports to show a correlation between genes, child bearing age, and educational attainment. However, there are too many cultural and environmental factors to tell us what this means for any one individual. Populations are incredibly diverse. Understanding average differences across groups is worthy of study, but extrapolating this to make predictions about individuals isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerous.
133
Perhaps Prof Reich should have mentioned that Iceland is often used in genetic studies because of the high degree of consanguinity in the population resulting in a less genetic diversity than average. Being isolated for hundreds of years resulted in inter-marriage between close kin. There have been many useful studies on hereditary diseases using data from Iceland, but not all genetic effects of inter-breeding are obvious; they are worthy of study.
2
Right on!
2
Populations are incredibly diverse here in the U.S., but not so much in the rest of the world where our ancestors originated only a few hundred years ago.
1
My guess is that David already has an idea of how these studies will come out. And how he will be magnanimous to those whose essential human dignity he will always affirm: Yes I do think they are human. Nothing about these tests convince me otherwise.
5
I appreciate the length of this essay, its exploration of a variety of related issues, and its willingness to call out flawed studies and their consequences. This is tragically lacking in our current debates about so many important issues, some scientific, others not.
That said, I wonder a bit about a statement in the concluding paragraph: "It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings." Don't we also have to acknowledge that what science reveals is predetermined (perhaps inescapably) by the kinds of questions (broadly speaking) that scientists ask?
12
Unfortunately from the trend of the comments so far, it seems that David Reich is a voice crying in the wilderness. Thinking scientifically requires a mature and responsible mind. Yes, morality and ethics must apply, but only after we've established what exactly it is that we are talking about. Ideologues on all sides obstruct that process of inquiry and laying the basic elements on the table. Pick your topic: climate change, reproductive health, drug addiction, mental health, nutrition, the neural and cultural bases of religious belief, and on it goes. It's true, as one side claims, that too many experts over the years have abused whatever trust that humanity has placed in them. Yet it's also more and more true (now that anyone with a blog can claim to be an expert) that many conscientious researchers in the natural and social sciences, faced with the howling on all sides, are about ready to pack it up and go home.
11
An interesting article that seems to make points, only to take them away.
A "scientific" study based on self identification is hardly a scientific study, however. Some days I identify as a woman.
1
The question that occurs to me is the amount of value/utility of the use of the patient’s “racial” self-identifier in everycare medical care.
As a physician, I am focused on what are useful factors to consider to best guide my care and evaluation of patients.
Is self-identified “race” so universally important that we physicians should routinely take adequate time with every patient to carefully note this, and then consider genomic testing for risk analysis and differential diagnosis?
Or is it more appropriate to consider this evaluation in those with a particular medical condition or family history, where the genomic information is known to be relevant and very useful in seriously dangerous conditions?
2
Without prejudice, we should go forth with investigating genetic differences. However, we also should be prepared to talk honestly and openly about any that are discovered, even if they make us uncomfortable.
3
this list of genetic diseases by race and population show how important it is to investigate our differences:
http://www.knowyourgenes.org/genetic_diseases.shtml
When did northern Europeans become a "race" Mr Reich? When did western Africans become a "race"? As you yourself indicate, anyone can divide us into different populations anyway they choose and note that there are differences in the frequency of genetic variations among individuals of those different populations. Big deal. It would be very strange if such did not exist. Does it warrant continued use of the label "race" though?
You also fail to appreciate that averages do not really exist. They are only an abstraction: a product of and guide to human intelligence. That a genetic variation is on average more common in one group than another, tells you only that an individual of the first group is statistically more likely to have the trait than an individual of the second group. IT DOES NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT ACTUAL INDIVIDUALS OF EITHER GROUP. Random individuals chosen from either group may not have the trait. You know this. Are you not, therefore, way too concerned about differences in averages between populations?
"Compared with the enormous differences that exist 'among' [you mean 'between'] individuals [you mean of the same population], differences among [you mean 'between' again] populations are on average many times smaller". You write this but still you wrote this essay. You also write "among" when you mean "between" in your last sentence. I think these slips mark an emotional attachment to the concept of "race" despite your knowledge and your best intentions.
1
GRW: Each ethnic group has been considered a race.
No, Prof. Reich's use of "among" is correct. "Between" is generally employed when comparing only two elements ("between John and Jane", or "between apples and oranges"). In contrast, "among" is used when three or more elements are involved. Given that genetic differences occur AMONG many individuals, not just two, and also AMONG several populations, Prof. Reich's use of this preposition is correct.
Third sentence of the second paragraph should read: "That the frequency of occurrence of a genetic variation among the individuals of one group is higher than among the individuals of another, tells you ...." Sorry.
I guess the author is fighting for his life's work, but while it makes sense to study genes for disease, etc, it makes less sense to study for behaviour and cognition because those things are also profoundly shaped by our environments, and there is no way to distinguish what is nature and what is nurture. It's always funny when they try, for IQ tests, etc, and then claim they "controlled for racism." How? Who was the control group? Are there people being raised by wolves on an island somewhere?
9
A quibble: We keep discovering new evidence that various human groups were not as "isolated" from each other as we once believed. We keep finding more "Out of Africa" streams and back-flows; new "species" of homonids influencing modern genomes (such as the Denisovans); in addition to the "four groups" (mentioned in the article) that contributed to the stock now described as "white" (including one group with genes for dark skin but blue eyes).
We learn more about the complex interactions between genes and the environment, including "epigenetics," which are the result of environmental influences that can turn certain genes on or off and can be inherited at least a couple generations downstream, if not more (e.g., the grandchildren of those who survived the Dutch "Hunger Winter" at the end of WWII who are more likely to become obese due to certain genes being switched on apparently in response to near-starvation among pregnant women).
Such influences confound findings about the comparative "height" of southern versus northern European populations and doubtless also with the various elements associated with "intelligence." Every time scientists discover something new, it seems to add to the complexity of the models they had been working with. Yes, let's keep up the research and yes let's not obfuscate findings, but even this article suffered from an overly-simplistic presentation.
5
Mr Reich's article contains the missing link towards understanding and explaining variations in different races, as he has gone deeper into the subject then many geneticists have, who earlier gave in to easier and lazier theories.
Bravo.
Addressing human behavior from a perspective of groups or collectives, such as races or societies, almost always leads to conclusions that are destructive to some individuals and empowering to others. There is no escaping the facts that individuals live alone and die alone and that they interact with other individuals based on their individual choices. Collective concepts (which are widely accepted as a method of understanding behavior in our social "sciences")are fictions: collectives are in reality a number of individuals whose differences are glossed over for convenience in analysis, and often, as a method of control and empowerment of some individuals over the choices of other individuals.
It is hard to see the legitimate goal in categorizing individuals by race, country of origin or genome. Beware those who seek to categorize others: in recent history, sinister use of categorization has been a tactic of individuals looking for power beyond the control of their own lives.
2
Dear knowledgeable David Reich, can I ask you a basic question? Irrespective of race gender nationality color, do not all living things share a basic fundamental cycle?
"The citric acid cycle (CAC) – also known as the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle or the Krebs cycle – is a series of chemical reactions used by all aerobic organisms to release stored energy through the oxidation of acetyl-CoA derived from carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into carbon dioxide and chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). In addition, the cycle provides precursors of certain amino acids, as well as the reducing agent NADH, that are used in numerous other biochemical reactions. Its central importance to many biochemical pathways suggests that it was one of the earliest established components of cellular metabolism and may have originated abiogenically."
Why don't we focus so much on our commonality. Why are we driven to focus on our differences, however minute. So that we become healthier organisms? So that pharma industry can exploit this information and fine tune a miracle drug just so right for our acute genetics?
3
" African-Americans who happen to have entirely European ancestry in this small section of their genomes had about the same risk for prostate cancer as random Europeans."
But isn't that the whole point of rejecting the label of "race" to make assumptions about how one person is not identical to another?
2
Many stereotypes contain the seed you are holding and depending on your cultural vantage point one's acceptance of such wavers on the continuum between myth and fact "In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry." For the lay person your argument is not compelling enough to make me change my understanding of "race" as a social construct. That there are differences and that these differences vary between populations seems self evident. In addition, the things that make up the different "races" here in america are decidedly un-scientific: eg: your research into prostate cancer has nothing to do with the things that make "race" important to racists. I doubt General Lee made drew his inspirations from science. To use science to carve out the scientific basis for something void of science is silly. However, I do appreciate your warning to us all that there is no ultimate TRUTH and that we should all keep our doors open for what may arrive, including me.
"In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?"
"A lot of fish" and "a lot of sand" mean different things in Iceland and Niger. If "a lot" refers to different things in different concepts how can there be any basis to it?
"85 percent of variation...could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.”"
Most of the variation in height can be accounted for by variation within the sexes, not between them. I.e., there is a greater difference in height between a male dwarf and a male NBA player than between the average man and woman. Therefore there is no meaningful variation in height between the sexes.
2
The search for "race" is almost invariably racist but at the same time attempts to hide that racism behind the curtain of science. Check out this excellent small book: Racecraft,The Soul of Inequality in American Life by Barbara J. Fields & Karen Fields. Highly recommend.
3
Reich repudiates statements by both Wade, Harpending, and Watson. Yet those very statements are precisely the sorts of things that stand a very good chance of being fully supported by the more detailed evidence geneticists are now investigating.
These various claims were made with differing degrees of certainty and speculation. And some have quite genuine scientific evidence supporting them, even if not yet conclusive. One doesn't need to know the exact set of genes lying behind differences in height to know that it is substantially heritable.
So if these claims are "irresponsible", and to be deplored, what should be the attitude when it is geneticists who more directly establish the same sorts of facts? Why will it suddenly be morally permissible to make such claims when it wasn't before?
Reich wants us to be prepared for the sort of unsettling findings which he is so transparently predicting here. But why shouldn't we have started long ago to do so, back when the possibility of and evidence for such findings already became compelling, decades ago?
Trashing those who dared to bring up such claims earlier on serves only to further stigmatize the very issues Reich wants us now to prepare for.
2
There's no evidence to support those cockamamie claims, is why he repudiated them.
One might as well say that because your first sentence referred to "both," but then cited three different people, you are my intellectual inferior in a fashion that stems from your genes and mine.
1
A fabulous article by a genetics scientist who is at the forefront of the field. Yet, ironically, so many comments are devoid of the scientific understandings that the author is trying to promote. This is like 19th century paleontologists presenting their findings and hypotheses in front of 19th-century creationists.
10
I have for over 50 years stated that its all in the genes I wanted to be 6 foot 6 inches tall, but I am only 5feet 9 inches tall. I wanted to invent travel at the speed of light, but I do not have the smarts to figure it out. Yes, some people are smarter and taller than others, so I got over it. I did not get the best gene pool,
There is ONE "race." It is "Homo Sapiens." There are many "populations," which account for the panel's diversity in genes and appearance.
Drop the "which race are you question." Unless one is from another planet, we all belong to "Homo Sapiens." Whatever your "population," "culture," and/or ethnicity may be is simply a clarification of your ancestral geography.
To answer that question, we are all African.
8
Generally speaking, Norwegians and Italians or Greeks will both be usually recognized as European although they usually, not always. differ substantially in appearance. Similarly, Asians are usually identifiable as as asians, although they too differ widely in appearance. What category should be given to these obviously different peoples-races?
The poison is when one of these groups assumes it is somehow superior to the others. That is nonsense.
1
For those, like many of my coworkers in Federal law enforcement, who believe in the creationism of fundamental religion, all of this piece is false, indeed blasphemous. Their own ancestors not too long ago cited the book of Genesis's account of Ham laughing at father Noah and the subsequent curse on his children condemning them to be the "slaves unto the slaves" for perpetuity. How self-serving the religious in America have always been, and what better way to make money than through the agency of free labor?
3
Despite the consensus of "experts" I never agreed that "race" is a social construct. Rather, I like to argue that the "misuse of race" is a social construct - that is, society is what creates "racism."
If biological/genetic race doesn't exist, how was it determined from the DNA of Cheddar man that he had dark skin? I don't understand.
5
This article is an honest attempt by a geneticist to lay the groundwork for what is coming in the near future. They will detect all type of inconvenient genetic differences between races which explain phenotypes. Are there cognitive differences between races? Of course there are. Cognitive abilities arise as a result of evolutionary pressures - period. The wars between "The Bell Curve" theorists and those who call them racists will become moot. We will find out exactly how genes influence overall intelligence and we will isolate the difference between various population groups. Reich is correct and not presenting any conclusions until all the evidence is in. How will we react to new information regarding the differences in our genetic make-up? That is the question.
3
were I you, I would be less smugly certain that the science will prove the superior smarts of white men.
2
That is exactly the kind of reaction we hopefully won't have. The implications of genetic research goes well beyond the stereotypes (good or bad) about "white men", or any other such classification.
1
I have made the same argument regarding sexuality: If we base equal protection for LBTG on the presumption that sexual preference is inherent and not a choice, then we leave a wide path open for those who would oppress us.
We should have equal protection for all humans, whether or not there are genetic differences or whether or not our lifestyles are a choice.
2
Every human being is an individual with a unique racial / genetic / cultural / personality makeup that provides its own strengths and challenges. And we are all worthy of respect.
3
According to E.O. Wilson, we modern humans share 99.9% of the same, identical genome. Only blind mole rats have an equal genetic identity between members of the same mammalian species. Only 18 species are known that have this level of genetic identity and the other 16 are all social insects. Why? Genetic bottlenecks occurred 73.5 and 43.5kya as a result of two killer volcanoes. Our populations surviving the resultant years of nuclear winter inbred due to necessity and gave us our high level of genetic identity. If we have 40,000 genes, then only 40 vary between us and result in the surface differences that we identify as "race". Too many geneticists are stirring this pot and lack the broader view of Prof. Wilson, including the author of this article. No wonder we are such an altruistic species. We are, indeed, all brothers and sisters!
2
Good article, well written.
Science will inevitably identify more and more risk factors from genetic variants whose distributions will not be uniform across humanity, but tend to exist more frequently on average in certain broad groups or populations we have traditionally called races.
Used appropriately, this will help us treat, cure and hopefully prevent many diseases over time. Fundamentally this is good research and good basic information that can help people.
When someone else, a politician or demagogue or neighbor or whomever, tries to distort the findings to advance political & cultural views and policies that are racist, none of us have to believe them, agree with them or follow them. People have to think for themselves.
When you have lots of sheep, you get the politics of today. But it comes back to the individual and whether he or she is educated, thoughtful and reasonable in deciding what they want to believe.
Whatever your genome, gender, ethnicity or "race": do what you know to be right and don't do what you know to be wrong. Let your conscience be your guide. it will seldom fail you.
2
If one were asked to identify a person's race, why on earth would they think about the person's protein types in their blood? This argument against the existence of race is not only illogical, it is based on silly and cherry-picked evidence.
Race, in its widely understood meaning, is based on a person's appearance (phenotype). There may be a number of different genetic causes (genotype) of any given difference in appearance (phenotype). But this doesn't make for a lack of genetic basis for these differences.
2
Excellence and informative article. As Dr. Reich summarized, much of the human variations, whether genetic or otherwise, occurs within populations rather than between them. This is exactly why identity politics, which reduces individuals to uniform representation of their identity groups, shares the same pseudoscientific premises as its racist predecessors.
I agree with most of this. The fallacy is that good science drives out bad. If anything, it's the other way around. I think it is naive to believe that studying the field more (or less) will have much effect on the views of those who are immune to facts, and their name is legion. I keep seeing references to a study that showed that 44% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Self-proclaimed scientists who have proof that the theory of evolution is wrong abound.
If science were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that race has no influence on intelligence, racists will not be fazed. They will get their own studies. If a well-constructed study were to show that race does influence intelligence, that will only prove to racists what they already knew.
So where does that leave us? Do we study such things, or not? I don't know.
3
"An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life."
This. If we could move toward a more caring, compassionate and inclusive society for all people regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or disability then we would have less fear of following the science. Unfortunately we're mired in the lie of meritocracy based Darwinian capitalism, where those less fortunate are somehow less deserving of a place at the table.
We have the technological ability to create a true heaven on earth for all people, just as soon as we stop excusing extreme greed and selfishness on the pretext that those people are more deserving.
2
What about genetic differences between genders? My 19 year old grandson loves bulldozers and cries when he is taken away from "visiting" one.
But bulldozers have no practical use for him!
But they are mechanical and powerful, two things which boys are supposed to love.
But he can be quite gentle. The other day he came across a ladybug, did not touch it, observed it with care, and tried to teach it the alphabet!
So the male gender has both a love of power and a capacity for kindness. Why not accept this fact?
1
I meant 19 month old, not 19 year old.
1
Dr. Reich and others have established that some—but not African populations that didn’t migrate north—modern humans leaving Africa interbred with Neanderthals (whose ancestors split from modern humans 600,000 years ago) 40-54,4000 years ago. Those long-derided as brutish Neanderthals have recently been given artistic credit for cave art in Spain that is 64,000 years old—predating that of modern humans. Similarly, only some modern humans have Denisovan (who split from Neanderthals 400,000 years ago) genetic heritage.
We have this rich and varied history, with more to be clarified with genetic anthropological research. Meanwhile, individual research holds the promise of guiding treatment since we are learning more about how genetic variability influences drug efficacy and toxicity for various illnesses.
The power of scientific facts allowed Dr. Reich to decry racial stereotyping by even Nobel winners.
1
Before science was science - and the notion of absolute truth (at least in the physical sciences) emerged - science was narrative
Meticulous field or lab work - on which scientists looked to build a story
And be first and loudest - because of the tenure, fame, and prizes that'd follow
Occasionally, new data (Darwin in the Galapagos) or new insight (Galileo in the planets) causes such disruption to the narrative, the most senior narrators resist revision
Einstein was both disruptor (General Relativity - not mentioned in his Nobel Prize, because the German science sages couldn't get their heads around space not being flat) and disrupted (never fully came to terms with quantum mechanics)
But am thinking of (non-human) pre-genomic evolutionary biology, where the best minds concocted the best narrative - in which genomic sequencing blew dozens of holes
See - the narrative isn't always in the best interests of science
But it's generally in the best interests of the narrators
Ironically, the short-form narrative for evolutionary biology was correct
It was informative - but not to the point of clinical use...That is, to diagnose human condition
Genomic sequencing already has been
Even more unsettling - the biotailor called CRISPR will do zipper repairs
The narrators' fear is not that things will be prejudged - but that they won't be able to contain the disruption
https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2017-04-27/curre...
2
Reading the comments picked by the NYTs I'm thinking "no, no, no, please read this editorial again!"
It is our own prejudices that make us think we Europeans (me included) will appear to come out on top.
There is no best or better or not so good. Only different. And all beautiful.
2
Some people are luckier than others. Some have to work harder to get the same result. It is called life.
As a geneticist myself, I feel that most of the differences ascribed to certain populations can be traced to a "founder" or one individual who acquired the genetic alteration. That founder's DNA was then inherited by some of his or her children, grandchildren, and so forth. Yes, we can find a group of people within every subpopulation that carries a specific genetic pattern that predisposes them to a body type, level of intelligence, or risk for cancer. But none of us is exactly alike, and any of these variants might arise in any other population. I am a human clinical and laboratory geneticist, and in my work, I may recommend screening for population-specific variants that are known to cause specific human disease, but I am never surprised when someone who is, say, 100% African, Ashkenazi Jewish, Han Chinese, or of any specific geoethnic ancestry does not carry the at risk variant (called an allele in my world). I agree with Dr. Reich that our genetic inheritance does influence our health and our behavior, but I don't think that calling the difference between us "racial" is the right answer. These differences should be ascribed to a founder effect, even if that founder is shown to be a Neanderthal.
9
Perhaps one day most people will come to share the views expressed in this article. Should that day arrive, then maybe we will find it in ourselves to stop the horrific abuse and consumption of non-human sentient beings, such as the great apes with whom we share 99% of our genes.
3
Prof. Reich treads on dangerous territory and should not expect many invitations to speak at US universities. But the importance of facing "whatever science will reveal" and openly discussing those revelations prevents the vacuum existing where Watson and Harpending are the only voices.
One small elephant in this room is the idea of "disparate impact." Sure, racism exists in the US, but attributing all adverse outcomes to racism is wrong.
1
Dr. Reich is correct, there are genetic differences between groups. He is also correct that genetics influences all sorts of things, including no doubt intelligence and strength. And he is correct that scientists need to talk about this. What he seems to be missing is that there isn't much to say, merely the clearly true fact that differences within populations are larger than differences between populations, and hence race really is meaningless. To use the prostate cancer example, while the average African American is more likely to have a bad combination of genes, the spread for African Americans and European Americans has enormous overlap.
The author stresses genetic factors, even though he admits in passing that environmental and cultural factors are very important. Why does he underemphasize culture and environment? Because they are not easy to examine by "hard" science. And he underemphasizes what he knows is very important: environment and culture, because they are more difficult to examine with the methods of hard science. While science is extremely important to human understanding, it is not everything and is limited in its scope. Therefore, it must be put in proper perspective. At this moment in time, an over-emphasis on the importance of genes is in fashion. Everything is in the person's DNA. Supposedly intelligent people, though not geneticists, are led to say the silliest things with a straight face. If a person's parents and perhaps grandparents were actors, then acting is said to be in her or his DNA. This sloppy thinking, which is part of the current fashion to say everything is in the genes, is so prevalent that it is dangerous to our public discourse, and may at times lead to racist beliefs in the general public.
2
“Just Social constructs...” Obviously, human experience, politics, society, culture, etc. are very much dependent on social constructs. Sure, we’re all human, but that doesn’t seem to be a very helpful point of argument for overcoming cultural misunderstandings.
What about epigenetics? Doesn't it lessen the differences between people of a single region and same life-style?
Just curious. i am not an expert on genetics.
1
The article makes it pretty clear that they're using race as a proxy for geographic ancestry. We're all NYT readers, so we're all super woke and therefore understand how that's not a perfect proxy since people have mixed since 1600. And we also understand that those who were brought to the US by force were picked from the population to be enslaved, not randomly selected, so black people in the US may not exactly genetically resemble their counterparts in West Africa today.
The point the author makes that I sympathize with is the subtle threat in society today that we had better not conduct research looking across racial groups and linking them to genetics. I think that people who jump to racist conclusions need to be challenged either by conducting research or specifying how it is impossible to conclude that given the information we have. Otherwise, we will absolutely contribute to speculation and greater racist ideology.
It is astonishing to see the number of arguments here that imply that simply talking about race and genetics will add fuel to the fire of casual racists. As if they were waiting for a sophisticated genetic analysis to make their dumb points because they're highly cautious in their arguments, and not having this evidence was keeping them from doing so.
1
Interestingly enough, Charles Murray already did the research 30 years ago and came to the same conclusions as the author of this article. He of course was admonished for it because simply doing the work at that time was considered racist. He only dedicated one chapter to the study of iq differences between races and the best ways to use the data to help bridge the gaps. At the time he was considering whether to leave the chapter in or not (he says now he would have left it out) but reasoned the book couldn’t be published without mentioning it. He made no suppositions as to why the differences exist either. I suggest anyone interested in this research read his seminal work on IQs and the relevance to every aspect of success in modern society. It seems now unfortunately is going to require only the best and brightest as cars that drive themselves develop and AI starts solving problems and doing more and more work for us.
Charles Murray is an economist, not a geneticist. Apples and oranges.
It is telling that the author chose our societal understanding of biological sex as a hopeful example. He is apparently unaware that the latest trend on the Identity Left is to deny that there is any such thing as biological sex, only social constructs of gender! Furthermore, they label anyone who says otherwise as a misogynist and or transphobic and do their best to destroy their careers and lives. There are very powerful forces in western academia that are a lot less tolerant of ideologically inconvenient facts than Reich seems to realize. His colleagues will be under enormous pressure to tailor their findings accordingly.
1
There has been no more delusional theory emanating from the Social Humanists in the past century than the one which proclaimed 'race is a social construct.' Kudos to the Times, a usual promoter of all things relative, for publishing a compilation of the latest biologial and genetic research which has determined that racial differences throughout the molecular and allele range are indeed contrasted between the races.
1
If we can use DNA testing to determine who is a direct descendent of a slave - as this piece suggests - then the main argument against reparations falls apart.
1
Maybe that's why NYT published the article?
This author is relying on Richard Lewontin grouping of human populations made in ....1972 when virtually "nothing" was know in the human genetic code. This grouping is much more based on "physical" and not genetic differences. Today in 2018 the genetic code is much more known and that 1972 grouping has become irrelevant and can't be applied anymore. For example, genetic research have shown that you can be much closer genetically to a particular African individual than this African is from another African. The concept of race is an artificial "division" only based on "external" apparence and it is not at all confirmed on a genetic level.
2
I agree..there are only two distinct races--male and female.
The author has collected samples of African Americans and European Americans and is trying to make conclusions on the differences to genetics alone. We must remember that the life style as well as food habits of the two sub groups in America are still significantly different. Thus it is absolutely incorrect to assign the differences to genetics.
Another fault, he is trying to call the statistical analysis as science.
Totally misguided!
There is, in reality, but one race: human.
1
Great article. You're going to get attacked by the SJW crowd but very informative for those of us not afraid to confront uncomfortable truths
This article lucidly articulates the need for real science in understanding genetic variations among human “races” or populations before the “racists” assert their pseudoscience. As a MIT PhD in systems biology and one who is the founder and chief scientific officer of a company dedicated to understanding the molecular systems of genetics and epigenetics, I applaud Dr. Reich for this articulation so we as scientists get ahead of the curve. I cannot, however, ignore the coincidence of this article with the recent news generated from my sending (on two occasions) DNA Test Kits to Senator Elizabeth Warren requesting her to take the DNA test to settle questions of her claims to be Native American. I wonder if Dr. Reich will agree that Warren’s not agreeing to perform genetic testing and asserting because of her high cheekbones she is Native American is as pseudoscientific and racist as Watson’s assertions? Warren’s denying science is what led me to the slogan “Only a Real Indian Can Defeat the Fake Indian,” in my Independent US Senate campaign against her.
The absurdity of Watson's question about Jews should be pretty easy to demonstrate. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that the leading scholars of Jewish culture had more children, or that those children were more likely to survive, than other Jews. That is what would be required to support a Darwinian explanation. Gaining social status as a scholar is all well and good, but it only counts in evolutionary terms if it produces more children and grandchildren.
It was horribly disappointing to see someone of Watson's credentials drift off into racially charged nonsense like this. But it was equally disappointing to hear his adversaries ignore the strongest argument against it--namely, that it doesn't work.
As well-meaning as David Reich may be, his worries appear to me to be misplaced. The only orthodoxy I see here in the Deep South is the quietly held belief that the color of one's skin tells you all you need to know about a person's history, status, morals, intelligence, and trustworthiness, in spite of the abundant evidence to the contrary. Racism US is not about actual biological races in any real sense; it is all about the parameter of skin color – which is why "white" gives no consistent indication of ethnic origin, it just means "not black".
The problem with using skin color as a proxy for a person's genetic makeup is that we are all descended from a broad mix of populations. Anyone who has had a genetic test to trace family origins surely has noticed the surprising fragments of unexpected origins reported. We should well know that plenty of people who identify as white carry some genes from historically West African populations, and plenty of people who identify as African American carry some genes from historically West European populations.
Identifying particular gene sequences as "probably of West African origin" or "probably of West European origin" should be enough, and presumably supported by the evidence. What purpose is served by labeling individuals who result from contributions of ancestors of many different origins, with a single one-dimensional label? I don't see how that helps understanding of the science in any way.
151
Where and what is the 'Deep South'?
The only time I ever saw and heard Dr. King speak in person was August, 1966 at a park on the South Side of Chicago. In response to an inquiry as to why he was in the North when racist bigotry was a Southern 'problem', Dr. King proclaimed that being south of the Canadian border was the demarcation of bigotry in America. After being stoned King said that the hate in Chicago was worse than the South.
President Trump is a New York City Northern Yankee.
3
What purpose does it serve to label someone as "French" or "Italian," when the same considerations apply?
We can't just sweep race under the carpet -- when we try to do that, we just end up with euphemisms that mean the same thing.
Also, you're overstating the significance of admixture. It either occurred long enough ago to have been subject to significant evolution (we are, after all, all African in origin), or it usually occurs in small amounts, e.g., the typical white American with African admixture is only a few percent African. ("African-Americans" are on average about 20% European as a consequence of slave rape.) There are some border populations, e.g., the dark-skinned Caucasoid peoples of the Horn, but for the most part, admixture is of limited genetic significance.
1
Nowhere in this article did the author propose a skin color measurement as a determinant of either character, history, intelligence or any other characteristic and made it clear, that in self identified African Americans, those who did not have the genetic marker from West Africa correlated with more susceptibility to prostate cancer were no more susceptible than the West Europeans, and that the only way one could determine this is by DNA analysis, so that skin color was not a determinant of this susceptibility. And this discussion was in the context of the recognition that Americans, however they self identify, tend to have genetic markers inherited from both West African and Western European ancestors.
So what exactly is your point?
4
Thoughtful essay and observations but the author does engage in pretzel logic at several points in the essay. First he acknowledges that there are differences in the races and sexes and more are most likely to be found. These findings have useful outcomes for the understanding of disease in races and how to treat them. It is also clear that each race has strengths and weaknesses and this where it gets to be a more difficult discussion. If one considers intelligence, athletic ability, industriousness the conversation can quickly devolve into racial stereotypes. The author counters this way of thinking by noting that the individual variation in a race or sex is much bigger than the differences between them. All then should be treated equally by society and the law, which I agree wholeheartedly. But his acknowledgement of differences challenges racially or gender based quotas. To bring up a well worn observation, but should we demand that a certain number of whites be on any NCAA basketball team? Perhaps we should insist that there should be no division in men and women sports. Is the Google coder who challenged gender based hiring and promotion at his firm wrong in stating that men are better coders, in general? Unfortunately, the long history of racial and gender prejudice overlays the genetics reality and people of color and women have been disadvantage. The way forward is to acknowledge and appreciate the differences of race/sex and individual, not judge them.
3
Brilliant and why I tend to read the NYTimes.
I have a Ph.D. in the biological sciences and hence I'm very familiar with the evolutionary and genetic concepts discussed here by Dr. Reich.
I have smiled for years when persons state "there is no such thing as race," because they seldom had any real training to make that statement. They worried it would cause prejudice and worse horrors and they were correct to have that worry.
But truth is sacred and must be taught and understood and Dr. Reich does a fabulous job here.
It is a difficult subject to teach to the general public because evolution is really defined as "the change in gene frequencies in a population;" a statistical BUT MEASURABLE entity. Visualizing this process, defining terms (population, frequency, natural selection) requires some time and study.
And then add human genetics, how and why genes vary, the whole concept of "variation" and last but profoundly how genes interact with the environment and you have a complexity that takes time to absorb.
But thank ou Dr. Reich for an excellent attempt to do that in an article in the New York Times.
And I look forward to your forthcoming book and how everyone can learn from it. Please keep up your educational efforts to the general public.
474
Ok, but the history of racism as a social construct is about intelligence and moral capabilities and on that score I see no evidence of races in dr Reich’s work. Diseases and other phenomena, fine.
7
Excellent article, excellent response. The quantity of negative comments is alarming. Truth IS sacred. I'm afraid too many writers who hate racism go on to conflate race and racism. The existence of races does Not justify racism. The denial of race is not the answer.
17
No, truth is not sacred and science is not religion. And probabilistic, correlational thinking is not, in itself, philosophical insight. Specialization is overwhelming the world. Hammer specialists view the rest of the world as nails, it seems.
4
It is the nature of science to look for and find differences within a group and it is the nature of religion to find commonality (oneness) among all groups. In both camps there are individuals that abuse their authority to promote self serving positions or prejudices. And there is also the lay person that is free to misinterpret what science and religion say about us to suit their own world view. If we all learn to be respectful of our differences while recognizing the commonality of our humanity we all would benefit more from the gifts that science and religion bestowed upon us.
1
What? - if your Jewish there is no "commonality among all groups". There is one "chosen group" (to which you of course belong) and all the others you have to tolerate or ignore while you wait to get to heaven. Others can't even opt in (as in Christianity). You are either born in or not.
I dislike all religions. All of them are ridiculous.
Ignatius
There is a great saint in the Catholic Church name Ignatius. You should read about him. I think you would like him.
The causes of friction and animosity are not genetic differences, per se. They are the social constructs and judgments that are superimposed on those differences.
Some people are left handed some are right handed. There's a difference, yet who is "better"? Same for eye color and hair color.
It's the prejudices we "add" to genetic differences that lead to racist thinking, not the sequence of base pairs in our DNA.
3
Great article. Anyone who watches sports --- particularly football and basketball -- know that certain population groups are over represented. That of course could be due to culture, but unlikely. It is also true that quite often when you see a pro athlete they often have a parent who was a pro athlete or a high level college player, or later on their sons and daughters tend to do well in athletics. At both the individual and group level genetics plays a profound role in shaping who we are in terms of abilities and personality.
It would be highly unlikely if discrete population groups would have the exact same genetic makeup. Population groups evolved in different environments. A positive genetic mutation (one that increases the likelihood of an individual surviving and passing on their genes) will be limited to the population that interbreeds which while less important today due to global mobility, would have been of great importance thousands of years ago. That is simple logic and the science backs it up. However, the left tends to endorse science it believes in like "climate science" while rejecting scientific findings it disagrees with.
And there is also the scientific truth that population differences are really not important when thinking about an individual -- the averages for the group are just that -- simply averages. A great athlete is a great athlete no matter what population group they come from.
2
I would be more sanguine about the author’s plea for an honest analysis of genetic differences among races if he had placed the role of genes in traits, especially behavior and cognition, into proper context. The author neglected to acknowledge that not only do environmental factors also contribute to the way we look and act, but environment interacts with genes to shape these traits. The gene by environment interaction can take different forms; some have profound implications for the significance that society should attach to these differences. For example, it has been demonstrated in some animal studies that the expression of genetic differences in cognition can be entirely erased by enrichment of the animal’s environment. One of the occupational hazards of being a geneticist may be the tendency to assign undue significance to the occurrence of genetic differences; after all, it’s their life’s work. I see evidence of that tendency in this article.
6
I saw a program recently on the cloning of polo horses. A star polo player cloned his favorite horse and the resultant horses have helped him continue to win in his games. He said he thought it was possible to clone humans, but that he would not want to do that himself.
I suspect in the not to distant future this will be done in some country, but I suspect it will be done by someone trying to continue the life of a specific person and not to come up with a super human.
1
This is already being done somewhere in the world, most likely by some billionaire narcissist.
1
Isn’t it possible that natural selection has affected the respective gene pools of different groups of humans over thousands of years so that there are different genetic inheritances among different groups? If survival, and thus breeding, was favored by intelligence for one group while survival and breeding was favored by brawn for another group in a consistent pattern for many generations, wouldn’t that historical experience have an effect on the gene pools of each group?
1
Two issues that seem to be ducked in this otherwise thoughtful piece are:
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; and
2. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes.
3
I think the author is guilty of the same thing he argues against. Two examples:
1. He tells us that a genetic variation in Icelanders nudges them to delay having children, which may explain spending more years in school. Perhaps Icelanders simply spend more years in school *and* have this gene?
2. Men and women are of different size, fact. Then he writes only a parenthetical remark that there is also difference in behavior, but we don't know to what extent it is product of social expectations.
The author is pointing toward a direction of causality where no scientific explanation exists. I'm not arguing against his actual conclusions, because I don't know genetics, but they seem as derived from bias as any other.
1
I agree with the sentiments expressed here. But will the author hold to his dispassionate analysis if actual evidence of racial disparity arises that is more controversial than susceptibility to disease? Or will he change his tune?
1
Maybe more than anything, this article is a plea for better science education leading to better and far more nuanced understanding of what science tells us.
But then I look at (for example) the debate about climate change and wonder if maybe the average American is not genetically predisposed to be a scientist.
5
Agreed. There are a number of problems to overcome:
1) Published research may as well be written in Martian when it comes to the average information consumer; the nomenclature is unintelligible to the vast majority of the population.
2) Publishers control dissemination and pay-to-play is the rule, even for results from publicly funded research; most people can't read papers unless they're willing to pay $30-$40 for the privilege or are lucky enough to have university credentials.
3) Media outlets are poor interpreters of research and are presently the only viable dissemination option.
4) WRT the topic at hand, battling self-imposed ignorance is a sum zero game. Self-righteous people will cull the information that supports their platform. Period. It is a numbers game, however; the more people with factual information and the capacity to properly interpret said information the more likely the population will shift its POV to one supported by facts.
Nice, factual, straightforward piece. Enjoyed the read.
2
One thing is clear, we haven’t begun to understand the relationship between genetics and behavior. Are cultural differences related to genetic predispositions? Do individual traits like liberal or conservative world views come baked into our genes? We have a long way to go before we con begin to grasp the complexities inherent in what makes us who we are.
2
Here is a concrete example of how genetic differences can define culture/behavior. - Cilantro.
Some people have a genetic make-up that makes it taste like soap. Surprise! they live in cultures that generally don't eat it.
To other people it tastes fine. Surprise! They mainly live in cultures that eat it.
That's exhibit A. I'm sure this example can also go into a myriad of avenues.
2
To get any useful information out of any of this will require decades of research. For instance, my mother is an Irish immigrant. I was fat as a child, and have to exercise constantly to avoid returning to that state. I've often wondered if that's because my genes were handed down to me by ancestors who were genetically predisposed to survive potato famines. So my body is programmed to store every possible calorie, and burn them in the most efficient manner, requiring more exercise than normal to get rid of fat. But it could also be that my family was from a fishing village, and survived the famine because they were able to fall back on fish to survive. Or that they were just really clever at finding other food sources. So my propensity to gain weight might be completely unrelated. Who knows?
Brilliant report and review. Society is in a self imposed denial of these genetic factors for fear of insulting or demeaning someone or group. It is not politically correct to do so. However as we try to solve problems for genetically different groups this information would guide us in the right direction. In medicine on every lab test for kidney function there is a foot note about race differences. People are different. Men have more genes in common with a male gorilla than a woman, as alluded to here. The recent reports on admission results at Stuyvesant high school is another indication of genetic race differences. Affirmative action does not work because we refuse to recognize differences. It would clearly be better to design a education program based on genetic differences than to try to force a square peg into a round hole. Every group and race will have some genetic issues. I hope this takes traction and is used constructively. Recognizing real differences is the first logical step in solving societal problems. Otherwise we are in a make believe world with guaranteed poor outcomes.
2
1. The general public (in many countries) has a very low comprehension of science and scientific findings
2. The media, where most of the public get their news about scientific discoveries and findings, does not do justice in portraying the caveats that often go with scientific findings
3. People are not rational
These three things together is why we have such a big anti-vaccine problem and why there are so many people still in denial about climate change despite solid evidence. In our current society where science comprehension is, frankly, abysmal, people will draw erroneous conclusions despite what the actual findings of a scientific study are. The media is unlikely to get it 100% correct, they may get 90% of correct but not 100%. And if you ask, does that last 10% matter? Yes, yes it does because that's where all the stipulations come in. They're essentially the fine prints in legal documents. Because all of this, these will indeed be turned into ways for people to justify racism. I agree that on a scientific level doing these studies is a great idea, but we have to take more into consideration than just science alone.
5
David Reich is a brave man.
He is correct that "it is no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among 'races'" and that people are entrenching themselves in indefensible positions. That is not wise. It is not wise to ignore "inconvenient truths" It will only feed the growing disdain for science, and we can't afford that.
5
In this discussion healthy religion has a place. Leading adherents to understand that biological differences, whether at the level of appearances or genes, are irrelevant where our relations with each other are concerned. We all ultimately belong to one family. Where scientific discovery can show us the infinite diversity in the family it is the role of religion to show us that the family is one.
How that goal is reached is up to the various theologies. But unless the different theologies agree to that goal, with whatever stories, metaphors and rituals they wish to employ, we will always be at each other's neck using violence and suffering to be the master of everyone else.
He cites the short time we have to historically judge 'traits' presumed to define races. True. Evolution, and the survival of the fittest, is still a huge factor, but it is not absolute. Most survivors are fit, but modern medicine allows 'unfit' genomes to survive and reproduce, and modern war, and the easy proliferation of weapons to kill off the best and brightest in any population. Nonetheless, evolution acts with the environment to increase genes that are 'useful' whether between men and women or between those on one island or another. (and can, in fact, do so in an amazingly short time.). Perhaps when more is known about gene function we will have a better picture of what the author's research really means, but right now, it is like saying the brand of salt is an important thing in making a stew. Culture, environment and chance overwhelm most of the small genetic differences today. But, then again, the fastest runner can survive the charge of the bear. (remember the punch line 'I don't have to run faster than the bear; only faster than you.)
1
So, "origin" is more accurate than "race?" Let's use that. And researching origin-based cognition differences is heading down a scary path with no good outcome. History has proven repeatedly that even the best science will be twisted and misused to subjugate people, if it can be.
There are places responsible scientists don't go.
Dr. Reich contradicts himself. On the one hand he writes "If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong." On the other hand, in the next paragraph, he writes that "...in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these variations will differ on average across human populations.." Throughout his article, he makes many similar assertions.
His assertions about genetic differences among populations depend on statistical inferences, not careful experimental studies, holding all variables constant, except the treatment variable.
Dr. Reich does not invoke and explain the concept of heritablity, which is the proportion of the total variation in a given characteristic in a given population
attributable to genetic differences among members of that population.The heritability of a particular characteristic is not immutable. but is a statistic true for given population at a given time.
Like his late Harvard colleague, Richard Herrnstein, Dr. Reich gets himself into trouble due to his implicit bias that blacks and women are inferior to white males and his misuse of statistical reasoning.
This seems like a very reasoned article.
Understanding the complexity of how our DNA affects us in multiple ways has been confounded by the relatively new knowledge that there are multiple epigenetic compounds that significantly affect the workings of our DNA. These molecules may even be induced by our environment so there still are almost an infinity of variables that must be deduced before some certainty can be established how our genome determines our fate, figuratively speaking.
1
To my mind, these are important genetic distinctions, but do not easily fall into racial categories as currently understood in U.S . (and other) societies. Race, in social contexts, is phenotypically assessed, not genetically assessed. Our discriminatory practices come from judgements made on the basis of how people look, not their underlying genetic make-up. Those judgements are much more prone to error -- both in over- and under-stating a person's relative whiteness or blackness to any degree.
If genetic science needs to make these distinctions -- and the professor's article is convincing that knowing about one's origins to better understand patterns of genetic mutations is important -- then perhaps we need a different word than race to describe the differences. Genotype and phenotype are not the same things. And our past history shows us that social narratives, political hierarchies, and discriminatory crimes are linked with the latter. We should avoid relying on those sorts of cues and be mindful of the past.
An interesting read, although one I have some problems with, much of which is ably discussed and covered in the excellent comments this morning. In particular, the field of epigenetics goes hand in hand. But my biggest problem came at the end when he indicated his optimism that we could discuss various general differences without sinking into eugenics etc came from how we discuss the obvious general differences between women and men without using them to limit opportunities or lock one group into a subservient role....say what again? In my opinion, only a man would think that discussion is free of the tar pits and traps of opportunism and dominance......
1
Great and interesting article. The only thing missing is a 'caveat emptor' concerning all those so-called genetic testing kits for which people are forking over fortunes.
DNA kits are only good as the reference groups used to calculate local populations. Since the reference data for 'inhabitants of western Africa 500 years ago' is pretty thin, one wonders where the author acquired his data.
Using local populations of regions and assuming that there has not been any genetic shift (due to a myriad reasons especially population movement) is asking for trouble. The results are unverifiable and you've just lost a couple hundred dollars...
Perhaps someone can explain to me how scientists compare the differences BETWEEN groups versus the differences WITHIN groups. For example, we know that the genetic difference between men and women is at most about 2% (one chromosome out of 46, assuming there is no genetic overlap between the X and Y chromosome.) But how do we measure the genetic differences AMONG men or women? Is it more or less than 2%? Clearly a 2% difference in genetic makeup makes a huge physiological difference.
And why wouldn't we expect differences in different groups of humans, when we routinely expect such differences in other species? Different breeds of dogs have certain well defined characteristics. While these may be more pronounced due to selective breeding, why wouldn't we expect environmental differences over the past 100,000 years to result in genetic differences among different groups of humans? Are humans that unique or are we similar to other mammals?
The unwillingness to even consider research in this area seems akin to the unwillingness of the NRA to consider research into gun violence. We should go wherever the science takes us, even if we don't like the results.
It is fascinating to observe how people who decry the propensity of the current administration to deny science become strident in denunciation of scientific findings when they contradict their own ideology. Nobody with any degree of scientific literacy can object to the notion that intelligence and a host of other mental and character traits have a significant genetic component. It is only common sense that these traits will correlate with geographical distribution of various populations. These populations are not “races” in the everyday sense of the word because they are not necessarily distinguished by skin color. There is no Jewish “race”. But there are populations who self-identify as Jews, many of whom share common origin. Is there any rational reason to believe that such populations may not be distinguished by genetic markers of higher intelligence or propensity for learning? Whether they are or are not is a question that can be answered by research. But if we refuse to ask the question, we will never get the correct answer. In some of the comments below, we see calls for censorship of science. Outlawing scientific research for ideological reasons is called fascism. Whether it comes from the right or left of the political spectrum is irrelevant.
4
Thank you for your intelligent commentary. As an ex-scientist who used to work with human genomics, I've found that it's impossible to discuss genomics or human biology in Silicon Valley for a number of reasons that you cite in this article. Effectively, well meaning people who are worried that science will be used to justify racism or sexism have concluded that entire areas of scientific biology are invalid because they imply things that make them uncomfortable.
It's easier to self-censor because the people that have these believes (typically progressive liberals) are the current masters of social media, and can make life very uncomfortable for people who are rational, but don't agree with them.
5
Or it's possible, as Dr. Reich suggested, there are many many more nuances to differences in genetics, and "progressive liberals" are interested in deeper science. Environment affects our genetics; culture affects our behavior which in turns affects our genetic expression. Sweeping statements are suspect when based on our (still) incredibly poor understanding of genetics. We have a collection of single-correlation genes; everything else is deeply complicated. Science is not ready yet to make meaningful "rational" arguments about genetics -- especially when they oh-just-so-happen to reinforce sexist and racist stereotypes.
Given the number of genes in the human genome and the number of different alleles of these genes, the sample size of most genetic studies is pathetically small. Given the number of physical and personal characteristics that might to some degree be genetically determined, the number of variables available to be correlated with genetic characteristics is also pathetically small. The fact that we can identify at least some of the genetic variation that causes ALS does not mean that we can identify the genetic variation that caused Stephen Hawking.
While it is true that the wanderings of early humans resulted in geographically-based genetically isolated populations that only occasionally mixed, the physical variability of the human species is significantly less than that of other species. On the other hand, the social behavior of the human species is one of its distinguishing characteristics, and the variability of that behavior can scarcely be described in scientific terms, let alone measured over time and space. Thus it would seem to require a large ecological stress to create a physical difference that would be more descriptive of behavioral differences than a social explanation.
"the physical variability of the human species is significantly less than that of other species."
That is not generally true. We are willing to group birds into different subspecies on the basis of small differences in appearance - sometimes into different species entirely. With humans the matter is ignored because it is too inflammatory.
2
The author wants to break away from the orthodoxy on genetics of populations, but not so far as to admit that there are cognitive differences among various populations. How could it be otherwise, however, when groups were separated and subject to evolutionary pressures for so long? Scientifically it would make more sense to overcome any false stereotypes by pursuing the research, not to descend to transparent virtue-signaling and stigmatizing scientists like Watson.
Thanks for those words of sanity. Let me just add that, in my experience, a person’s race is usually one of the least interesting things about him or her.
3
Several problems with this summary on population genetics. The results of individual studies are often inconsistent, even when they do find differences, and the differences found are statistically significant but trivial in all but a theoretical sense. For example individual studies that identify differences in genes for cognitive abilities typically identify different genes. This suggests they might be spurious differences. Additional, the dozens of genes combined usually explain a tiny portion of the difference between the groups, often only a few percent. All of which is difficult to communicate and often overlooked in summaries for the layman.
2
Don't mean to imply that the findings of individual studies are always spurious, just that most of the genes for a factor found in one study are often not found in other studies. There is some replication across studies. However, this means that the known contribution of the very few genes identified across multiple studies is even more trivial in explaining observed differences between groups. So, although scientifically this is a worthy area of study and worth pursuing, for practical purposes it is not very likely to lead to practical applications other than as propaganda for racist causes. I applaud Dr. Reich's effort to inform the public but it is probably a lost cause given the intricacies of population genetics.
I am of course curious and fascinated by the expanding knowledge we gain from genetics and genomics. But I am equally fearful of the mistaken or malignant misuse of these data. Are we mature enough as a culture to handle this kind of information? Probability and uncertainty hasn't been our strong suit so far.
Philosophy was considered to be part of scientific practice up until some time in the 20th century. Once philosophy had been cleaved from scientific practice (for purposes that were in my view purely political), science was left only with the pragmatism of the so-called scientific method, and scientists were no longer equipped with either the tools or the training to discuss the larger issues thrown up by research. And the result, in part, is the spectacle of such science preeminences as James Watson jumping to conclusions that could only be called utterly ignorant. Besides being embarrassing for him and his family in perpetuity, this state of affairs is extremely dangerous for us all. It's long past time for the study and practice of philosophy to regain its proper place inside science.
2
Um, no. Philosophy is woefully rife with politics. Watson's statements can be discredited on lack of scientific merit alone.
1
The real problem is that genomic sequencing has become much faster and cheaper in recent years allowing genetic differences between the races (and individuals), and correlations between genetic variations (technical term: alleles) and certain traits to become known.
Unfortunately, the significance of those variations is often less-well understood. Yes, we can identify genetic variations that are correlated with certain behaviors or traits, but the significance of each variant, or how it interacts with other genes is not well understood. For that matter, Mr. Reich's examples of genetic variation being correlated with certain traits are just that - correlations. Causation will be more difficult to prove. And determining the effect of one gene if it is one of, say, 20 genes implicated in variations of a certain trait, will be even more difficult.
Some traits are determined by a single gene's variations, such as an individual's ABO blood type. Unfortunately, completely traits often depend on the interaction of many genes. The next genetic frontier should be in determining how genetic variation causes people to exhibit differing traits.
2