National Academies: We can't define "race," so stop using it in science

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

With the advent of genomic studies, it's become ever more clear that humanity's genetic history is one of churn. Populations migrated, intermingled, and fragmented wherever they went, leaving us with a tangled genetic legacy that we often struggle to understand. The environment—in the form of disease, diet, and technology—also played a critical role in shaping populations.

But this understanding is frequently at odds with the popular understanding, which often views genetics as a determinative factor and, far too often, interprets genetics in terms of race. Worse still, even though race cannot be defined or quantified scientifically, popular thinking creeps back into scientific thought, shaping the sort of research we do and how we interpret the results.

Those are some of the conclusions of a new report produced by the National Academies of Science. Done at the request of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the report calls for scientists and the agencies that fund them to stop thinking of genetics in terms of race, and instead to focus on things that can be determined scientifically.

Racial thinking in science

The report is long overdue. Genetics data has revealed that the popular understanding of race, developed during a time when white supremacy was widely accepted, simply doesn't make any sense. In the popular view, for instance, "Black" represents a single, homogenous group. But genomic data makes clear that populations in Sub-Saharan Africa are the most genetically diverse on Earth.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/national-academies-we-cant-define-race-so-stop-using-it-in-science/

[Srkdqltr]

1. If an African person has dna done and has some European dna should that person be black or white?

If a European person has some African dna is that person white or black?
If a person has European DNA African DNA and Asian DNA? What then?

[old as dirt]

3. A colleague's wife was indigenous in Argentina, but white whenever she traveled to Brazil.

(It really used to annoy her, being from Argentina.)

Unless a DNA test can determine which side of the border she was standing on when she took the test (which is really asking a lot, given the nature of the test), it can't accurately pin down her race.

[old as dirt]

2. Is "science" being used as a euphemism for genetics?

In the article linked to, and in the articles linked to from there, I see references to other sciences, despite the focus being on genetics.

The definition of the word "science" seems to keep changing.

[old as dirt]

4. Perhaps science doesn't exist?

The definition of the word "science" seems to keep changing

[old as dirt]

5. I saw the word "interdisciplinary" somewhere in the links.

Here's an old example that illustrates the interdisciplinary nature of science (whatever that is!).

I'll bold the various fields mentioned in the description.

African roots in Latin America: Palenque (Colombia) | Armin Schwegler

This talk illustrates how linguistics and population geneticists have recently managed to reconstruct the precise African roots of descendants of African slaves that were transshipped some 400 years ago from Black Africa to Latin America. The talk focuses on Palenque (Colombia), where special African traditions and an unusual creole language have been preserved to this day.

Professor Schwegler’s research emphasizes the study of Latin America from a linguistic, social, and historical perspective. For three decades, this has led him to explore in depth the precise African origins of Hispanic communities whose roots are found in the transatlantic slave trade. Using population genetics (DNA) research to complement humanistic investigations, his work shows that “lost history” can indeed be reconstructed with precision. To that end, he has traveled widely and afar, and published several books and over 60 research articles

[crickets]

6. It's about damned time. K&R for visibility.

[former9thward]

7. If it should not be used in science it should not be used anywhere.

Job applications, college applications, the Census, DU or anywhere else.

[Hortensis]

8. Around the planet, discussion of racism tends to be based on the American model,

with any variations interpreted as meaning that local historical and current problems between races cannot be racism -- no matter if it looks and acts, even barks, just like a dog, it can't be a dog because it doesn't fit an emotionally pleasing definition.

For just one suggestion of the limitations of that thinking and how that distorts perceptions of racism, the Indian Ocean slave trade has existed for probably a good 5000 years. Everyone of course is free to assume that differences in skin color and other physical characteristics were not a factor differentiating future slaves from their owners. There were others that were also used and also meaningful -- different language, culture, social status, geographic origin, lack of "belonging."

But of course, differentiation by "race," as one form of many that intergroup bigotry manifests as, is rampant between peoples around the planet. The self-exculpating tendency to claim the poison was spread by white Americans should be examined in light of the many centuries of its inculcation into local cultures.

Until fairly recently, Europe was one of humanity's backwaters, the great civilizations and trade routes developing elsewhere on the planet while Europeans were still isolated "barbarians" without influence on other parts of the world. Yet as far back in human history as we can trace, peoples were differentiating themselves from those "others," and of course physical appearance was part of it.

Just some thoughts regarding "the popular understanding of race, developed during a time when white supremacy was widely accepted, simply doesn't make any sense." In more ways than just the genetic one discussed.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

9. When one group is enslaved it's easy, almost mandatory to dehumanize that group in order to

justify what enslaver is doing. The Romans did the same one they invaded neighboring countries.

Nineteenth century colonial colonialism was to bring civilization to the backwards non-white areas of the world.

Japanese expansion in WWII started as a response to this. They claimed to liberate Asian countries but then started treating the native populations just as badly if not worse than the previous occupiers.