Is race a social construct? [ANSWERED: YES!]

[John Cuthber]

41 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

But what does that have to do with the OP? Race isn't the reason your more prone. The OP is asking about race out right.

If there's a strong overlap between what people see as "race" and actual genetic differences in susceptibility, it "fuels the fire" by making it look as if race  has a meaning in science even though no such meaning is real.

There are other well-documented traits that are associated with groups  which are regarded as "races". e.g.
"There is a mutant form of aldehyde dehydrogenase, termed ALDH2*2, ... This mutation is common in Japan, ..."

from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde_dehydrogenase

 

But, closer analysis shows that  the correlation is statistically valid, but meaningless since "Japanese" isn't normally thought of as a race (even by those who consider the idea to be meaningful).

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't be afraid to discuss our physiological differences as well as our similarities.
And if I'm identified as part of a group that is prone to certain conditions, I would want to be informed, and certainly wouldn't be offended.

The point is, I think that is has to be understood "race" in this context is used as proxy for a set of (often unknown) features that are correlated with a condition. On top of it, the effect has to be known. I.e. if e.g. a certain group has a 5% increase in some rare condition, it is likely a meaningless proxy. That being said, in the medical community folks are not afraid of doing so. Rather the data is often (not always) problematic as the association with race categories are not strong enough to make useful prediction just based on that (for the already stated reasons).  For example certain drugs are generally not proscribed to black Americans (or only), as they seem to be less efficient (which shines light on the fact that most medical data we have are in fact from white males, for a variety of reasons). However, some newer researcher puts the validity of some of those assessments in question.

Even worse, there is evidence that race differences in diagnosis and treatments have been, in fact, misused. For example, there was the (unfounded) notion that African Americans are more prone to drug abuse, and were prescribed less pain medication than their white counterparts for the same indications. Perhaps unknowingly that was not a bad thing, but effectively it resulted in race-based differences that were ultimately not based on medical or biological indications.Of course, there are also other disparities that fall across racial lines, such as lower rates of referral, even when corrected for social-economic status, which indicates bias in medical staff. This has far-reaching consequences for epidemiological studies.

For example, if we just look at the raw numbers, it appears that African American are more susceptible to a range of coronary artery disease (CAD). It has been suggested that allels that are more prevalent in African Americans and which might be associated with salt-related hypertension could be the culprit.

So, intuitively one might think that they should be informed about that and more measures have to be take to address that. On the negative side, this could impact other aspects, such as health and life insurance cost, which could be a problem. Still, one might think that is justified. However, digging deeper into data we encounter a problem. African Americans are less likely to receive proper care and treatment in CAD, including major procedures such as revascularization procedures, or even common drugs, such as beta blockers or blood thinners. Even when we look among African Americans, it appears that certain social factors play a role. Strangely, hypertension in African Americans was highest for those who were actually of higher socioeconomic status, and highest for those who had overall high achievement (i.e. were climbing the social ladder). So perhaps it is not just in the genes or not just being black. Rather, the observed outcome is the result of complex biological as well as social issues, which require very different approaches to address properly. If one simplifies the model too much without understanding the mechanisms, one risks in doing more harm than good by e.g. assigning likelihoods of disease to certain groups . It can result in over- or false treatment, added stress and impede future research.

In that context it makes more sense to me to one has to have a clear assessment of the usefulness of a given diagnosis. I think too many folks are thinking about that in terms of being offended or that is is based on PC. But those working in the area realize that the situation is complex and by given simplifications to the public, one may unintentionally do harm. It is the same with the whole overarching discussion. Is race as often defined a social construct? Certainly. But it does not mean that there are no difference that can be used in certain contexts. The issue is that most folks will get it wrong (as most won't study the subject in sufficient depth) with can result in quite harmful practices (and even laws). It should be noted that even among specialists simple errors such as bad statistical practices or simply not being aware of confounding factors it has happened quite frequently that effects are overestimated. It would be quite problematic if then physicians (who are for the most part woefully undertrained in the interpretation of epidemiologial data would try to apply initial findings without knowing how firm the literature is on a given association.

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by CharonY

[MigL]

Again, not once did I mention 'race'.
 My response was to Koti who mentioned that there are no major physiological differences between humans.
I believe he said they are due to social factors not biological ones.
I wanted to point out that there are biological differences. Although not necessarily aligned with the classical definition of "race'..

And that it may be beneficial to understand these differences.

Edited April 8, 2018 by MigL

[StringJunky]

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, not once did I mention 'race'.
 My response was to Koti who mentioned that there are no major physiological differences between humans.
I believe he said they are due to social factors not biological ones.
I wanted to point out that there are biological differences. Although not necessarily aligned with the classical definition of "race'..

And that it may be beneficial to understand these differences.

That's why 'race' needs to die a death, because it's about colour. There are differences and different general groupings but they need to be defined and classified in a way that is scientifically useful.

Edited April 8, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

But what does that have to do with the OP? Race isn't the reason your more prone. The OP is asking about race out right.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Again, not once did I mention 'race'.
 My response was to Koti who mentioned that there are no major physiological differences between humans.
I believe he said they are due to social factors not biological ones.
I wanted to point out that there are biological differences. Although not necessarily aligned with the classical definition of "race'..

And that it may be beneficial to understand these differences.

I have addressed the fact that you aren't addressing race and CharonY has addressed your concerns as they relate to medical diagnosis. As it relates to the OP what is your point, what differences do you wish to understand? Geneticists already exist and more and more genetic testing is used to determine when one is prone to allergies, protein deficiencies, hormonal imbalances, and etc. As it relates to this thread it seems you are making a bit of an empty point because the study of biological differences between people is already widespread. It is even direct to consumer at this point. Companies like 23andMe, AncestryDNA, PassportDNA, etc allow people to mail in samples for testing. What more needs to be done. What political correctness do you feel is restraining geneticists?

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's why 'race' needs to die a death, because it's about colour. There are differences and different general groupings but they need to be defined and classified in a way that is scientifically useful.

Now that genetic testing is widespread race as a identifier has become redundant. Why speculate based on a persons appearance when a pin prick of blood could tell all? 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Ten oz
Added word "study"

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Now that genetic testing is widespread race as a identifier has become redundant. Why speculate based on a persons appearance when a pin prick of blood could tell all? 

Yes.

[koti]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Again, not once did I mention 'race'.
 My response was to Koti who mentioned that there are no major physiological differences between humans.
I believe he said they are due to social factors not biological ones.
I wanted to point out that there are biological differences. Although not necessarily aligned with the classical definition of "race'..

And that it may be beneficial to understand these differences.

I was trying to explain Strings statement, it's not what I think, here's what I think;

Obviously there are biological differences between people, there's too much variation for there to be none. Whether they are major or not depends how you define major. You being prone to that condition you mentioned is a major difference? I don't think so....your reproductive organs are where mine are and there's ears on your head, that's good enough for me to conclude there is no major biological differences between us. But that's not even the case here, whether it's skin color or height or hair color or whatever other feature or difference, humans tend to be prejudiced. Some less some more but its there almost always. Race seems to be a social construct in certain frameworks of thinking, I'm sure its possible to devise a framework in which race will not be a social construct. It all comes down to civility and accepting or not accepting differences between various things. I had a student in my training in South Africa a few years ago, he had the darkest skin I've ever seen on a human. His black colleagues were making fun of him, after the training one of them started to turn off the lights to see if we can see him, etc. Apparently he was back from a 2 week holliday where he got a tan and his skin turned literally black, I talked to him over a beer after the training. His black colleagues who commented the loudest on his tan were the most reluctant to grab a beer with me after the training (I'm as white as they come) I've seen this same mechanism happen all over the world with various people, it seems that some are curious and more tolerant towards various differences and some ar not. Oh well.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Again, not once did I mention 'race'.
 My response was to Koti who mentioned that there are no major physiological differences between humans.

I don't think that is what Koti was saying. Rather, he was qualifying a statement by String with regard to disease outcome.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

wanted to point out that there are biological differences. Although not necessarily aligned with the classical definition of "race'..

But that is the crux of the matter. If that categorization does not work it merely means we need more fine grained approaches to diagnostics. This is actually the aim of a whole research area termed "personalized" or "high-precision" medicine. But since we are not quite there the more common approach is therefore to e.g. ask for family history of diseases and measure things like blood pressure, rather than saying well, you are of group X, therefore you are more likely suffer from hypertension and cancer. In practice, MDs sometimes use (perceived or real) group differences to guide their choice of diagnostic tests. However, it is dangerous to use in lieu of those tests and can also lead to ordering the wrong set of diagnostic tests. So this practice can be problematic in certain situations. 

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And that it may be beneficial to understand these differences.

Sure and that is the topic of above mentioned research. For now, the translation of genetic info into health predictions is still dicey and clearly more work is needed. Of course, certain markers are already in use and some have strong links. But then it just means that we can test for those directly (as others have mentioned), rather than needing group difference to perform diagnostics. 

I should note that there is actually another branch of medical research that specifically tries to figure out race-based medicine, as some see it as an easier goal than a truly personalized medical system. However, the approaches so far (including the approval of an ethnic drug) have not shown the specificity that would be considered useful (at least not based on scientific data).

Edit: crossposted with Koti

Edited April 8, 2018 by CharonY

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, koti said:

it seems that some are curious and more tolerant towards various differences and some ar not. Oh well.

Who knew?

[Stevie Wonder]

On 07/04/2018 at 4:06 PM, Ten oz said:

Not really. You questioned it. You asked it was unique to humans. The link I provided addressed that:

Quote

compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse

Yes, it is fairly unique how genetically similar humans all are. The reason, as outlined in my initial post, is that nearly all human populations have mixed throughout history. Race simply isn't a real thing biologically. Genetics show it and the fossil records also so how human migrated across the planet. The idea of racial identity is rooted in sociology and not biology.

 

On 07/04/2018 at 3:56 PM, Stevie Wonder said:

Didn't I already question this?

Quote

 

This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. 

Is that unique to human races? I didn't see any contrast with divisions in other species.

 

 

So you're presenting the fact that chimps have more genetic variation than humans when asked whether "greater variation within "racial" groups than between them" applies only to human races. Hopefully you can see that your fact does not answer the question. Please demonstrate that "greater variation within "racial" groups than between them" is a standard applied to other taxa, and not just ad hoc to human races for political reasons. Please show that no other taxa have greater variation within groups than between them.

Now additionally, you are claiming that the fact that a related species, chimpanzees, have more genetic variation than humans, means that further subdivision among humans is not possible. Again please show this argument being applied outside the context of human races. If we were to find, for example, that lions have more genetic variation than tigers, would that invalidate subdivision among tigers? It seems to me like a transparently ad hoc dishonest argument.

Also please quantify genetic diversity among humans and show that they are uniquely undiverse among other species. One example does not do that. It is cherry picking and fallacious. 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Now that genetic testing is widespread race as a identifier has become redundant. Why speculate based on a persons appearance when a pin prick of blood could tell all? 

I agree. The problem is we do not have this technology yet, let alone widespread access to it, making racial categories useful.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That's why 'race' needs to die a death, because it's about colour. There are differences and different general groupings but they need to be defined and classified in a way that is scientifically useful.

Shameless strawman argument. Race is defined by shared ancestry. Nobody thinks Dravidian Indians are the same race as Africans.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

 

So you're presenting the fact that chimps have more genetic variation than humans when asked whether "greater variation within "racial" groups than between them" applies only to human races. Hopefully you can see that your fact does not answer the question. Please demonstrate that "greater variation within "racial" groups than between them" is a standard applied to other taxa, and not just ad hoc to human races for political reasons. Please show that no other taxa have greater variation within groups than between them.

Now additionally, you are claiming that the fact that a related species, chimpanzees, have more genetic variation than humans, means that further subdivision among humans is not possible. Again please show this argument being applied outside the context of human races. If we were to find, for example, that lions have more genetic variation than tigers, would that invalidate subdivision among tigers? It seems to me like a transparently ad hoc dishonest argument.

Also please quantify genetic diversity among humans and show that they are uniquely undiverse among other species. One example does not do that. It is cherry picking and fallacious. 

 

On 4/7/2018 at 10:52 AM, Ten oz said:

Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity isaccounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or "races." The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not "racial" or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics

 

[Stevie Wonder]

Just now, Ten oz said:

 

 

Just a complete failure to respond to my request to contrast this finding with other species.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Stevie Wonder said:

 

I agree. The problem is we do not have this technology yet, let alone widespread access to it, making racial categories useful.

 

Could you give examples of the usefulness of racial categorizing? 

[Stevie Wonder]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Could you give examples of the usefulness of racial categorizing? 

Sure but the topic of the thread is whether it's a valid biological construct.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Sure but the topic of the thread is whether it's a valid biological construct.

I can see you’re knowledgeable on the subject, wanted to hear your opinion, lets hear it. 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Shameless strawman argument. Race is defined by shared ancestry

So based on that, do you think African American as a group are a different race than say, East Africans? How about black folks from Brazil? According to that definition, how many races do you think exist?

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Shameless strawman argument. Race is defined by shared ancestry. Nobody thinks Dravidian Indians are the same race as Africans.

Since we all have the same ancestors (if you go back far enough) we are all the same race. It's often referred to as the "human race".

 

I suspect that the apartheid regime in South Africa probably didn't see much difference between the Dravidian people and any other "non- White".

[Stevie Wonder]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So based on that, do you think African American as a group are a different race than say, East Africans? How about black folks from Brazil? According to that definition, how many races do you think exist?

Well based on that African Americans may not be a group. If some African Americans share ancestry with East Africans vis a vis other African Americans then they're not a group by that definition. I don't have data on it. Again some "black folks from Brazil" however you're defining your term may or may not constitute a distinct race depending on whether they share ancestry. Again I don't have data. These are hybrid groups defined by current location in addition to ancestry and scatter between the broad racial clusters we see. So your question is comparing apples to oranges, groups defined by location with groups defined by ancestry. I'd guess African Americans are largely of West African ancestry with significant European admixture so obviously that's a different race to East Africans. Different ancestry, different race. Race is synonymous with ancestry. Then again some of them may share ancestry in toto with East Africans versus African Americans with large European ancestry.

There is no limit on how often one subdivides groups. There are any number of races.

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Since we all have the same ancestors (if you go back far enough) we are all the same race. It's often referred to as the "human race".

LOL. There is only one organism: the organism.

Quote

I suspect that the apartheid regime in South Africa probably didn't see much difference between the Dravidian people and any other "non- White".

So you have a politically based antipathy towards the biological race concept? That's pseudoscience.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Stevie Wonder

[Prometheus]

26 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

These are hybrid groups defined by current location in addition to ancestry and scatter between the broad racial clusters we see. So your question is comparing apples to oranges, groups defined by location with groups defined by ancestry

That's the point everyone is making. The 'ancestral' groups you refer to didn't spring up independently in separate locations, there has been hybridisation, as you put it, since the proverbial day one.

Glad to see you agree that such clusterings are not useful.

[Stevie Wonder]

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

That's the point everyone is making. The 'ancestral' groups you refer to didn't spring up independently in separate locations, there has been hybridisation, as you put it, since the proverbial day one.

Glad to see you agree that such clusterings are not useful.

Well it seems people on this so-called science board are making a lot of "points" to try to dismiss the race concept. All of them easily dismissed failures of understanding of the very basics of taxonomy. Literally no groups of living things "spring up independently in separate locations". I'm truly dumbfounded by what you are writing. All living things have common ancestors. Very many subspecies exhibit gene flow and hybridisation. None of this impugns classification or utility.

[Prometheus]

7 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Literally no groups of living things "spring up independently in separate locations"

I'm glad to hear you say this, but you must understand that this debate exists to a backdrop of various political and religious motivations. For instance, it is common for creationists to come to this sight and expound that living things do spring up independently in separate locations, at god's will. With this in mind it is not unreasonable for people to try to find out whether this is what you in mind - no need to get emotional about it.

Regarding classification and utility Koti asked your thoughts on this matter, but you declined to answer. That leaves us to second guess your existing knowledge and so give non-specific answers resulting in you being 'dumbfounded'. If you have insight into this topic no need to be shy.

[John Cuthber]

55 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

So you have a politically based antipathy towards the biological race concept? That's pseudoscience.

Non sequitur.

The science shows that "race" as it's usually interpreted is unscientific. I'm not sure it would ever have been ethical if, for example, a doctor prescribed different drugs on the basis that "the patient looked Chinese" or whatever.

Of course, if he's looking for evidence of jaundice then skin colour going to make a valid difference but "race" isn't- ask anyone with a tan.

 

[Stevie Wonder]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The science shows that "race" as it's usually interpreted is unscientific.

Is this the "science" you're talking about John?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Since we all have the same ancestors (if you go back far enough) we are all the same race. It's often referred to as the "human race".

What a joke.

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Regarding classification and utility Koti asked your thoughts on this matter, but you declined to answer. That leaves us to second guess your existing knowledge and so give non-specific answers resulting in you being 'dumbfounded'. If you have insight into this topic no need to be shy.

Listing all of the potential uses of race in humans is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a valid biological concept. Would you argue that subspecies was a useless and non-biological concept? You have to explain what makes race the exception. I'm not giving "non-specific answers" because I didn't get sidetracked by an irrelevant question.

[John Cuthber]

26 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Is this the "science" you're talking about John?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Since we all have the same ancestors (if you go back far enough) we are all the same race. It's often referred to as the "human race".

What a joke.

No,

that was a joke.

But the point is valid- we do all have the same origins.

[Prometheus]

13 minutes ago, Stevie Wonder said:

Listing all of the potential uses of race in humans is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a valid biological concept. Would you argue that subspecies was a useless and non-biological concept? You have to explain what makes race the exception. I'm not giving "non-specific answers" because I didn't get sidetracked by an irrelevant question.

But race isn't an exception. People have answered this, but perhaps you missed this because you deemed them to be irrelevant to the question. Even the definition of species is somewhat subjective and the categorisations are made based on what is useful to the scientist studying it. Another scientist may use another categorisation because they want to explore a slightly different field - neither of them is THE real biologically correct concept. 

A good example of this can be found recently in oncology. Traditionally cancer has been classified by its origins in the body, lung cancer, breast cancer etc... But there is now a call to discard this classification system in favour of one which classes all cancers on the basis of their molecular similarity. A medical oncologist might then class a colon cancer the same as a renal cancer: the commonality in them suggesting a shared treatment regime. But the surgeon will still probably prefer to classify by organ of origin for obvious reasons. Two completely different classification systems, both rooted in biology, but neither the true biologically valis way of doing so.

Again, if you have a clear example of of where biologists distinguish populations of animals by some criterion, but then refuse to do so in an identical situation then please share: it would genuinely be interesting to see - don't leave us in the dark.