On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Mike Scoles went:
> Paul Brandon wrote:
>
> > Homo Sapiens is remarkable homogenous, genetically speaking.
>
> Then why are some some inherited diseases much more common is some
> groups than in others? And why is it OK to talk heritability of some
> characteristics based on group differences, but taboo to to talk about
> others?
I used to wonder this too. But my current understanding is that
"race," as defined on the basis of socially salient physical
characteristics (skin color, physiognomy), usually doesn't have much
to do with other genetic differences:
It is estimated that 85% of all possible human genetic variation
occurs between two persons from the same ethnic group, 8% occurs
between tribes or nations, and 7% occurs between the so-called
major races. Only 0.012% of the variation between humans in total
genetic material can be attributed to differences in race, although
many diseases are linked without proof to this small amount of
diversity.
Source:
http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15oct96/medrace.htm
Ritchie Witzig, MD, MPH. The Medicalization of Race: Scientific
Legitimization of a Flawed Social Construct. _Annals of Internal
Medicine_ 125: 675-679, 1996.
I predict that the decoding of the human genome will NOT provide a
scientific basis for racism--at least, not with regard to the "races"
to which we presently give labels. Quite the contrary: it will become
increasingly clear that our "race" labels lack biological meaning. Of
course, I wouldn't put it past us to invent some brand-new forms of
genomic bigotry that do have biological meaning.
--David Epstein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
