News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by tokenadult on Sunday April 26, 2009 @12:27PM (#580094)
I guess I'll tell a story about what I had hoped would be the condition of the world today. I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on Hacker News. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement.

One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest.

It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up.

One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking.

It's quite disappointing to me that there are still as many Americans as there are who classify their fellow human beings into Procrustean beds of "race" categories, especially now that it is known that human races have essentially nil biological significance. But it is progress that the United States has elected a President who has traceable African ancestry and "black" appearance. My late father said back in the 1990s, when Colin Powell was mulling a run for President, that it would be a good idea for America to elect a black president to begin to get over this issue. Even after Obama's election, I still saw ridiculous commentary such as the statement that Obama is the first President not of northern European ancestry--completely neglecting his ancestry through his mother, Ann Dunham. Maybe someday we will get used to the idea of viewing our fellow human beings as our fellow human beings, period, but I'm appalled that it is taking so long.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by space_cowboy on Sunday April 26, 2009 @12:52PM (#580129)
>"especially now that it is known that human races have essentially nil biological significance"

Citation? Your doctor isn't going to screen you for sickle cell if you're white.

As far as I know, race correlates with genetic isolation of ancestral groups, and there are differences between races.

Researchers looking for genetic diseases are careful to choose a mixture of races in their control sample.

I agree that people shouldn't be treated differently in civil society based on their race, and who doesn't? But they should certainly be treated differently based on their race by their doctors.

Race may become less significant in the future if more genetic mixture occurs with globalization. But for now, to say it has no biological significance sounds like wishful thinking.

Edit: I make some stronger claims here than I was ready to defend specifically with citations and literature. I overstate my case. However, to the extent of my current knowledge, you can tell where someone's ancestors came from solely by looking at their DNA, and I know that some diseases are more prevalent in people with certain ancestry. That suggests to me that there are distinct genetic lineages in the human population. As far as I know, "race is biologically meaningless" is a stretch.

However, it is true that the popular social conception of race is very different from any biologically defensible conception thereof. For example, a person with significant African ancestry in America is considered "black", even if that person also has significant ancestry from other places.

Saying that race is meaningless sounds to me like saying "there are no large phenotypically distinct subgroups in the human population". I think that is simply wrong.

Since "race" is such a socially charged word, perhaps it should be dropped and replaced with another word.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by tokenadult on Sunday April 26, 2009 @01:27PM (#580183)
Your doctor isn't going to screen you for sickle cell if you're white.

Another reply has already shown the error of thinking that the sickle cell trait is confined to populations identified as "white." It is not. What is your proposed definition of races on biological grounds, and what is your citation for a scientific consensus on that?

See

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strange-Fruit-Sides-Wrong-Debate/dp/...

for citations to recent primary research literature backing up the statement that "race" as now construed in society has very little medical usefulness. The author is a neurobiologist.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by space_cowboy on Sunday April 26, 2009 @01:33PM (#580190)
I agree that race is a social construct to some degree. For example, in America a person is considered "black" if he has one parent of African ancestry and one parent of European ancestry. However, I am not sure that the idea that "race is biologically meaningless" is defensible. I hope it is. But I wonder what we tell ourselves if the evidence says that it's not.

I know you can tell where a person's ancestors recently came from based on their DNA, and that there are certainly distinct genetic lineages in the human population.

I am open to reading more literature and articles on the subject. I am merely stating that according to the extent of my current knowledge, the idea that "race is meaningless" is suspect.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by socjus on Sunday April 26, 2009 @02:17PM (#580227)
"I agree that people shouldn't be treated differently in civil society based on their race, and who doesn't? But they should certainly be treated differently based on their race by their doctors."

Maybe they should be treated differently based on their specific disease-related alleles rather than a blunt instrument like race.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by space_cowboy on Sunday April 26, 2009 @02:30PM (#580236)
If your and your spouse's ancestors are from Africa or the Mediterranean basin (as people corrected me above), there is a greater chance that your offspring will have certain diseases. If you meet the above criteria and your child has certain disease symptoms, you might want to spend resources to diagnose certain diseases that you wouldn't check for if your ancestors were, say, Chinese. Are you saying that we should throw out this information instead, out of principle? Should we start screening Chinese people for sickle cell?
Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by socjus on Sunday April 26, 2009 @02:47PM (#580255)
It sounds as if you're no longer talking about race but ancestral nationality.
Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by aswanson on Sunday April 26, 2009 @12:58PM (#580140)
Your doctor isn't going to screen you for sickle cell if you're white.

Do italians, greeks, arabs, and other mediterreanean europeans count as white? Because doc should take a look at them too, I think:

http://www.emro.who.int/Publications/EMHJ/0506/09.htm

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/c...

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by space_cowboy on Sunday April 26, 2009 @01:11PM (#580165)
Exceptions that prove the rule, because of historical migration and trade patterns that link those areas. Identical recurrent mutations in the human genome are rare.

Do you believe that if you took a mitochondrial DNA sample from an Indian, a Chinese person, a person of European descent, and an African living in America that a researcher would not be able to tell the difference?

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by aswanson on Sunday April 26, 2009 @01:49PM (#580208)
Not sure, depends upon the specific case -- probably correct in a wide, stochastic sense.

Immaterial, though. I was merely refuting your incorrect statement in the GP.

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by tokenadult on Sunday April 26, 2009 @01:42PM (#580202)
Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by davidw on Sunday April 26, 2009 @12:59PM (#580142)
Sickle cell anemia isn't somehow limited to black people:

http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/information/resrep/res14.ht...

Re:Nate Silver: Does race affect votes? by carbon8 on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:33PM (#580534)
"Race" is basically an archaic, outdated and inaccurate cultural construct and taxonomic concept. It resulted from perceived differences due to biological traits, cultural differences and self-identification. For a long time there were attempts to keep it in the scientific domain, but it's clear now that it's really just an archaic classification system that people relied on before modern science (racial classification does not accurately reflect human genetic variation, often quite the opposite) and widespread contact with disparate population groups.