Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

by New Scientist

Thanks to SPSfor the link.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14345-ten-commandments-of-race-and-genetics-issued.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn14345

'Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

Even with the human genome in hand, geneticists are split about how to deal with issues of race, genetics and medicine.

Some favor using genetic markers to sort humans into groups based on ancestral origin – groups that may show meaningful health differences. Others argue that genetic variations across the human species are too gradual to support such divisions and that any categorisation based on genetic differences is arbitrary.

These issues have been discussed in depth by a multidisciplinary group – ranging from geneticists and psychologists to historians and philosophers – led by Sandra Soo-Jin Lee of Stanford University, California.

Now the group has released a set of 10 guiding principles for the scientific community, published as an open letter in this week's Genome Biology.

1. All races are created equal

No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. Equality is a moral value central to the idea of human rights; discrimination against any group should never be tolerated.

2. An Argentinian and an Australian are more likely to have differences in their DNA than two Argentinians

Groups of human beings have moved around throughout history. Those that share the same culture, language or location tend to have different genetic variations than other groups. This is becoming less true, though, as populations mix.

3. A person's history isn't written only in his or her genes

Everyone's genetic material carries a useful, though incomplete, map of his or her ancestors' travels. Studies looking for health disparities between individuals shouldn't rely solely on this identity. They should also consider a person's cultural background.

4: Members of the same race may have different underlying genetics

Social definitions of what it means to be "Hispanic" or "black" have changed over time. People who claim the same race may actually have very different genetic histories.

5. Both nature and nurture play important parts in our behaviors and abilities

Trying to use genetic differences between groups to show differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment.

6. Researchers should be careful about using racial groups when designing experiments

When scientists decide to divide their subjects into groups based on ethnicity, they need to be clear about why and how these divisions are made to avoid contributing to stereotypes.

7. Medicine should focus on the individual, not the race

Although some diseases are connected to genetic markers, these markers tend to be found in many different racial groups. Overemphasising genetics may promote racist views or focus attention on a group when it should be on the individual.

8. The study of genetics requires cooperation between experts in many different fields

Human disease is the product of a mishmash of factors: genetic, cultural, economic and behavioral. Interdisciplinary efforts that involve the social sciences are more likely to be successful.

9. Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions

Policy makers should be careful about simplifying and politicising scientific data. When presenting science to the public, the media should address the limitations of race-related research.

10. Genetics 101 should include a history of racism

Any high school or college student learning about genetics should also learn about misguided attempts in the past to use science to justify racism. New textbooks should be developed for this purpose.

The Stanford group didn't always agree when coming up with these ideas. Predictably enough, the biomedical scientists tended to think of race in neutral, clinical terms; the social scientists and scholars of the humanities argued that concepts of race cannot be washed clean of their cultural and historical legacies.

But both groups, according to the letter, recognise the power of the gene in the public imagination and the historical dangers of its misrepresentation as deterministic and immutable.

Journal reference: Genome Biology (DOI: 10.1186/gb-2007-9-7-404)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 94 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #212941 by jharps on July 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

"1. All races are *created* equal"

WTF!?

Other Comments by jharps

2. Comment #212942 by History_Junky on July 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

As a man of color I enjoyed this article. Thier is nothing more disgusting then people using genes, dna and pseudo-science and pseudo-history to get across their racist agenda. The danger of such propaganda is that whenever a group of people pretend that they understand history and science they cause allot of harm to the actual institutions.

All youd have to do is stumble across a white pride forum on the internet and the amount of people who spit around incorrect information about DNA to get thier point across and combine it with fake history is absolutely disgusting.

Thanks, this was a good read.

Other Comments by History_Junky

3. Comment #212945 by MPhil on July 17, 2008 at 10:35 pm

I'm sorry, but this "Equality is a moral value..."-crap is bullshit! Diversity should be valued... no two persons are the same - they are not equal. It's not equality that should be valued - it's individuality and equal treatment.

...honestly! I see this mistake made far too often

Other Comments by MPhil

4. Comment #212946 by rho on July 17, 2008 at 10:38 pm

"1. All races are *created* equal"

WTF!?

I was thinking exactly the same.
How can a group of scientists come up with a statement like that?

Other Comments by rho

5. Comment #212948 by Ascaphus on July 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Sorry, I have to disagree on this one. Fear of information can be just as dangerous as racism. To think that these people can judge a priori which information will be crucial in diagnoses is just as absurd as the thought that science should be adjusted to fit someone's favorite holy scriptures.

Number one is a value agreed upon in our culture, and is accepted as true no matter what biological differences are or are not discovered. Number two is weird. The next four are subjects of active study, and that this group of people think they can just make a declaration and stop all study and research is just as great an insult as creationism. Nine and ten are pretty obvious, and once again many ongoing studies are providing good info on this all the time. If medical practitioners abide by seven and eight it will cost people their lives. Scientific medicine should be allowed the best information available. If in number eight they mean that psychologists and sociologists will help people deal with both the methods and limitations of medicine, the response is simply 'of course.' If, on the other hand, they are meaning that the social sciences will have a hand in delimiting what answers the geneticists, biologists, and evolutionary psychologists are 'allowed' to come up with, then I am not on their side any more than I am for Intelligent Design getting 'equal time.'

Matt

Edit - Junky: That people have falsely reported genetic differences or misused science to justify propaganda does not mean that all science describing genetic differences is false or is propaganda. These 'declarations' to that effect are no more truthful or capable of even discerning the truth, than the religious commandments they are named after. The 'pseudo' in either science or history must be established on a case by case basis, and cannot be determined ahead of time simply by dislike of the outcome.

Other Comments by Ascaphus

6. Comment #212951 by mordacious1 on July 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm

All races are created equal.

Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued.

This is one of my pet peeves. Grrrr. It is a science article damn it.

[edit] Plus, in the title, they only capitalize Ten Commandments'. Holy moly.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #212952 by kraut on July 17, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Created Equal:
At least put there "born" instead of cowering before the theists.

What a lie! Not two of us are "created" or "born" equal.
Even equal treatment is nonsense - or would you treat a child with severe mental handicap the same as a child genius?
Who gets treated "unequally" by "equal" treatment?

I believe in giving the opportunities to each individual to develop to the full potential it is unequally possible.

Other Comments by kraut

8. Comment #212954 by 8teist on July 17, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Fuckin A Mord,
"Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions."

So the idiot journalist comes up with religious twattery tor a headline .

It seems to be a load of self evident PC crap.

Other Comments by 8teist

9. Comment #212955 by MPhil on July 17, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Yeah, that's what I meant...

"each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others"

And of course a situation should be created that gives every individual an equal opportunity to develop its potential and participate in public life.

Other Comments by MPhil

10. Comment #212958 by Christopher Davis on July 17, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Not much original content here for anyone who has ever done any serious reading or thinking on this subject. Although I did find number 10 to be a novel suggestion.

jharps, Yeah I caught the "created" part too. Also, it's a good thing that that went on to specify morally equal. Whether it's politically correct or not, there are some things that are not equal among the "races". For example, does anyone ever expect to see a Norwegian win the Boston Marathon? How about an Ethiopian take the World's Strongest Man contest?

It's not racist to acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is for either of these events to occur, even if you (rightly) attribute it to the differences in gene frequencies in these two populations.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

11. Comment #212960 by PristinePanda on July 17, 2008 at 10:59 pm

The term "created" does not necessarily imply a theistic view of the universe. To view the term as implying a creator in this sense is to take the statement too literally - often times scientists and others use the term conveniently to refer to our present condition as distinguished via evolution - created via change over time.

We were created just as everything else was - albeit not by a deity but by natural selection.

Other Comments by PristinePanda

12. Comment #212963 by Ascaphus on July 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Comment 11 by Panda:

People might have been a little more likely to cut them some slack, but they brought it on by using the religious implications of 'commandments' and the absurd list of stultifying declarations - the antithesis of science.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

13. Comment #212971 by Roland_F on July 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

3. A person's history isn't written only in his or her genes

So Lamarck is back now ? I thought the inheritance of acquired traits is long refuted.
And why is this not valid for the future but only the history ?

5. Both nature and nurture play important parts in our behaviors and abilities

Maybe someone should read Steven Pinker 'The blank slate' to see some arguments against it.

...... the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment.

There are genetic advantages based on race: see how elegant black basketball, soccer etc. players are moving compared with whites. And anyone want to bet against that the Olympic sprint disciplines are all won from blacks ?
Tibetan Sherpas have a genetic predisposition for higher oxygen transport of the blood, beside the higher level of red blood cells based on the living in high altitude.
Innuit have smaller noses they don't freeze easily, Scandinavians have very white skin to absorb more light to produce vitamin D .... and there are many more genetic dispositions for different races best adapted for the specific environment.

Lot's of scientific progress has been hindered with the 'political correctness' issues, so what is so wrong with a high diversity of genetic predispositions ?

Why does the author not just highlight the topic 10 and promote the equal treatment ?

Other Comments by Roland_F

14. Comment #212973 by MPhil on July 18, 2008 at 12:06 am

Roland,
Re: Lamarck....

...almost true - look up "Epigenetics"

Re: Pinker...

... his position (brilliant though it is) isn't scientific consensus. There are valid positions that differ quite radically from his.

...just two things I thought worth mentioning.

Other Comments by MPhil

15. Comment #212977 by Roland_F on July 18, 2008 at 12:21 am

14. Comment #212973 by MPhil : Pinker ... isn't scientific consensus.

Usually science should be about truth and proper discription of the facts, Pinkers area is unfortunately often littered with 'politically correctness taboos'

Other Comments by Roland_F

16. Comment #212979 by robotaholic on July 18, 2008 at 12:22 am

as a person of 'color' I didn't care for this particular 'piece' -

11. we're all the same 'race' and we just have different colored hair

Other Comments by robotaholic

17. Comment #212982 by Al420 on July 18, 2008 at 12:31 am

Why are some of you getting so worked up about "All races are created equal"? It is clearly a reference to the Declaration of Independence, not some underhanded sneaking of Creationism into a scientific document.
If anything, I think it being called the "ten commandments" is just a way of making it easier for Christians to swallow.

Other Comments by Al420

18. Comment #212987 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 12:43 am

A1420,

I'm definitely not "worked up" over that particular wording, I just found it amusing. Whether the writer is pandering to the religious or referencing the Declaration of Independence, it still seems to be a poor word choice.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

19. Comment #212988 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 12:50 am

"11. we're all the same 'race' and we just have different colored hair"---robotaholic

I'd argue that there is more genetic disparity between the socially constructed groups that people identify as "races" than just those genes that determine hair color.

Acknowledging group differences and exploring why these differences exist is not racism. It is the "celebration of diversity" that so many people love to pay lip service to.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

20. Comment #212989 by weesam on July 18, 2008 at 12:51 am

Roland F says:
"black basketball, soccer etc. players are moving compared with whites"

wtf?

George Best, Johann Cruyff, Eric Cantona, Maradonna, Franz Beckenbauer - all whities! And the best players that ever kicked a ball.

In fact, Germany are the most successful international football team ever, taking into consideration their World Cup and European Cup final and semi-final placings.

it is very easy to say that certain races are better at certain sports without looking at the cultural background.

Boxing for example, attracts poor immigrants and those from lower social classes. Used to be poor white boys, then Italians, then blacks and Hispanics, now Asians are more and more making it to the top levels.

I would also very much expect to see a Scandinavian win a marathon. White Europeans have had great success in long-distance running.

Might I ask if you think genetic differences extend to intelligence? You mention sports, but shy away from saying "look at all the Swiss bankers" or "Japanese Engineers" or "British Mathematicians".

Other Comments by weesam

21. Comment #212994 by dyak on July 18, 2008 at 1:18 am

Roland:

Funny that - Africans are the best basketballers, just like the Australian race has evolved to become the best cricketers.

Other Comments by dyak

22. Comment #212995 by Al420 on July 18, 2008 at 1:20 am

"I'd argue that there is more genetic disparity between the socially constructed groups that people identify as "races" than just those genes that determine hair color. "

Of course there are differences between races!
We womenfolk come across the same problem with hypersensitivity to sexism as 'minorities' [sorry, but I lack a better word(and I know women are also considered a minority)] do when it comes to racism. Of course we are different. The problem comes when we start saying being different is bad, or that even the IDEA of difference is bad.

Other Comments by Al420

23. Comment #212997 by micfur on July 18, 2008 at 1:22 am

"An Argentinian and an Australian are more likely to have differences in their DNA than two Argentinians"

Does that make sense? Surely it should say "An Argentinian and an Australian are equally likely to have differences....."

Why is it more likely???

Other Comments by micfur

24. Comment #212999 by weesam on July 18, 2008 at 1:31 am

It makes sense to me!

If you put three people in a room: two Argentinians and one Australian (and lets say they were natives or Aboriginals rather than recent immigrants) then it would be very likely - a flying certainty - that the differences between the Argentinians and the Australian would be marked (stature, skin colour, hair colour and texture, facial features), and differences between the two Argentinians small (sharing common features).

And that these differences could indeed seen in a blood test.

It's blindingly obvious!

Japanese look different to Australians who look different to Americans who look different to Europeans. And these differences are being (and have been) diluted by immigration.

Other Comments by weesam

25. Comment #213001 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 1:43 am

Might I ask if you think genetic differences extend to intelligence? You mention sports, but shy away from saying "look at all the Swiss bankers" or "Japanese Engineers" or "British Mathematicians".---weesam

Of course you can ask.

Absolutely not. The genetic differences that contribute to how "intelligent" someone is are poorly understood and I suspect quite numerous. Furthermore, no one has yet to come up with a really good way of defining and measuring "intelligence". When you throw in the obvious developmental and cultural factors that influence "intelligence"....no, the waters become way to muddy to make anything but the most basic observations. Observations which have obvious answers and little meaning.

When it comes to sports however...

The ability to run fast is a byproduct of a suite of physical characteristics that are well known and well understood (the same can be said about the ability to lift and move heavy objects). It just so happens that the physical characteristics that make running 26 back-to-back-to-back---5 minute miles possible are far more common among people who have genetic legacies that derive from east Africa.

So I'm sorry, I wouldn't get my hopes up that anyone with a last name ending in -ski will win a major international running event anytime soon.

I've got to go eat and do a bit of work, but I intend to post a reply regarding the "cultural background" portion of your post. I don't totally disagree with you, but culture alone does not have anywhere near the explanatory power to explain the state of professional athletics in the U.S.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

26. Comment #213003 by PopeStig on July 18, 2008 at 1:47 am

Umm...Christoper Davis,

Boston Marathon has been won twice by a Norwegian. New York Marathon has been won 10 times and London Marathon 6 times.

Grete Waitz (9 times New York Marathon winner) and Ingrid Kristiansen.

Both ran in the 80s.

Marathon is just not a popular sport in Norway, where you'll find far more people playing soccer, handball, orienteering or take part in the national sports of skiing and hiking.

As far as I know, Marathon and Cross-Country Running are the most popular sports in Ethiopia and Kenya both, and the multi-medal winning athletes are national heroes the same way the cross-country skiers are heroes in Norway.

If it was a matter of genetics I would have expected Ethiopia and Kenya to dominate Orienteering as well, but in this sport the Scandinavians seem to rule the roost. Probably due to its popularity there.

Also, given the special diets a lot of weight-lifters are on, I would be very surprised if the World's Strongers Man came out of Ethiopia or Kenya anytime soon.

Other Comments by PopeStig

27. Comment #213004 by Roland_F on July 18, 2008 at 1:49 am

20. Comment #212989 by weesam : George Best, Johann Cruyff, Eric Cantona, Maradonna, Franz Beckenbauer .. And the best players that ever kicked a ball.

It was about the 'elegant' bodily movements and speed, not necessarily the ability 'to read a game', to hit the ball precisely and so on, so soccer is indeed not the best example.

In fact, Germany are the most successful international football team ever, taking into consideration their World Cup and European Cup final and semi-final placings.

This success is more about discipline,tactic and stamina, not about a beautiful play and technical skills. And Brazil is not competing in the Euro soccer championship, so comparison should be limited to World championship.

I am not too familiar with American football, but it seems that most quarterbacks are white, where wide receivers who have to run very fast and 'light-footed' to escape the defense are blacks. And most blacks are able to run faster in short sprint, longer in Marathon (mostly form Ethiopia or Kenya highlands), jump higher (an advantage in basketball) and so on ... so races can have different bodily abilities which is based on the ancestry and the natural selection for heat resistance, cold resistance, faster running, adoption to high altitude, so this shouldn't be a taboo for political correctness - that's the point I wanted to make.

Other Comments by Roland_F

28. Comment #213005 by weesam on July 18, 2008 at 1:57 am

Chris I have to disagree with you, and agree with PopeStig.

Although there are obvious differences between the races when it comes to physical characteristics, at the top level of international sports it is negligible. (we are talking of seconds over 26 miles; thousands of a second over 100m)

New Zealanders are better at rugby than Americans. But you would say that is a cultural difference rather than racial. Surely?

Kenyans are good at running long-distances. Have you any data on participation in various athletic events in Kenya? Is it not entirely possible that athletic children are "pushed" (for want of a better word) towards long distance running than, say, football? Or children see the success of Kenyan runners and want to follow?

In the 80s, British runners dominated middle distance running - 800m, 1500m, mile, 3000m.

If we were having this conversation then, would you say that the British were racially superior to the Kenyans at running?

Look at the recent explosion of (white) Russian boxers in the heavyweight division - a division long dominated by black Americans.

Now, is this reversal a racial thing? Or is it simply that more Russians are trying and winning at the sport at this time?

Other Comments by weesam

29. Comment #213007 by OverUsedChewToy on July 18, 2008 at 2:01 am

I think Equity, rather than Equality, should be what is valued. It's a subtle difference.

Further, race doesn't exist, so I don't know what this article is going on about. statement 1 contradicts statement 2.

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

30. Comment #213010 by weesam on July 18, 2008 at 2:08 am

Roland

yes, Brazil have won more World Cups than Germany, but if you take into consideration world cup final and semi-final appearances, Germany are still the most consistently successful Football team, having reached more semi-finals and finals than any other.

And certainly, this success has everything to do with foot-balling SKILL.

As to elegance - those players named are the most elegant players I have ever seen. Just look at George Best. A working class white boy from Northern Ireland - a sublime skill and elegance never matched.

Now this argument is becoming PC. Because there is a delineation (at least here) between physical ability and mental ability.

It seems that some would say that physical ability is obvious to characterise as racial, by casually throwing away any cultural and social influence; but mental ability is NOT able to be characterised racially, because cultural and social influence CANNOT be discarded.

Which is silly.

Other Comments by weesam

31. Comment #213012 by stereoroid on July 18, 2008 at 2:22 am

#7: nonsense. There are medical conditions that are heavily biased towards specific races, such as sickle-cell disease (Africans) and Multiple Sclerosis (Caucasians). Should research in to the genetic components of those diseases be compromised by political correctness? I expect researchers in these fields will just laugh and go back to work.

Other Comments by stereoroid

32. Comment #213016 by Roland_F on July 18, 2008 at 2:29 am

And certainly, this success has everything to do with foot-balling SKILL

and teamwork ! 11 technically brilliant solo players not working together will never win.
And instinct, like Austrian player Krankel once mentioned after kicking Germany out of the World championship : everybody would be able to score this easy goal from that near distance - but not everybody would have lurking at the correct location.

A lot can be done with training, but still genetic predisposition is mandatory independent if black or white skin.

Another topic is gender differences which are often hit by the political correctness bat and are obfuscated or remain unmentioned therefore: most males (around 85%) are left brained (good analytical and spatial skills) most females are right brained (good communication skills).
So analytical and spatial intelligence versus verbal and emotional intelligence, I do not understand why this obvious differences have to be suppressed from any discussion to be 'political correct'.

Other Comments by Roland_F

33. Comment #213018 by bugaboo on July 18, 2008 at 2:33 am

29. Comment #213007 by OverUsedChewToy

Just a thought on why this has been drawn up.

There may be implications for future pharmacogentetics where drugs are tailored to patients with specific genotypes. Receptor antagonists for example may only act efficiently if the person has a particular allele for a given receptor and it may be that the receptor may be more prevalent within a particular ethnic group. This will mean that the bean counters will weigh up the cost benefit ratios for supplying drugs.
However, in the not too distant future cheap, rapid sequencing of genomes will become available so considerations of ethnicity could become moot.

Other Comments by bugaboo

34. Comment #213024 by Szkeptik on July 18, 2008 at 3:05 am

7. Medicine should focus on the individual, not the race

Ok, what happens if they come across and AIDS vaccine that works only on black people? Shelf it because it's racist?

Other Comments by Szkeptik

35. Comment #213025 by hungarianelephant on July 18, 2008 at 3:05 am

There may be implications for future pharmacogentetics where drugs are tailored to patients with specific genotypes. Receptor antagonists for example may only act efficiently if the person has a particular allele for a given receptor and it may be that the receptor may be more prevalent within a particular ethnic group. This will mean that the bean counters will weigh up the cost benefit ratios for supplying drugs.
However, in the not too distant future cheap, rapid sequencing of genomes will become available so considerations of ethnicity could become moot.

Yes. However, this is not just a future possibility. It's happening right now. Here's an example - FDA approved treatment for heart failure in black patients specifically.

http://investors.nitromed.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130535&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=723543&highlight=

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

36. Comment #213026 by Saerain on July 18, 2008 at 3:11 am

25. Comment #213001 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 1:43 am

The genetic differences that contribute to how "intelligent" someone is are poorly understood and I suspect quite numerous. Furthermore, no one has yet to come up with a really good way of defining and measuring "intelligence".

'Intelligence' is indeed too vague. It is likely more reasonable to break it down into components like curiosity, perception, interpretation, intuition, and memory.

Other Comments by Saerain

37. Comment #213028 by hungarianelephant on July 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

While we're on the subject of race and sporting ability, it's worth noting the capacity of sport to break down racism and racial stereotyping.

When John Barnes arrived at Liverpool, some fans threw bananas at him. This always seemed a pretty odd way to greet a player who had been brought in because of his skill, but what was interesting was what happened afterwards. There wasn't some big clampdown by the club, or posturing in the media. He simply got on with his job.

It's difficult to cheer on a black player as your appointed champion, while continuing to be a white racist. The cognitive dissonance means that something is eventually going to give, and in general people will cling onto their irrational attachments to football teams long after their irrational attachment to racist views. Few football fans in England now remotely care what colour the players are, and only care about nationality to the extent that it's relevant to team communication, absence on international duty or homesickness.

I mention Barnes only because his treatment was at the extreme end. There was a similar pattern in many other places.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

38. Comment #213034 by PopeStig on July 18, 2008 at 3:32 am

I am not too familiar with American football, but it seems that most quarterbacks are white, where wide receivers who have to run very fast and 'light-footed' to escape the defense are blacks. And most blacks are able to run faster in short sprint, longer in Marathon (mostly form Ethiopia or Kenya highlands), jump higher (an advantage in basketball) and so on ... so races can have different bodily abilities which is based on the ancestry and the natural selection for heat resistance, cold resistance, faster running, adoption to high altitude, so this shouldn't be a taboo for political correctness - that's the point I wanted to make.

I agree with you that genetic differences shouldn't be a taboo to discuss, but it needs to be discussed at a different level than at comparing 'blacks' with 'whites' or Europeans with Asians. Given that us humans started out in Africa there is (to my understanding) bigger genetic differences within Africa than you'll in some cases find between Africans and other groups. For instance, the people that do well at short sprint are big and powerful and often of West-African origin, whereas people that do well at Marathon/Cross-Country running are significantly skinnier and from Kenya/Ethiopia. In for instance Kenya, a large portion of the successful runners come from a tribe that represent 10% of the population.

I think if the discussion is focused on more rigorously defined genetic groups than the poorly defined 'races', accusations of racism won't be as frequent or (sometimes) as justified.

Other Comments by PopeStig

39. Comment #213035 by bugaboo on July 18, 2008 at 3:32 am

37. Comment #213028 by hungarianelephant

I mention Barnes only because his treatment was at the extreme end. There was a similar pattern in many other places.

Similar thing happened in Glasgow when Celtic fans through bananas at Mark Walters who had signed for Rangers. Whenever it comes up in conversation now the Celtic fans feel very ashamed about that episode. We'll get there in the end i hope.

PS thanks for the link to BiDil.

Other Comments by bugaboo

40. Comment #213036 by Roland_F on July 18, 2008 at 3:33 am

37. Comment #213028 by hungarianelephant : When John Barnes arrived at Liverpool, some fans threw bananas at him.

Reminds me at some black player in Germany: when he was playing for the 'enemy' team from the neighboring city the same happened : jungle sounds 'Uh Uh Uh Uh' & bananas waved and the like. The next season he changed to 'our' team he was the darling of the crowds.
Reminds me at some political cabaret satire which was about this topic: " hey blacky from the jungle - banana, banana" - what next year he is playing for us ? What an excellent player and how fast and elegant he is running around our defenders like slalom posts.

Other Comments by Roland_F

41. Comment #213039 by JanChan on July 18, 2008 at 3:47 am

I think the "ten commandments" just broke commandment 9:

Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions

As it is said, there is no doubt that eugenics work, just look at cattle and dogs or any domesticated plant. The question of what we should do knowing that isn't a question for science, hence keep point 10 out of biology, and point 1 is just plain wrong.

Other Comments by JanChan

42. Comment #213043 by HunterZolomon on July 18, 2008 at 3:56 am

Why do you need to draw up 10 pre-conceived Commandments? The scientific method should be enough. A truth is still true, even if it's inconvenient or non-PC.

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

43. Comment #213044 by micfur on July 18, 2008 at 3:58 am

Comment #212999 (24) by weesam.

Sheesh, i completely mis-read what the OP was saying. I thought they were saying an Argentinian would have more in common with an Australian rather than a fellow Argentinian.

Doh! I need more sleep. Thanks for the correction.

Other Comments by micfur

44. Comment #213047 by notsobad on July 18, 2008 at 4:09 am

History_Junky:
As a man of color

I have yet to meet a colourless person.
Don't you realize that dividing people into white and those of colour is the basic of racism (on both sides no less)?

Anyway, fuck political correctness.

Other Comments by notsobad

45. Comment #213051 by onanyes on July 18, 2008 at 4:52 am

By "all races are created equal" I think that they mean is that all people have inherent equal value as human beings; think "equivalence classes" rather than "equality".

In other words, "don't use science to justify racism".

Of course, it isn't racist to say that we shouldn't test, say, a Swede for sickle cell anemia.

Other Comments by onanyes

46. Comment #213055 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 5:20 am

Damn. Hate it that it took me this long to get back.

First order of business is to wipe the egg off my face. When it comes to sports, I guess I'm still a bit sexist.

PopeStig, you are right regarding female marathoners, I should have stipulated.

Male athletes. I'm talking about male athletes. If you limit yourself to male athletes, you have to go way back to find a winner of non-east African descent.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree with both you and weesam regarding the your view that culture plays a bigger part than genetics. Like I said, I'm going to confine my argument to male athletes...bear with me and I think you will see why.

You said... "As far as I know, Marathon and Cross-Country Running are the most popular sports in Ethiopia and Kenya both, and the multi-medal winning athletes are national heroes the same way the cross-country skiers are heroes in Norway."

100% true. But you are confusing correlation with causation. In other words...are Ethiopians and Kenyans good runners because running is popular, or is running popular in those countries because people are good at it?

Obviuosly this is a chicken and egg argument, but we can get a good indication of which factor takes precedent by looking at the bodyfat levels of competetive swimmers.

As far as bodyfat percentages go, swimmers are some of the fattest athletes around...and I'm not talking about the old people you see dog paddling around at the YMCA, I'm talking about Olympic caliber athletes.

Now Olympic swimmers don't look fat, in fact they have very nice physiques. What accounts for this is that their bodyfat is distributed rather evenly all over their body. This is a great attribute for a swimmer. It helps with bouyancy, but doesn't create drag. It also helps keep them warm.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

47. Comment #213056 by Mitchell Gilks on July 18, 2008 at 5:21 am

I don't like the idea of science being anything other than morally neutral in research and developement. When application of our aquired knowledge is brought to the table, then moral implications should be discussed.

I don't know what "inherently superior" means. Isn't that like saying "intrinsically delicious"? Doesn't such a thing require a context and an evaluator?

I also agree completely with MPhil that talking about equality of individuals is ludicrous, and couldn't be more absurd. It very much is equal to a creationist sentiment.

I'm a weak chubby vegetarian. I'm not even remotely equal in athletic ability to middle-school athletes. Equity of moral and ethical consideration in no way necessitates equality of mental, or physical ability. Beyond severe mental inability, in the range that they cannot experience discomfort, or desires, I don't understand why it should be relevant to my moral consideration.

If you need to determine someone's ability to throw a ball a long distance, run at a high speed for a prolonged period, solve mathematical problems, or quickly and properly intellectualize complex concepts, before you decide whether it would be wrong to punch them in the face...then I really think you have some extraordinally skewed views on morality.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

48. Comment #213061 by weesam on July 18, 2008 at 5:31 am

Chris said
100% true. But you are confusing correlation with causation. In other words...are Ethiopians and Kenyans good runners because running is popular, or is running popular in those countries because people are good at it?

I would say because running is popular. The percentile difference in top athletes, from wherever, is tiny; much too small to be able to make definite distinctions.

I've said it before, but how would you explain the dominance of British middle distance runners in the 80s? They were wiping the floor with the Africans. It would be ludicrous to say that gentics have changed in 30 years so that British runners can no longer compete at that level, whilst Kenyans dominate.

In other words, there are other athletes of the potential ability of Sebastian Coe in Britain, - just not running!

To make it more crass - why are Kenyans poor skiers? Obviously it is not popular. If there was as much participation in competitive downhill skiing by Kenyans, as for example, Austrians, then you could draw conclusions.

Ever see a black swimmer?

Chinese - gymnasts
Australians - cricket, swimming and rugby (damn them!)
USA - Athletic
East Africans - Long distance running
Europeans - Football

Obviously all genetic without a hint of cultural preference.

Other Comments by weesam

49. Comment #213065 by Ishruul on July 18, 2008 at 5:45 am

So it has come to this.

Politically Correct Guide for the scientist. Let's flavor facts for the sake of morality. Let us bear this mask of hypocrisy proudly!

Hello mr. fly, do you know the Constitution will soon apply to you too. And by the way you're not a fly, you're a visible-minority-due-to-size-with-different-view-and-belief-and-i-have-to-respect-your-genetical-difference-leading-you-to-eat-shit-and-lay-your-eggs-in-shit-and-leaving-your-babies-to-fend-for-themselves-in-shit.

The greatest, biggest enemy of all humanity: INFANTILISM!

Other Comments by Ishruul

50. Comment #213070 by Christopher Davis on July 18, 2008 at 5:52 am

continuing post#46...

What I am describing is an inherited phenotype. What I mean is that this even distribution of bodyfat is not an effect of swimming...you are either born with it or you are not. Furthermore, it is a phenotype that is a prerequisite for Olympic level swimming.

So if I identify a population where this phenotype is more common than it is in other populations, I can expet to find more potential top level swimmers within that population.

Furthermore since people tend to gravitate towards what they are good at, it is likely that I will find more people who enjoy, and thus participate in this activity among that population than I do in other populations.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis