John Kerry presents the stem cell debate as a matter of setting science free - neither this ad nor this press release suggest that there are substantive ethical issues that ought to be considered.
However, not all Earnest Libs believe in science quite so earnestly when the subject changes slightly. The NY Times Magazine has a fascinating article about avenues of further research into the human genome.
The gist - some scientists belive that the human genome may show a genetic basis for race-based differences amongst people; there is already clinical evidence that certain pharmaceuticals can be effective in treating certain races, but not others. In fact, the drug described in this article is a life-saver in treating black patients with certain complications related to heart disease. Progress advances, right? Wrong!
Let me summarize the "opposed to science" concerns as follows - Race, you may not have been taught, is a social construct - there are no fundamental differences between the races. Any attempt to establish such differences harks back to the Nazis and the eugenics movement; if racial differences were to be established, reactionaries and racists would caricature certain races. And heaven forbid that racial traits associated with intelligence should be identified. Perhaps it would be better, some argue, not to look at all. Saving lives is a good thing, but is the price too high in terms of social division?
From the article:
For race-based niche marketing to work, drug developers first will have to explore the ways that blacks, whites, Asians and Native Americans are biologically different. And the more they explore and describe such differences, critics say, the more they play into the hands of racists. Even the broad-minded might inadvertently use such information to stigmatize, isolate or categorize the races. Could it be that this terrain is too dangerous to let anyone, no matter how well meaning, try to navigate it?
Incredible! Don't these critics believe in science? It turns out that the author does, but cautiously. Here is the conclusion:
Some critics worry that the more we find out about genetic differences among people of different racial groups, the more such information will be misinterpreted or abused. Already there are fears that the biological measures of racial differences might lead to pronouncements about inherent differences in such complex traits as intelligence, athletic ability, aggressiveness or susceptibility to addiction. Once such measures are given the imprimatur of science, especially genomic science, loathsome racist stereotypes can take on the sheen of received wisdom.
Looking for racial genetic markers does indeed risk creating categories that can get us in trouble. It bears remembering, however, that the ''slippery slope'' argument is itself a danger. Rather than abort a whole field of research because it might bolster cranks and demagogues, maybe one solution to our national angst over race is to let scientists hunt down the facts -- facts that will no doubt affirm, one way or another, that the human genome is indeed our common thread.
The author tends to leave the critics unidentified, so it may not be fair to draw broad generalizations. But life is unfair! My guess is that I could find plenty of lefties who support stem cell research without reservation, but would be opposed to research into race-based genetics. But that is only a guess.
Now, in an uncharacteristic moment of fairness, I should point out that, on a better day, I would attempt to find out whether "the critics" have actually tried to block this research - have they advocated for restrictions on Federal funding, or for certain laws, or put public pressure on institutions engaging in the research?
I welcome input on this question. And if "the critics" haven't taken these steps, what's the matter with them - I am even more annoyed by passive hypocrites!
MORE: Fairly stunning quote from the article:
Geneticists, too, have gone on record as saying that race has no biological significance. ''The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis,'' said J. Craig Venter in June 2000, standing beside President Bill Clinton to announce the completion of the first draft of the human genome sequence. Venter was at the time the president of Celera, the private company that competed with the National Human Genome Research Institute, a publicly financed international team, to sequence the genome. (It was declared a tie.)
...Venter says he still believes the genome is colorblind. ''I don't see that there's any fundamental need to classify people by race,'' he says. ''What's the goal of that, other than discrimination?''
Remember, this was one of the leaders of the genome project. And what is his position - conclusions first, research later (or never?). He was simply not in a position to make that statement in June 2000 - the research had not been done. Although we see here that he will now be doing it.
ONE MORE: Classic from Howard University:
...history has been marked by discrimination based on the visible, but biologically negligible, differences called "racial" characteristics.
Which puts the new National Human Genome Center at Howard University, and its director and founder Georgia Dunston, professor and chair of microbiology and director of human immunogenics for the university, in the odd position of making the scientific case against the biological importance of race while pressing for efforts to increase inclusion of Africans and African-Americans in genetic research, both as researchers and participants.
Odd, indeed.
UPDATE: A Times follow-up.
A la Steve Sailer races are best thought of as extended families. Of course families exist and of course families are more genetically related to each other than strangers. That's all race really is-a cluster of genetically related individuals.
Genes for intelligence exist. If you are a materialist, there is no other presently acceptable alternative explanation.
The key is none of this should threaten the individual.
If one day genes coding for pattern recognition (a key component of "intelligence" certainly) are located, and it is determined that people with "fast twitch" pattern recognition neurons generally test better just like folks with "fast switch" muscle fibers generally sprint better-that's an interesting observation.
Now if further study shows these neurons are more prevalent in group x-again interesting.
But there's no impact on the individual person-or shouldn't be.
You can't say-
group Y has characteristic x-
I am in group y-
Therefore I have characteristic x.
Sorry logical fallacy-the excluded middle and all that-just like if you prove to me you're related to J.S. Bach I'm not going to give you a record contract sounds unheard.
Posted by: martin | October 13, 2004 at 12:02 PM
To tighten it up-the first premise would have to be "All members of group y have characteristic x" to make the syllogism valid.
We'll never have that certainty except for groups with one member, or identical twins.
That's why I say certainly races exist-there are presently about 6 billion on earth.
Posted by: martin | October 13, 2004 at 12:11 PM
A big part of the problem is terminological. A medical researcher concerned with race x drug interactions would be concerned with race as a purely biological concept. But social definitions of race often disregard biology, defining people as biologically different, or biologically the same, for reasons that make no sense whatever to a biologist.
Dscussions that try to encompass both biological and social differentiation with a single term ('race') will always devolve into coherence. I would opt for 'race' being reserved for certain kinds of social distinctions, and ask the biologists to come up with a different term, or set of terms, to discuss the purely biological aspects of human variety. I would think biologists would want to develop such an alternative vocabulary for their own protection, if nothing else.
Posted by: Byron | October 13, 2004 at 01:24 PM
Sorry, that's "...devolve into incoherence".
Posted by: Byron | October 13, 2004 at 01:26 PM
I would think biologists would want to develop such an alternative vocabulary for their own protection, if nothing else.
That strikes me as very astute. And it reminds me of the current category, "Caucasian", which seems to encompass European whites as well as Asian Indians (IIRC).
Hmm, having looked it up here, I see that the usage varies. Bother.
Still, biologists could come up with genome related terms, and defy the pop culture to self-categorize. "Hi, I'm a D-4 repeating haplotoid. What are you?"
Martin, the problem with your point is that, as the pharmacologists noticed, obvious outward manifestations of race can be a useful proxy for what seem to be subtle biological differences in response to certain medications.
Some day, they would know exactly what to test for, and could predict which people, regardless of "race", would benefit from a certain drug. But right now, race apparently exists, and is a useful tool for predicting drug efficacy.
Posted by: TM | October 13, 2004 at 03:39 PM
Does this mean that Chicago Cubs’ Manager Dusty Baker may have been right when he
said that black and Hispanic players are better suited to playing in the sun and heat than white players? Or is it something that only Dusty’s trainers need to be concerned with after injuries?
The folks here think Dusty was right and have several politically incorrect links.
Posted by: The Kid | October 13, 2004 at 03:40 PM
TM you are correct. Byron is right that biology and sociology need different vocabs. Go to gnxp.com-the academic who co-runs the site won't even post his name for fear of being chased out of the academy for declaring a belief in racial diversity, and they've discussed these issues ad infinitum.
Biologically of course "races" exist. Sociologically, of course, we will always continue to focus on the individual.
I'd place doctors and pharmacists in the biological camp. But even there-race is just a starting point of the diagnosis. You still have to go to the individual. E.g. if a pharmacist didn't subscribe a drug to a person merely based on the fact he was in race x whereas "only" race y suffers from that malady-well that pharmacist may get a lawsuit from Mr. Edwards-just as if a doctor didn't test for breast cancer merely because the patient was a man.
Posted by: martin | October 13, 2004 at 04:06 PM
Why should a medical or pharmaceutical researcher be concerned with intelligence (however defined) or athletic ability? Presumably the study of genectic make-up will be used uncover the solution to fatal and debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc.
As it stands, we've long had knowledge of genetic diseases among races, see sicle cell anemia, and sudden infant death syndrome. We also know a little about dietary effects upon races, see especially the incidence of coronary heart disease between native Japanese and Japanese Americans. Also genetic markers for the beneficial or detrimental handling of cholesterol, exist, and vary among racial/ethnic, ancestral geographic origin. Dietary implications are extremely important along these lines for the simple matter that our diets, over recent centuries, have evolved much more rapidly than our genetic make-up has adapted to the changed diet (especially among those in the West).
As well, deCode Genetics is mapping the genetic history of Iceland--due to its small population and narrow "family tree"--for a richer understanding of genetic diseases. Is that racist? Should they be stopped before deCode uncovers traits that some might view as uncomfortable--even as it's done anonymously?
Those seeking to prohibit this advance of scientific knowledge are merely current ancestors of the Luddites.
Yet, many of these doubters are of the same political constituency that would advance the use of embryonic stem cells--the destruction of life, damn the moral and ethical questions--on the basis of the potential for a silver bullet solution that no one can claim exists. If we were to limit such stem cell research to adult, and umbilical cord blood stem cells, what genetic science do these present day Luddites think we are using?
The current evidence, I believe, indicates a greater genetic variety among the races, rather than between them, and therefore, accidentally, confirming the post-modern concept of race as a social construct.
Posted by: Forbes | October 13, 2004 at 06:42 PM
Some of you may recall a controversial book that came out, oh, a decade ago called "The Bell Curve." The authors, two biologists whose names escape me at the moment, cited genetic/biological studies that suggested that people of color scored lower in intelligence than caucasians and asians. As you may remember, the authors were met with tremendous vitriol by the PC police; their science and its validity (or not) took a distinct backseat to the racial overtones it held. Reasonable people may agree vehemently that such "facts" matter not at all. Unfortunately, however, as long as there are haters out there, giving the bigots ammo to fire with must be carefully considered.
Posted by: J Bennett | October 13, 2004 at 07:11 PM