“Race and Gene Studies: What Differences Make a Difference?” by Larry Aldelman explores recent discoveries of racial difference that highlight differential rates of diseases or responses to a drug, and comments on the belief of biological race.
In a 2002 report published in Science magazine, Noah Rosenberg, Marcus Feldman and others analyzed the variation in 377 different DNA sequences from 1056 individuals from around the world. They found that 95% of the DNA variation they studied is due to differences between individuals within any continent. However, they also found they could use the remaining 5% of the variation as genetic “footprints.” These footprints would indicate the continent from which an individual’s recent ancestors came. Though some scholars were quick to interpret these findings as though the ancient notions were correct, further questions such as “why should our interpretations of the evidence matter?” were actually raised. Interpretations matter because confusions like conflating DNA markers of ancestry with markers of race, mistaking more common gene variants in some populations as a sign of racial difference, and assuming disparities are attributed to genetic differences between races, arise.
In response to Giovanna’s post about the misuse of race in medical diagnosis, I agree that we must be very careful to describe every variable of a patient’s ancestry accurately in the range of possible diagnoses. Ancestry has important implications in genetics and healthcare. People tend to want to know if they are descended from a population at risk for certain diseases. Adelman argues that doctors’ temptation to use race in treatments is an unreliable surrogate for everyone’s unique ancestry.
Though now we know that race may be a biological myth and social constriction, it unfortunately problematically persists in our society. For example, it was long assumed that the high rates of hypertension among African Americans was a genetic marker of their nature, until studies found that West Africans have among the world’s lowest hypertension rates. If healthcare professions focused on race as innate biology, they could have overlooked social factors like stress, that might have contributed to the initial study that said African Americans had high hypertension. Thus, the main argument of this article is that race matters. Not race as in genetics, but race as in lived experience. Social race, shaped by the social institutions and practices in place, is an important factor that health researchers need to take into account.