Talk:Race (biology)

This article is just beginning. I am looking through the literature in medicine and human genetics. I am making some notes here on references. It will tae a while before this article is in reasonable shape, as no article I can find really addresses the question of race and genetics, per say. Nancy Sculerati 18:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for your work here, Nancy. WE really need a good biology/genetics discussion of the race concept, in order to manage the debate in the social science article on race. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:57, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

---

Manly JJ. Deconstructing race and ethnicity: implications for measurement of health outcomes. [Review] [106 refs] [Journal Article. Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Review] Medical Care. 44(11 Suppl 3):S10-6, 2006 Nov. UI: 17060816 "Racial and Ethnic Classifications Are Not Biologically Meaningful The most difficult challenge facing investigators who perform research in ethnically diverse groups is an assumption embedded in racial and ethnic classifications, ie, that race/ethnicity reflects an underlying genetic or cultural homogeneity. It is common practice, however, to assign race on socially defined classification of phenotypic traits such as skin color and hair features.13 Because of this incongruity between theory and research practice, race is a construct that lacks biologic basis.14,15 There is more genotypic variation within races than between them;13,16 it is difficult, therefore, to classify humans into discrete biologic categories with rigid boundaries. Part of the confusion stems from the tremendous heterogeneity within the traditional, “federally” defined ethnic group classifications in the United States.15 These classifications, based on the protocol used by the U.S. Census,17,18 are actually a combination of racial self-categorization (white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, other) and ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic). Hispanics can be of any race using this classification method. This protocol confuses issues of heritage and immigration status; for example, in some studies, “African Americans” include only non-Hispanic black individuals who were born in the United States (black), whereas other studies may also include black immigrants from the West Indies or Africa. Race, nationality, place of birth, and immigration status are not the only sources of heterogeneity within these traditional ethnic group classifications; the level at which the culture of origin is maintained also varies among individuals within one ethnic group. Because racial classifications are socially determined, they can change over time and vary among geographic locations and cultural groups. For example, in the United States in the early 20th century, certain national and ethnic groups were classified as different racial groups in a way that is not maintained today. Driven by their role in inspecting new immigrants to the states, the U.S. Public Health Service classified Slavs, Hebrews, Nordics, Asiatics, Negroes, and Anglo-Saxons as biologically distinct racial groups.19 Census categories for race in the United States and Brazil have been shown to shift in relation to changing political and social conditions.20 Racial classifications shift with time and locations because they are markers for social policy, cultural beliefs, and political practices.20,21 Researchers must contend with the fact that their results may rapidly become outdated or will be geographically specific. It is this imprecision that may explain incomparable findings between studies of “Hispanics” or “Asians,” because significantly different populations may be gathered under each label. Finally, the concepts and labels of ethnicity, race, and culture often are blurred, which can result in inconsistent classification of people into groups.13,14"

---

Fullilove MT. Comment: abandoning ‘race’ as a variable in public health research—an idea whose time has come. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1297–1298.

Article is not just about human races, right?

The opening words of this article make it sound as if the article is going to be about human races, not about the concept of race as used in biology in general. But I made a placeholder called "race (biology)" at the top of race with this note: See race (biology) for the biological concept of races (of any species). The following article concerns the notion of human races. In other words, the article I anticipated was going to concern the broader biological notion of races (of any species). Perhaps we should use variety (biology) or subspecies or strain (biology) for the notion?

If you want to make an article that is just focused on what biologists have to say about the human races, grand. That's not what I had in mind with the article by this title, but it's not a bad idea. I don't think, however, that we should remove all aspects of the biology of race from the general race article. And in that case, we should have two pointers at the top of race: one to race (biology), about the "varieties" of human beings, and one to variety (biology) (or subspecies), about the varieties of everything else.

Hope this makes sense... --Larry Sanger 00:52, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

It does make sense, Larry, except that I have never heard of race being used for other than humans. This fact [if I am right] is in itself interesting, because it lends additional weight to the social science view that the term is value-loaded rather than passively following scientific categorizations and analyses. Let's see what our biology experts can come up with here! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:25, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

I have also never heard the term "race" used in a scientific way about anything but humans. Sometimes in literature, there might be a metaphorical statement about the race of waterford crystal or something, but in vertebrate biology races are not discussed, nor in microbiology- to my knowlege. There it is strains, or subspecies, or varieties, or breeds. Never races. I could be wrong, but would need to see a proper reference to know that. I don't think that I am. Nancy Sculerati 08:09, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I had heard the term used frequently, but perhaps that's because my Dad is a seabird biologist, and "race" appears to occur quite a bit in discussions of varieties of bird species: see this Google search for a very wide variety of sources, including many scientific sources. See also this "FAQ." --Larry Sanger 10:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

In German, "race" is also used for animal breeds. Which is precisely why it is such an unsuitable term, since breeds are actively selected towards specific characteristics. As for the FAQ, as I said elsewhere, what some of the articles do is nothing but "We can observe ABC, let's call that 'race'". Also, several of the articles explicitly note that these are geographic markers more than anything -which is precisely why the comparison to animals makes little sense at all. Animal subspecies and races develop precisely due to hindrance to interbreeding, whereas now, in the 21st century, the only hindrance to interbreeding among humans all too often is racism. And if we start to argue that the existence of racism proves that there are human races, that's a pretty awkward logic. --Oliver Hauss 15:17, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm trying to put that point in the article. Nancy Sculerati 16:13, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Dictionary definitions

You could be right, Larry. I am going to put a bunch of dictionary definitions here and see how we can modify the intro. However, although race may be used as a synonym for subspecies or variety, it is sort of informal in actual use except for humans, in which nobody talks about subspecies. Anyway, here goes:

Oxford English dictionary, for one meaning of the noun race: " I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period." 1. a. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. Chiefly poet. b. Breeding, the production of offspring. Obs. c. A generation. Obs. rare. 2. a. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnical stock. d. One of the great divisions of mankind, having certain physical peculiarities in common. The term is often used imprecisely; even among anthropologists there is no generally accepted classification or terminology. 3. a. A breed or stock of animals; a particular variety of a species. b. A stud or herd (of horses). Obs. 4. A genus, species, or variety of plants (cf. quot. 1880). 5. One of the great divisions of living creatures: a. Mankind. In early use always the human race, the race of men or mankind, etc. b. A class or kind of beings other than men or animals. (race of Demi-gods). c. One of the chief classes of animals (as beasts, birds, fishes, insects, etc.) 6. Without article: a. Denoting the stock, family, class, etc. to which a person, animal, or plant belongs, chiefly in phr. of (noble, etc.) race. b. The fact or condition of belonging to a particular people or ethnical stock; the qualities, etc. resulting from this. 7. Natural or inherited disposition. Obs. rare. II. A group or class of persons, animals, or things, having some common feature or features. 8. a. A set or class of persons. b. One of the sexes. poet. c. The line or succession of persons holding an office. Obs. rare1. 9. a. A set, class, or kind of animals, plants, or things. Chiefly poet. b. One of the three ‘kingdoms’ of nature. Obs. rare.

Medline Plus dictionary (Mirriam-Webster and US National Library of Medicine). Main Entry: race Pronunciation: rs Function: noun 1 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED 2 : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

OK- I'm willing to say breed or subspecies, though currently the common use of the word "race"when used in terms of animals is almost poetical or actually poetical, it does strictly mean subspecies or breed. I'll have to work on how to make that clear. Nancy Sculerati 12:15, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Re: instuction: "do not make substantive changes in this sensitive article without discussion on Talk"

If this article is so sensitive that ordinary Citizendium editing policy must be set aside, i.e. it can not/should not be edited at will by any CZ author, then please place a highly visible notice to this effect (“Before editing this highly sensitive subject, please see/read/refer to XYZ”) somewhere conspicuous. This courtesy will give appropriate direction to authors and help avoid conflict.

If the article is so sensitive that it cannot be edited at will by any CZ author, then it is also so sensitive that those with editorial responsibility should ensure that the visible content is appropriate, unambiguous and fully thought out. I do not mean that the article cannot be posted until it is complete, but rather that thoughts posted must in and of themselves be complete.

1. The only illustration at present is a 19th Century comparative study of “classical, “negro” and simian skulls. This is placed directly opposite a section headed “Current thinking: Race and Biology” and is of large size. It has been placed without context, caption or description of any kind. I point out that this content “as is” is visible by any member of the public. So, imagine a young student uses this for a project, with Lord-only-knows-what conclusions. “From where did you get this?” demands Teacher. “From Citizendium, the online encyclopedia run by experts.”

Somehow, I don’t see this as falling into the “any-publicity-is-good-publicity” category.

2. The second paragraph in section “Current thinking: Race and Biology” contains references to dog breeding and dog showing. It seems to be intended to be used for comparative purposes, but, again, the thought is unfinished. There is also reference to several terms “field lab”, “conformational dog show”, with which the lay person probably wouldn’t be familiar. The expected comparisons suggested by the first paragraph have not actually been drawn. I simply sought to clarify the redundant bits and though my edit innocuous.

If edits to this highly-charged article cannot be maintained and reviewed timely, then I strongly suggest that incomplete sections (or indeed the whole thing) be replaced with a notice such as “this section is being developed by XYZ authors. Please contact Name if you would like to contribute to the project.”

Please understand that this is not intended as a slam against any particular author(s). I am not so much trouble by what is written here, I can see that this is in development. I am, however, deeply disturbed that the situation has been left as it is for weeks, and that I am either the only person at CZ to have an issue with this, or the only one with the gumption to speak up. Either way, it’s a worry.

Aleta Curry 17:30, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Aleta, one of the main contributors to this article, and perhaps the one you are worried might ask people to discuss changes before making them, has left the project. Personally, I think that we should avoid making edits only when we know in advance that the edit in question is bound to be controversial or, for whatever reason, to need vetting. But there are no doubt many uncontroversial edits that we ought to make.

Certainly authors shouldn't let clear problems sit. Just to be clear: editors are capable of making edits that introduce obvious mistakes that authors can and should correct.

I would like to point out that our Statement of Fundamental Policies essentially articulates a right of authors not to be barred from contribution to articles. There may be exceptions, but they will be extremely well-motivated. --Larry Sanger 22:43, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, Larry, I can see from your response that I wasn't clear enough. I was trying to choose my words carefully, not to be obscure. I wasn't referring to Dr S, nor was I speaking about what an editor might ask, I was speaking to the specific request made on 1st July and, I hasten to add, I wasn't objecting to it; I am certain that it was, in your words, "extremely well-motivated". Aleta Curry 00:21, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Aleta must be referring to this.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I was not aware when reverting this article that Nancy had left CZ. This does present a problem of how to continue with this piece, as she was its sole author and had undertaken extensive reading in order to help with the problem of the related article Race. My objection to the changes made by Aleta was that they deleted information which seemed explanatory and useful, without engaging in any discussion on the Talk page. I also assumed that Nancy would return to complete the article, and any changes should be negotiated rather than unilaterally undertaken. As events have overtaken this position, I withdraw my objections. However, given the extreme views on race which we have previously seen on CZ, I am not happy for absolutely anyone to come along and change things according to their opinions. For example, I do not think it appropriate that I should change any content here. This is supposed to be a careful scientific exposition of the issues.... --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:27, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Martin, no worries (I hope). Let's take a step back and consider some principles. I'm sure this is obvious, but it bears repeating: articles on CZ do not have "sole authors," except in the sense applicable here, that only one person has worked on an article. That does not give a person any special rights over the article, and even more so if she's gone. Also, with respect, I don't think the epithet "extreme" is deserved; certainly, we have seen many "extreme views" on CZ among our good-faith contributors. We have certainly seen views that are perhaps "politically incorrect" and outside of the scholarly mainstream, but that does not mean that they deserve the dismissive epithet "extreme." What it does mean, however, is that we need to communicate a lot, and to focus on communicating politely.

I would disagree also, Martin, that you should not change any content in the article. More generally, it is all right for people to make some changes to articles that are outside of one's expertise, particularly when the matter seems perfectly clear. I thought Aleta had a few instances of very clear issues that a non-expert might well resolve. --Larry Sanger 10:26, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting article on BBC news

Found this on BBC News [1]. Illustrates quite well the problem of throwing genetic markers together with traditional concepts of "race". --Oliver Hauss 08:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow, indeed very interesting! Some highlights from the piece:

The results of the DNA tests surprised many by showing that skin colour does not necessarily reflect the ancestry of a person's genetic make-up.

Sergio Pena, professor of biochemistry at the Federal University of Belo Horizonte, who led the genetic analysis, explained the apparent contradiction.

"Only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin colour, which is a very poor indication of ancestry. A white person could have more African genes than a black one or vice-versa, especially in a country like Brazil," he said.

About 40 universities in the country have set aside places for black students.
Manolo Florentino, head of the Social History Department at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said the results "show race is a failed concept in Brazil".

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 11:57, 10 July 2007 (CDT)