Posted: Mon 26 May 2008 15:39 Post subject: Does this man look black to you?
Does this man look black to you?
A genomics company analyzed the DNA of whiter than white genetics
pioneer James Watson and found that some of his genes are likely to have come from a black ancestor.
DNA pioneer's genes reveal ironic twist
DNA pioneer's own genes raise questions about the meaning of race
COMMENTARY
By Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
MSNBC contributor
updated 7:36 a.m. CT, Fri., Dec. 14, 2007
One of the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century should now be attributed to a black man, or so it seems.
James Watson, the man who worked with Francis Crick to identify the double-helical structure of DNA, who upon casual inspection might well qualify for the title of "most blatantly Caucasian male" among a raft of serious contenders that includes Mitt Romney, Tucker Carlson, Harry Reid and Peyton Manning, is actually black!
An Iceland-based genomics company, deCODE genetics, conducted an analysis of Watson's DNA, which Watson had allowed to be placed on the Internet, and found that 16 percent of his genes are likely to have come from a black ancestor.
The flamboyant head of deCODE, Kari Stefansson, himself a strong contender for the most obviously Caucasian male award, whose company carried out the analysis, said in a classic bit of white male understatement, “It was very surprising to get this result for Jim.”
Indeed, the racial outing of Watson was quite a surprise — most likely to the 79-year-old Nobel-prize winner. This past October he was forced to cancel a tour promoting his new book in England after opining in a British newspaper that he felt “inherently gloomy about the prospects for Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” Jim’s fretting left him without a job at home — he retired from his job as chancellor at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York — and no longer especially welcome on the speaking circuit anywhere serious. Finding out one has black genes seems especially inconvenient for somebody proclaiming blacks to be genetically inferior.
Watson’s critics are piling on with glee to such delicious irony. But while it is more than tempting to use this incident to bury the influential source of some very irresponsible racial speculation (yeah, OK, I have been indulging myself in the temptation) a number of other more important lessons need to be drawn from the news of Watson’s reclassification in the family of man.
First, our ordinary racial categories do not have much scientific meaning. They are social and cultural creations.
Those classified as black or white in the United States would not always be considered so in Brazil, South Africa, Tonga, India, Japan or Mexico. The differences people in China, Myanmar, Nigeria or India see among various ethnic groups are quite different from the classifications that ordinary Americans or Canadians might make of the same people.
Genetic groupings of people that scientists use in designing drugs or studying migration patterns do not overlap with the groupings that North Americans make of people based on their skin color, hair or other features.
Nor is it at all useful to try and determine your race or ethnicity from your genes.
Genes change rapidly as they recombine generation after generation as a result of sex. So scientists look for markers on the most stable elements of our genome — the Y chromosome, most of which you get only from your dad, or mitochondrial DNA, most of which you get only from your mom. The stability comes at a price. Those genes represent a very narrow glimpse of your distant ancestors because only a few of their contributions are reflected in these particular packets of DNA. The potential for errors in trying to classify people using these markers into groups that don’t make much biological sense anyway is, to say the least, huge.
So forget plunking your money down with one of the many companies offering genetic analysis of your family tree. You will only wind up, as Watson did, with a classification based on a tiny handful of those who were actually your ancestors.
And most of the ability at present to analyze genes comes from comparing them to samples that have been collected and made public by various scientists and companies. But the sampling is far from complete so most genetic analysis for complex traits and behaviors including race is based on incomplete data.
So while it is extremely amusing (to me at least) to revel in the irony that somebody who got into trouble for racist remarks might himself be a member of the very group he was impugning, as a matter of science it is nonsense.
Science is not in a position to tell you who your ancestors were in terms of race both because our knowledge of their genetics is very limited and the classifications we use to put people into groups vary from culture to culture, time period to time period and nation to nation.
Watson, a great scientist, despite his most recent ranting about race, knew right after his discovery, and better than anyone, how complex the story of heredity actually is. It would be a grave mistake to think that peeking at our genes will tell us something about who we truly are in terms of race. There has been too much hatred, bias and prejudice in human history to think that your race is simply a matter of examining your genes.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
Caplan contrdicts himself here. He cannot claim that Watson is now "black" (socially, biologically, or whatever) because of a small amount of black ancestry. You would have to label nearly all Latinos and Arabs "black" if that were the case. There is nothing new about believing in the inferiority of "black" genes while viewing that alleged inferiority as recessive (Look at the way most white Americans are taught to look at American Indian ancestry in white people) and unable to destroy the essential "whiteness" of people with a majority of European genes.
Like many liberals, he says that "race" is unscientific and socially defined while at the same time making statements that appear to confirm the "one drop" myth and extreme hypodescent.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1046 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 26 May 2008 16:21 Post subject:
Something else also bothers me here, unless I am missing something. Caplan mentions that 16% of Watson's genes are "black" [sub-Saharan], and then goes on to say that scientists use Y-chromosomes and mtDNA because they are more stable, yet he admits they tell you only about a sliver of your ancestors; he doesn't mention or seem to know about autosomal tests. But the only way for the company who tested Watson to conclude that 16% of his genome is African would be via the results of an autosomal test.
It's not a big deal, somebody with SSA admixture who has a phenotype that would not be eyeballed by most people as being Black looking, hardly earth shattering revelation. Here's a pic of my female cousin who has a drop of SSA admixture in the ballpark of Octoroon range, but does she look Black to any of you ?
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1046 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 27 May 2008 15:15 Post subject:
Bischoff wrote:
It's not a big deal, somebody with SSA admixture who has a phenotype that would not be eyeballed by most people as being Black looking, hardly earth shattering revelation. Here's a pic of my female cousin who has a drop of SSA admixture in the ballpark of Octoroon range, but does she look Black to any of you ?
I'll bet it's far less shocking to someone who comes from another country and culture, like you do, than it is to many white Americans, who seem to think that a small amount of African ancestry simply must be visible because of the false notion that African genes are so “strong.”
African genes are strong when it comes to actual 50/50 mixes or atleast very close to an actual 50/50 mix, hence why it's rare to find such offsprings that are able to pass for White. The overwhelming majority show very visible SSA admixture in their phenotype. But anything significantly less than that and it's more possible because a heavily racially mixed "Black" person can easily produce a European looking offspring with a a White person. Although even than there are still cases where the offspring of a Mulatto and a White still is not able to pass. Like Thandie Newton's Quadroon daughter for example who has a phenotype that would not be eyeballed by most people as looking White European.
Last edited by Bischoff on Tue 27 May 2008 19:57; edited 1 time in total
African genes are strong when it comes to actual 50/50 mixes or atleast very close to an actual 50/50 mix, hence why it's rare to find such offsprings that are able to pass for White. The overwhelming majority show very visible SSA admixture in their phenotype.
No. You are in error. You could just as accurately have written: "Euro genes are strong when it comes to actual 50/50 mixes or at least very close to an actual 50/50 mix, hence why it's rare to find such offsprings that are able to pass for pure sub-Saharan African. The overwhelming majority show very visible Euro admixture in their phenotype." As OTHER has explained many times, additive co-dominant genes yield a Poisson distribution (a bell curve that is perfectly symmetrical).
I do not want to be harsh, but this point has come up so many times before on this site, and been shot down so may times before on this site, that I find it hard to believe that you are merely uninformed. You have the right to be uninformed and to express opinions devoid of factual accuracy, of course. But you may not do so in this site, and most especially not in this forum.
Please consider this a formal warning for violation of rule 3.1.3.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 27 May 2008 20:03; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 13:16 Post subject: Dr. Caplan's reply: He doesn't get it.
Quote:
does no such thing. rather my point was to call into question all phenotypically grounded concepts of race. which most readers seemed to have understood.
Calling any white person "black" because of alleged racial impurity sends a message that "black" DNA is genetically inferior. If you think it's "ironic" that a white man who believes in black genetic inferiority has partial black ancestry, you must not have met many Latinos or Arabs. The "inferiority" is simply deemed recessive (the way many American whites view partial American Indian ancestry in other whites). Calling the white man "black" has no "irony" in it. It sends the message that one must be "pure" in order to me "white."
I have been seeing a lot of mulatto children lately, as they are getting more common. Why is it that if the father is white, the children look whiter, opposed to looking blacker if the father is black?
I have been seeing a lot of mulatto children lately, as they are getting more common. Why is it that if the father is white, the children look whiter, opposed to looking blacker if the father is black?
While that's not always true, there do seem to be some trends, don't there? I have only personally known a couple of mulattos whose moms were black and they did seem to be darker. Like I said, it's not absolute, but I have seen what you are referring to.
I have been seeing a lot of mulatto children lately, as they are getting more common. Why is it that if the father is white, the children look whiter, opposed to looking blacker if the father is black?
While that's not always true, there do seem to be some trends, don't there? I have only personally known a couple of mulattos whose moms were black and they did seem to be darker. Like I said, it's not absolute, but I have seen what you are referring to.
That's because some somatic genes are present in the sexual chromosomes. Just an example: a white man marry a black woman, they have a son and a daughter. The son will be whiter than the daughter, because he has took somatic white genes from chromosome Y. And viceversa.
It's not a big deal, somebody with SSA admixture who has a phenotype that would not be eyeballed by most people as being Black looking, hardly earth shattering revelation. Here's a pic of my female cousin who has a drop of SSA admixture in the ballpark of Octoroon range, but does she look Black to any of you ?
some somatic genes are present in the sexual chromosomes. Just an example: a white man marry a black woman, they have a son and a daughter. The son will be whiter than the daughter, because he has took somatic white genes from chromosome Y. And viceversa.
I hate to jump on a new user, but the above claim needs a source.
As far as I know, the Y chromosome is notoriously inert and lacking in somatic genes (other than the sexual dimorphism trigger, of course). I recommend either Bryan Sykes, Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men, 1st American ed. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2004) or Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: HarperCollins, 1993). Alternatively, any introductory genetics text will explain the lack of somatic genes on the Y.
Given that sir alcal has posted an unsubstantiated opinion in this forum, I must request a source (in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of The Rules). I must also request the authors, title, publisher, and publication date of the introductory genetics text with which he is most familiar (in accordance with paragraph 3.1.3 of The Rules).
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 05 Sep 2008 17:44; edited 2 times in total
It's not a big deal, somebody with SSA admixture who has a phenotype that would not be eyeballed by most people as being Black looking, hardly earth shattering revelation. Here's a pic of my female cousin who has a drop of SSA admixture in the ballpark of Octoroon range, but does she look Black to any of you ?
She could pass for an italian girl.
"sir alcal" the poster known as Bischoff is probably a troll and the picture may not be that of a person related to him.
some somatic genes are present in the sexual chromosomes. Just an example: a white man marry a black woman, they have a son and a daughter. The son will be whiter than the daughter, because he has took somatic white genes from chromosome Y. And viceversa.
I hate to jump on a new user, but the above claim needs a source.
As far as I know, the Y chromosome is notoriously inert and lacking in somatic genes (other than the sexual dimoorphism trigger, of course). I recommend either Bryan Sykes, Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men, 1st American ed. (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2004) or Matt Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: HarperCollins, 1993). Alternatively, any introductory genetics text will explain the lack of somatic genes on the Y.
Given tbat sir alcal has posted an unsubstantiated opinion in this forum, I must request a source (in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of The Rules). I must also request the authors, title, publisher, and publication date of the introductory genetics text with which he is most familiar (in accordance with paragraph 3.1.3 of The Rules).
Also, please be cautious in the future about posting threads that ask for opinions of who looks like what to whom. By now, every member of this site should understand that such eyeballing is notoriously subjective. (See The Perception of “Racial” Traits for details.) Such threads quickly degenerate to "does not," "does too," "does not" ... ad infinitum and teach nothing but how to consume internet bandwith pointlessly.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
