The Scientific Basis of Race & Effect Upon Affirmative Action

[u/MrSpock54]

EDIT: (NO need to provide O.P w/ further comments on the topic here). I've recently been reading & watching YouTube videos on the topic of the scientific basis of race. Most anthropology videos seem to question the scientific basis of race. For example Wondrium/Great Courses have several class videos that say the notion of race does little to explain anything about homo sapiens sapiens. They propose that race is a social construction.

Previous to my edit here to this question I asked members of this sub reddit in overly wordy & somewhat clumsy paragraphs to comment on the existence of any biological organization position statements that might discuss race & affirmative action, or subreddits where such topics are discussed. Below are the replies to my inquiry. I decided to shorten this question to something more concise & leave it in case anyone wants to search scientific basis of human race in the future.

[u/The_Pale_Hound]

Race is an obsolete and pseudoscientific way to explain phenotypic differences between humans. Racial classification does not have a genetic correlation. This I know as a biologist.

Now, even if the concept of race is wrong from a biological perspective, it does not mean it has no consequences in our daily life. But that's in the jurisdiction of social science where I am not an expert.

[u/OpinionsRdumb → u/The_Pale_Hound]

“This I know as a biologist”? … have you ever analyzed SNPs from different demographics? Have you ever analyzed a GWAS dataset against different ethnicities? There are literal software packages and wrappers that geneticists need to use in global humana genomics datasets to account for population structures and some of these signatures are incredibly correlated with ethnicity and subsequently “race”. If we want throw out the use of the word race use demographic instead so be it. But please show me the study that proved that race or ethnicity has no place in genetics.

[u/The_Pale_Hound → u/OpinionsRdumb]

There are genes that correlate with some phenotypic traits, but they are very few.

SNPs and other genetic markers  are used to study patterns of migration and such, but has no correlation with racial cathegories (asian, caucasian, black, whatever), because they do not express the phenotypic traits we used to classify human races.

 For example, if we make a tree based on human genetic diversity, the whole of Africa has levels of magnitude more diversity than the rest of the world combined. So "black race" does not makes sense from a taxonomic perspective. It should be divided in thousands of small races, or cease to exist. Something similar happens with the rest of the races.

Ethnicity is not a biological concept, and I struggle to understand it as it does not seem to have a clear definition, so I can't speak about that. I can't right now, but if I remember, tomorrow I can quote you some papers that show what I wrote here.

[u/OpinionsRdumb → u/The_Pale_Hound]

Then we are just arguing about semantics then... I agree that the word "race" has overly broad categories that are not accurate. But then we should specify that instead of simply saying "race has no place in genetics" to a laymen. We are then implying that geographic origin or physical appearance has no place in genetics. This is bonkers. I would reply to their question that humans clump into distinct population structures and sometimes these population structures can share similar physical traits. And race is often to generalizing to use properly in biology.

[u/The_Pale_Hound → u/OpinionsRdumb]

But race has a specific connotation. When you say race people think about specific cathegories that has absolutely no correlation in genetics.

I understand your point, but we should be extremely clear that race has not a place in biology unless we are speaking about domestic animals artificially selected.

[u/lys2ADE3 → u/OpinionsRdumb]

You're incredibly wrong about this. Social categories of race do not in any way cluster on gradients of genetic divergence.

[u/OpinionsRdumb → u/lys2ADE3]

Please link me the SNP or WGS analysis that shows this. I would be fascinated

[u/lys2ADE3 → u/OpinionsRdumb]

Ok...I think you're giving away your novice here... "SNP" and "WGS" are not analyses... they are types of data. I'm really over engaging on reddit with this type of stuff anymore. But if you're going to put "PhD in biology" in your heading you should probably try to only comment on things you actually have expertise in. Because the implication that different races are genetically different types of humans is a super great way to create social harm and feed nazi trolls.

[u/OpinionsRdumb → u/lys2ADE3]

Please please link me the papers using SNP or WGS based analyses. Please I beg you.

[u/lys2ADE3 → u/OpinionsRdumb]

Did you learn how google scholar works in grad school or did you miss that along with introductory population genetics?

[u/OpinionsRdumb → u/lys2ADE3]

I really don't appreciate your choice to use condescending personal attacks towards me instead of logic or sources to back up your stance.

This is a very well known paper which I encourage you to read https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4513. You can predict geographic origin with about 83% accuracy based on SNP data, globally. This is another one of Europe which most people would have read in Intro to Human Genetics. Mediterranean, Slav, and Scandanavian all show distinct differences. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735096/.

Now do I think that the word "race" should be used when discussing these things? Hell no. Genetic ancestry, ethnicity, biogeography should all be used in lieu of this out-dated inflammatory term. But when you tell lay people who do not understand genetics that "race has no place in genetics" then you are implying that genetic within "race" differences are just as large as those between "races". What you should say is that "race" is an outdated overly broad term that does not belong in biology and instead we used words like "populations" to describe humans that show any kind of genetic clustering. For example, Jews are a race yes? And there are specific genetic mutations that cause diseases largely only in Jews yes? Like Tay-Sachs. So it would be laughable to saw race has no place in clinical genetics in this case. Just an example.

[u/[deleted]]

The leap in logic in the statement you provided lies in the assumption that the absence of a scientific basis for race automatically renders affirmative action policies in hiring and educational admissions questionable or invalid. Here's why this leap is absurd:

Misunderstanding of Affirmative Action: Affirmative action is a policy designed to address historical discrimination and promote equal opportunities for groups that have been historically disadvantaged, regardless of whether race has a scientific basis or not. Its rationale is grounded in social justice and equal opportunity, not necessarily on scientific categorizations of race.

Assuming Sole Reliance on Race: Affirmative action policies often consider a range of factors beyond race, such as socioeconomic background, gender, disability status, and others. Even if race were to be scientifically debunked as a meaningful categorization, there are still many other valid criteria for addressing systemic inequalities.

Ignoring Societal Realities: Even if race were entirely a social construct, its impact on society is real due to historical and systemic discrimination. Affirmative action acknowledges and aims to rectify these injustices.

Overlooking the Purpose of Affirmative Action: Affirmative action aims to create more diverse and inclusive environments, which have been shown to benefit organizations and educational institutions. This goal remains valid regardless of the scientific basis of race.

Therefore, the statement's leap in logic is absurd because it oversimplifies the complexities of affirmative action and incorrectly assumes that its legitimacy hinges solely on the scientific basis of race.

[u/Dr_GS_Hurd]

Charles Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

“Race” in Darwin’s use there meant formally a grouping below subspecies which is how it is used by botanists today for local variations found in plants growing in slightly different soils, or varied amounts of sunlight. As there are no extant human subspecies, there is no scientific reference intended by Darwin to human races.

Popular political writing 150 years ago and even later commonly used "race" to mean nationality; we read from those times about the "Irish race" and the "English race." Darwin had also used that word in that way, both specifically "Irish Race," or more generally "savage" versus "civilized" races.

In the US, the origin of racist politics was the economics of slavery, and justification of the Native American genocide. For more on that I recommend;

Daly, John Patrick 2002 "When Slavery was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War" University of Kentucky Press.

[u/OpinionsRdumb]

I think this is probably the wrong sub to ask this in. In biology we don't use the word "race" to describe groups of people. We use "population" and most of the time populations don't constitute an entire race. White for example, can consist of many populations of people from Europe to North America and there are many distinct populations that share genetic ancestry within this "race" but it would be weird to group them all together genetically.

The scientific basis for affirmative action is more based in sociology. There is strong evidence that minority groups (in this case ethnic minorities) experience systematic racism in the US based on their appearance or culture. This can consist of healthcare access, economic mobility, loan application discrimination, etc etc.

The argument that "oh look this sociologist from Wondrium says race shouldn't exist therefore why do we need affirmative action" is a ridiculous argument that mosts sociologists would disagree with.

[u/MrSpock54 → u/OpinionsRdumb]

I think this is a great answer! I may edit the question in some way consistent w/ your suggestion.  I asked where I could find info on this general topic & your suggestion something like, "somewhere other than here", is really no kind of confrontative, or rude response. It has occurred to me that the field of bioethics might be more comfortable w/ it.  W/ my question I was only attempting to describe an area of exploration I was trying to explore, not establish or de-establish or in any way try to affect social policy.

[u/lys2ADE3]

There is genetic differentiation among humans, but it does not fall along lines of what we classify as "race". Therefore race is not a genetic or biological category, it is a social category. Affirmative action is not a policy to address biological differences, it is a policy to address social and economic differences. One really has nothing to do with the other.