June 08, 2012
what is race?
The persistence of biological understandings owes something to an unavoidable fact: race and health are inextricably intertwined. But this doesn’t mean biology produces race. It may be that race produces biology. A newer, but still embodied, view of human difference, one in which we conceptualize how social difference and deprivation change the body’s physiology, has yet to make inroads into public discussions of race. This is a concept that Roberts nails. In Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century, Roberts argues passionately and relentlessly—you can picture her making her case to a rapt jury—against the idea of race as a biological trait, which she calls, per her title, a fatal invention. Her evidence against biological causes (but not biological effects), and her insistence that believing in the biological basis of race is fatal to people of color, are compelling. Her case study of racial differences in breast cancer fatalities illustrates the point. In Chicago in 1980, black and white women died of breast cancer at the same rate. Today, despite being slightly more likely to get breast cancer, white female Chicagoans are half as likely to die from it. Could the difference in death rates be due to genetic differences between black and white women? A wealth of evidence suggests otherwise.more from Anne Fausto-Sterling at Boston Review here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 05:45 AM | Permalink






















Comments
This is a fascinating and timely contribution toward understanding the important role of epigenesis in medical science.
Not only has it impacted in oncology but in psychiatry as well, (as I have written elsewhere: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos70/epigenesis-disciplina-revolucionaria-medicina-psiquiatria/epigenesis-disciplina-revolucionaria-medicina-psiquiatria.shtml).
Florence Williams in her book Breasts a Natural History sounds an alarm call we should be wise not to ignore.
Thanks for posting.
Posted by: Félix E. F. Larocca, MD | Jun 8, 2012 7:33:36 AM
Racism pervades the psychiatric treatment of blacks:
http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/04/black-and-mad/
http://www.lsic.ucla.edu/classes/psych/hs/instructor/AAMH.pdf
"Third is the issue of misdiagnosis. Differential rates of
misdiagnosis by ethnicity have been proposed as an explanation for the higher treated
rates of psychiatric disorder among minorities (Neighbors et al., 1989; Adebimpe, 1981).
The overdiagnosis of schizophrenia and underdiagnosis of affective disorders are the
most frequently specified types of misdiagnosis for African-Americans (Adebimpe,
1981)."
Posted by: Louise Gordon | Jun 8, 2012 8:53:18 AM
"So what is the meaning of race? Morning and Roberts argue convincingly that race is a socially produced set of categories that has profound and often terrible biological consequences"
Races are a genetic fact that came out because of geographic isolation of human populations. A DNA analysis easily reveals where a person's ancestor's once lived. Medical treatment must take these genetic factors into account. Of course, with more and more intermarriage of previously isolated human groups, racial factors will lessen and eventually disappear. This mixing will be beneficial from a "hybrid vigor" point of view.
Posted by: Ralston McTodd | Jun 8, 2012 10:34:16 AM
I am not sure that DNA analysis gives clear boundaries between races. While there are some instances where a marker is found in a small population (such as Tay-Sachs), many genes are smeared across the world with no definite cut-offs. Beta-thalassemia would be an example. Even when we think there is a marker, such as the 185delAG in Ashkenazi breast cancer; this same mutation shows up in New Mexico among people identified as Hispanic. I think it would be hard to identify any particular race genetically. Human genetic variability does not obey national borders or even oceans. One of my friends who is proud of his Irish ancestry had his DNA analysed to discover that he has 12% African genes. Of course, the commercial labs doing these vanity analyses might be unreliable, but I told him that likely some Portuguese mixed-blood survivor of the Spanish Armada ended up in county Donegal.
Posted by: Mark | Jun 8, 2012 3:51:41 PM
I think the problem with the kind of discussion found in the previous comments is that the word "race" is so ambiguous. On the one hand, there is DNA, which is physical and unambiguous, and on the other there is this damned word "race," which really means just about anything you want it to mean. It's a completely useless term for any kind of scientific discussion.
Posted by: JonJ | Jun 9, 2012 12:41:50 PM
Race may now be too loaded a word. Scientists increasingly prefer the more neutral "population" or "ethnicity". For a less tendentious discussion of this topic, see http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/the-social-and-biological-construction-of-race/
Posted by: omar | Jun 9, 2012 4:43:42 PM
Post a comment