They present the categorization of
around 7.5 Billion people with 3 billion base pairs in the human genome,
into fields such as “caucasian”, “mongolian” “negroid”, or “australoid”.
However, Science Magazine takes a strong stance that these variables have no place in genetic study. The first reason pertains to a priority of
genetic studies; health care diagnosis and illness prediction. For example,
diseases such as sickle-cell anemia is associated with the black “race”. Yet it
is still present in those in other races. Also Cystic fibrosis is more commonly
associated as a “white” disease. These associations based on arbitrary grouping
undoubtedly leads to misdiagnosis and intentional miss-testing.
Secondly, this grouping is impossible. Race is not a discrete
variable. In any other facet of experimentation, one would not categorize something
as a singular entity when it is not. Also, all origins all trace back to the
same ancestor.
Thirdly, the categorization of race in genetics has a
history of linking races as inferior or superior without genetic correlation. "When
scientists use race as if it were a biological category in research, it sends a
message to the public that we're talking about innate differences and that
these differences in health are caused by genetic differences," said
Roberts. "But the inequalities in health that we see are caused by social
inequalities that we do need to address, but not by fixing people's genes, but
by addressing the social inequality that produces them."
Thus this breakdown is not beneficial in the study of genes.
However, it is not discredited from all scope of research. Cultural studies and
one’s historical background is extremely merited to many individual’s needs and
studies. If it is centered into a more applicable field, such as social
sciences, perhaps another variable will arise in genetic studies to catalyst advances.
