Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kat_Somm_Faen · 07-12-2003, 07:27 PM

Hey guys,

I wanted to ask a question about validity of using genes in sociology and/or study of ethnic origins and similar things. What I mean, in one sense, is to ask question about the recent interest of historians that study for example the frequency of certain genes appearing in different populations. I have recently come across some maps of Europe with certain gene frequency according to country. And all these layman ( mostly racist, I might add ) and historians ( you know amateurs starining to fit the data to the conclusions ) were straining to prove origins of certain peoples based on this one gene. The board was pretty filled with racist people and they were drawing all sorts of conclusions about even certain Euro nations from the maps.

For example, they were questioning larger frequency of certain genes in pouplations of Southern Europe compared to Norhterners. I essence some of them were straining to prove that somehow, southern Italians are not as "pure" as northern ones and so on.

Also, I can remember a study of some Y chromosome that was supposedly attributed to Genghis Khan and its wide distribution supposely leading to the conclusion thathe was the most prolific man on Earth ever. An excert:

"GENETICS/Recent genetic studies indicate that some 16 million men, or half a percent of the world's male population could have descended from the Mongol emperor Genghis Khan"

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr01/snt1.asp

I am sorry but it sound like such a stretch it is not even funny. I do not study genetics as a primary area but I can ask, what makes the writer conclude that the genetic mutation started with Genghis Khan and spread onto others? What makes them conclude that he was the only guy carying it and there was not a large group of men possesing the mutation already in his time?

In essence, what kind of problems we run upon when any two bit historian can order a 100 blood samlples be tested for a specific gene test in a population and let him "conclude" without in-depth kowledge of genetics, mutations, gene drift and such subjects.

Please help me understand this topic better.

I just feel that there is much more to the story than testing for gene XYZ in a hundred of people A and a hundred of people B and concluding they are ethnically different and let laymen look at some maps with colors drawing all sorts of "conclusions"

karthik · 07-12-2003, 08:19 PM

not to side-track this topic but Ive got a nagging question. Has there been any conclusive studies that have linked genes to smartness(like academic achievement, creativity etc.)?To be more specific are there any genes that control the wiring of your brain? If so are certain ethnic groups more predisposed to posses such genes (which might explain higher than average measure of smartness possessed by some ethnic groups)? What would explain the disproportionate number of jewish nobel laureates which is like 20% of the prizes awarded?

I personally think that it would be a bummer if such things as 'smartness' genes existed!

I understand that the topic is controversial and unPC but my questions are borne out of genuine curiosity.

God Fearing Atheist · 07-12-2003, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by karthik
not to side-track this topic but Ive got a nagging question. Has there been any conclusive studies that have linked genes to smartness(like academic achievement, creativity etc.)?To be more specific are there any genes that control the wiring of your brain? If so are certain ethnic groups more predisposed to posses such genes (which might explain higher than average measure of smartness possessed by some ethnic groups)? What would explain the disproportionate number of jewish nobel laureates which is like 20% of the prizes awarded?

I personally think that it would be a bummer if such things as 'smartness' genes existed!

I understand that the topic is controversial and unPC but my questions are borne out of genuine curiosity.

Absolutely.

General intelligence (g) is highly heritable, and has been correlated with certain aspects of neurophysiology (including brain size to r = .44, neural transmission and firing speed to r = .37, glucose metabolism to r = -.7 or -.8, and so forth).

Racial differences in IQ (specially the black-white gap) are more pronounced depending on the tests g-loading (the more g-loading, the larger the gap), which suggests racial differences in the biological correlates of g.

As for the genes that control it, a few have been identified. See, for example:

Plomin R., et al. (1994) DNA markers associated with high versus low IQ: The IQ Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Project. Behavior Genetics, 24: 107-118.

Thompson P.M., et al (2001) Genetic influences on brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 4: 1253-1258.

-GFA

God Fearing Atheist · 07-12-2003, 11:26 PM

On genes and race generally, if you'll allow me to quote myself from a post on a different thread:

Quote:

Its interesting. Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994) looked at 120 alleles at 49 loci and found that the frequencies were not the same for any of 42 populations under consideration. They then turned the distance matrix they constructed into a correlation matrix consisting of 861 correlation coefficients, and found that they form widely seperated "culsters" that resemble classic racial taxonomy. That is, they found four major racial groups into which these populations all fit (Caucasians, Negroids, East Asians and West Asians).

It is true, then, that Koreans, Japanese and Chinese (at least Northern Chinese) fall into a single racial group.

Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P. & Piazza A. (1994) The history and geography of human genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

glow_worm · 07-13-2003, 05:52 PM

Yes, it's absolutely valid to use the science of genetics to study man's evolution, human migration patterns, and population differences. Though race/ethnicity are social definitions, not scientific concepts, specific alleles are known to congregate in higher frequencies within artificially deliniated groups. Racists MISUSE scientific concepts to reinforce their own beliefs regarding the supposed inherent inferiority of a particular skin color or culturally-linked group -- we all know that. And what the hell is "pure"? Pure what? We're all hybrids of something.

A major scientific value of studying genetic variation within and between populations is that we can *hopefully* understand the mechanisms of disease. Hopefully it will lead to better treatments, so that we can all (regardless of racial/ethnic differences) have improved health and longer lives. Some diseases cluster within socially defined ethnic groups -- so for this reason, it would be important to study genetic differences. For instance, an African American may want to know that they have a much higher risk of salt-sensitive hypertension or diabetes than other individuals in the dominant population, since increased awareness leads to more frequent screenings and necessary lifestyle changes. Caucasians may want to know that they have a much greater risk of cystic fibrosis, and therefore screen for this genetic disease in their newborns. There are countless examples of genetic diseases or predispositions that lend increased risk to certain populations based on race or ethnicity.

Kat_Somm_Faen · 07-14-2003, 01:25 AM

Of course!

People differ and on genetic level too. There is nothing to hide or keep quiet about.

What bugs me is this research being used by "historians" without proper background in genetic research, biology, inheritance and on.

Like looking at two people and relative frequencies of a certain gene to make conclusions about historical facts.

Like using a certain gene to prove a ethnic genesis as Aryan or some other stuff. I mainly wanted to learn and ask about valid is such research without understanding how genes propagate and mutate.

For example, I have herd of people claiming they certain European people have different origins from what esablished history would tell based on H19 gene frequency. The exact example goes like this - Established history says nation A belong to latin group but they have a different frequency of "latin gene XYZ" which is prevalent in other latin people. Seems like they are actually some group of nation D. Most of this had racist conotation of purity and belonging.

Is this kind of claim valid? Could further mutations or isolation work to change gene frequency in certain population thereby making such claims empty? Are there unaccouted forces at play, working to "entropy" genetic uniformness? Is this too much of a simplistic approach by people whose primary area of study is not genetics?

I definitely agree with professional molecular biology researchers or geneticists work on DNA but should such important study as race or history be left to people poorly trained in genetics? Especially with all sorts of agendas they might have. Especially since it is a relatively new area and with a lot more to study and learn about genes and DNA left.

ps418 · 07-14-2003, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by karthik
To be more specific are there any genes that control the wiring of your brain?

Yes. Brain volume is about as heritable as height, and at least some aspects of brain wiring are under strong genetic influence. The following is from an old thread that discussed genetic influences on human brain structure. I include references at the bottom that pertain to that topic. One thing to keep in mind though is that no matter what genes you have, the brain is extraordinarily plastic at the synaptic level, and everybody has the ability to modifiy their own brain for the better through training.

Quote:

Ehrlich and Feldman's commentary conspicuously omits other relevant data. Thompson et al (2001) utilized a very small sample (n=40; 10 mz pairs, 10 dz pairs), and encouraged caution regarding the interpretation of their results (p. 1254). However, the results of Thompson et al (2001) are strongly supported by a substantial body of additional MRI research, including those using much larger sample sizes. For a review of findings on genetic influences on individual diferences in human brain structure, and a discussion of ongoing genetic brain mapping initiatives, see Thompson et al (2002). None of this research is even alluded to by Ehrlich and Feldman. For instance, Posthuma et al (2000) report a heritability of 0.88 for cerebeller volume, and Posthuma et al (2002) reported a heritability of 0.82 for whole-brain grey-matter volume, and 0.87 for whole-brain white-matter volume, using a much larger sample (n=258). Pennington et al (2000) calculated a heritability of 0.9 for total cerebral volume, based on MRI volume analyses of 34 mz pairs and 32 dz pairs. Baare et al (2001) calculate heritabilities of 0.9, 0.82, and 0.88 for whole brain, grey matter, and white matter volume, respectively, based on an extended twin design including 54 mz pairs, 58 dz pairs, and 34 sibs. Carmelli et al (1999) and Pfefferbaum et al (2000) calculated a heritability of 0.81 for intracranial volume in a sample of 85 elderly male twin pairs. Heritability of brain structure in mice and rhesus monkeys (e.g. weight, number of neurons), which can be reared in identical environments, is also high (Roderick, 1973; Wimer and Wimer, 1989; Strom, 1999; Williams, 2000). I am not aware of an MRI study of brain volume using reared-together adoptive sibling pairs, but a firm prediction is that when they are done, their mean intra-pair correlation will be near 0. In general, individual differences in brain volume are just as heritable as individual differences in height.

Ehrlich and Feldman (p. 93) refer to experience-dependent development of the parts of the human brain, for instance the structure of the visual cortex. For instance, if you rear a cat in a completely dark environment, its visual cortex will not develop properly. However, we should not conclude from these types of experiences that individual differences, even in fine-scale cortical structure, are controlled exclusively by experience. For instance, individual differences in the arrangement of functional cortical columns in the visual cortex, previously thought to result almost entirely from sensory input, have recently been shown to be strongly genetic influenced in cats (Kaschube et al., 2002), and much less dependent upon sensory input than previously thought (Godecke et al., 1997;. Chapman et al., 1999). Kaschube et al. (2002) is one of the first demonstrations of signficant heritability for fine-scale brain structure. This does not show that the brain does not require sensory/environmental inputs to develop, but that the effects of that experience on the developing brain in different individuals are signficantly influenced by genetic factors that differ between individuals.

Of course, this is not to say that the volume of all brain regions, or all aspects of brain structure (e.g. gyral patterns, ventricular volumes), are under equally strong genetic control, and/or cannot be modified significantly by experience. For instance, the volume of the hippocampus, which has a heritability of 0.4 in humans (Sulivan et al., 2001), 0.5 in mice (Lu et al., 2001), and 0.54 in rhesus monkies (Lyons et al., 2001), is clearly affected by experience. For instance, Maguire et al (2000) examined the hippocampi of London taxi drivers (n=16) and matched controls using MRI scans to see if their spatial-memory-demanding job resulted in increases in volume of the hippocampus, which is heavily recruited in spatial navigation and memory. Such differences were found, bilaterally in the posterior hippocampus. The difference was greatest in those who had driven taxis the longest. There were no significant differences in other brain regions. Although the sample size is relatively small, and the effect size is small, and the data is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, it appears that hippocampal volume increases through extensive spatial-navigation practice.

Baare et al., 2001. Quantitative genetic modeling of variation in human brain morphology. Cerebral Cortex 11, pp. 816-824.

Bartley et al., 1997. Genetic variability of human brain size and cortical gyral patterns. Brain 120, pp. 257-269.

Geschwind et al., 2002. Heritability of lobar brain volumes in twins supports genetic models of cerebral laterality and handedness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, pp. 3176-3181.

Kaschube et al., 2002. Genetic influence on quantitative features of neocortical architercture. Journal of Neuroscience 22, pp. 7206�7217.

Maguire et al., 2000. Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97, pp. 4398-4403.

Pennington et al., 2000. A twin MRI study of size variations in human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12, pp. 223-232.

Pfefferbaum et al., 2000. Brain structure in men remains highly heritable in the seventh and eighth decades of life. Neurobiology of Aging 21, pp.63-74.

Posthuma et al., 2000. Multivariate genetic analysis of brain structure in an extended twin design. Behavior Genetics 30, pp. 311-319.

Posthuma et al., 2002. The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin. Nature Neuroscience 5, pp. 83-84.

Sullivan et al., 2001. Heritability of hippocampal size in elderly twin men: equivalent influences from genes and environment. Hippocampus 11, pp. 754-762.

Thompson et al., 2001. Genetic Influences on Brain Structure. Nature Neuroscience 4, pp. 1253-1258.

Thompson et al., 2002. Mapping Genetic Influences on Human Brain Structure. Annals of Medicine 34, pp. 523-536.

Wright et al., 2002. Genetic contributions to regional variability in human brain structure: methods and preliminary results. Neuroimage 17, pp. 256-271.

Patrick

ps418 · 07-14-2003, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat_Somm_Faen
For example, I have herd of people claiming they certain European people have different origins from what esablished history would tell based on H19 gene frequency. The exact example goes like this - Established history says nation A belong to latin group but they have a different frequency of "latin gene XYZ" which is prevalent in other latin people. Seems like they are actually some group of nation D. Most of this had racist conotation of purity and belonging.

Is this kind of claim valid? Could further mutations or isolation work to change gene frequency in certain population thereby making such claims empty? Are there unaccouted forces at play, working to "entropy" genetic uniformness? Is this too much of a simplistic approach by people whose primary area of study is not genetics?

That form of the claim is valid, though you wouldn't want to make such an inference based on a single gene, and as with anything else there are always forces that may confound the inference. For example, you'd ideally want to use a large set 'neutral' genetic markers such as microsatellites which are not subject to natural selection (which can exert a strong effect on gene frequency), which is what most modern studies use (e.g. Rosenberg et al, 2002).

I'm not an expert here, but let me try to give an example. The slave-diaspora from about 1450-1880 took sub-saharan africans all over the world, where they gave rise to new populations. Suppose tomorrow something happened and wiped out all of our historical records of this slave disapora. You'd still be able to show, using gene frequency data, that the diaspora populations are rooted in a subsaharan african population.

Rosenberg et al, 2002. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381 - 2385.

Patrick

echidna · 07-14-2003, 04:03 PM

Patrick, has the APA at all revised its statement from 1995, �Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association� ?

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html

Quote:

African-American 19 scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

(emphasis mine) In fact the entire article (unfortunately lengthy) is well worth reading IMO.

karthik · 07-15-2003, 07:30 AM

So doesnt this make programs like affirmative action all the more worthwhile? If it is indeed true that some genes determine wiring of the brain and hence the likelyhood of success in the future, people with this gene deficiency should be given some assistance in leveling the playing field for all.

Also does these findings imply that some races may die out since the ones with higher IQs will be producing all the medical and scientific innovations while denying access to other races. Seems like marketforces do this all the time (such as in aids treatment drugs).

07-12-2003, 07:27 PM	#1
Kat_Somm_Faen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Boulder, Colorado Posts: 3,316	Genetic research in ethnic studies Hey guys, I wanted to ask a question about validity of using genes in sociology and/or study of ethnic origins and similar things. What I mean, in one sense, is to ask question about the recent interest of historians that study for example the frequency of certain genes appearing in different populations. I have recently come across some maps of Europe with certain gene frequency according to country. And all these layman ( mostly racist, I might add ) and historians ( you know amateurs starining to fit the data to the conclusions ) were straining to prove origins of certain peoples based on this one gene. The board was pretty filled with racist people and they were drawing all sorts of conclusions about even certain Euro nations from the maps. For example, they were questioning larger frequency of certain genes in pouplations of Southern Europe compared to Norhterners. I essence some of them were straining to prove that somehow, southern Italians are not as "pure" as northern ones and so on. Also, I can remember a study of some Y chromosome that was supposedly attributed to Genghis Khan and its wide distribution supposely leading to the conclusion thathe was the most prolific man on Earth ever. An excert: "GENETICS/Recent genetic studies indicate that some 16 million men, or half a percent of the world's male population could have descended from the Mongol emperor Genghis Khan" http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr01/snt1.asp I am sorry but it sound like such a stretch it is not even funny. I do not study genetics as a primary area but I can ask, what makes the writer conclude that the genetic mutation started with Genghis Khan and spread onto others? What makes them conclude that he was the only guy carying it and there was not a large group of men possesing the mutation already in his time? In essence, what kind of problems we run upon when any two bit historian can order a 100 blood samlples be tested for a specific gene test in a population and let him "conclude" without in-depth kowledge of genetics, mutations, gene drift and such subjects. Please help me understand this topic better. I just feel that there is much more to the story than testing for gene XYZ in a hundred of people A and a hundred of people B and concluding they are ethnically different and let laymen look at some maps with colors drawing all sorts of "conclusions"

07-13-2003, 05:52 PM	#5
glow_worm New Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: bible belt Posts: 3	One reason to study genetics and race/ethnicity Yes, it's absolutely valid to use the science of genetics to study man's evolution, human migration patterns, and population differences. Though race/ethnicity are social definitions, not scientific concepts, specific alleles are known to congregate in higher frequencies within artificially deliniated groups. Racists MISUSE scientific concepts to reinforce their own beliefs regarding the supposed inherent inferiority of a particular skin color or culturally-linked group -- we all know that. And what the hell is "pure"? Pure what? We're all hybrids of something. A major scientific value of studying genetic variation within and between populations is that we can hopefully understand the mechanisms of disease. Hopefully it will lead to better treatments, so that we can all (regardless of racial/ethnic differences) have improved health and longer lives. Some diseases cluster within socially defined ethnic groups -- so for this reason, it would be important to study genetic differences. For instance, an African American may want to know that they have a much higher risk of salt-sensitive hypertension or diabetes than other individuals in the dominant population, since increased awareness leads to more frequent screenings and necessary lifestyle changes. Caucasians may want to know that they have a much greater risk of cystic fibrosis, and therefore screen for this genetic disease in their newborns. There are countless examples of genetic diseases or predispositions that lend increased risk to certain populations based on race or ethnicity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2003, 08:19 PM	#2
karthik Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 277	not to side-track this topic but Ive got a nagging question. Has there been any conclusive studies that have linked genes to smartness(like academic achievement, creativity etc.)?To be more specific are there any genes that control the wiring of your brain? If so are certain ethnic groups more predisposed to posses such genes (which might explain higher than average measure of smartness possessed by some ethnic groups)? What would explain the disproportionate number of jewish nobel laureates which is like 20% of the prizes awarded? I personally think that it would be a bummer if such things as 'smartness' genes existed! I understand that the topic is controversial and unPC but my questions are borne out of genuine curiosity.

07-14-2003, 01:25 AM	#6
Kat_Somm_Faen Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Boulder, Colorado Posts: 3,316	Of course! People differ and on genetic level too. There is nothing to hide or keep quiet about. What bugs me is this research being used by "historians" without proper background in genetic research, biology, inheritance and on. Like looking at two people and relative frequencies of a certain gene to make conclusions about historical facts. Like using a certain gene to prove a ethnic genesis as Aryan or some other stuff. I mainly wanted to learn and ask about valid is such research without understanding how genes propagate and mutate. For example, I have herd of people claiming they certain European people have different origins from what esablished history would tell based on H19 gene frequency. The exact example goes like this - Established history says nation A belong to latin group but they have a different frequency of "latin gene XYZ" which is prevalent in other latin people. Seems like they are actually some group of nation D. Most of this had racist conotation of purity and belonging. Is this kind of claim valid? Could further mutations or isolation work to change gene frequency in certain population thereby making such claims empty? Are there unaccouted forces at play, working to "entropy" genetic uniformness? Is this too much of a simplistic approach by people whose primary area of study is not genetics? I definitely agree with professional molecular biology researchers or geneticists work on DNA but should such important study as race or history be left to people poorly trained in genetics? Especially with all sorts of agendas they might have. Especially since it is a relatively new area and with a lot more to study and learn about genes and DNA left.

07-15-2003, 07:30 AM	#10
karthik Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 277	So doesnt this make programs like affirmative action all the more worthwhile? If it is indeed true that some genes determine wiring of the brain and hence the likelyhood of success in the future, people with this gene deficiency should be given some assistance in leveling the playing field for all. Also does these findings imply that some races may die out since the ones with higher IQs will be producing all the medical and scientific innovations while denying access to other races. Seems like marketforces do this all the time (such as in aids treatment drugs).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.