Race, genetics and us

By Jason Lim

National Geographic's Instagram account recently posted a striking picture of two girls, one white and one black; they are twin sisters. Here is the official caption: "11-year-old twins Millie (left) and Marcia (right) from Birmingham, the United Kingdom, pose for the cover of this month's special issue on Race. Their mother calls them her 'rainbow twins.' 'They're my miracles,' she says. Race is a made-up label used to define and separate us."

These girls are fraternal twins, born from a black father and white mother. And they are the perfect example of those who claim that race is a social construct made up by human beings as an expression of our tribal instincts in wanting to differentiate between groups.

According to the National Geographic's article, "Historically, when humans have drawn lines of identity ― separating Us from Them ― they've often relied on skin color as a proxy for race. But the 21st-century understanding of human genetics tells us that the whole idea of race is a human invention."

Modern science confirms "that the visible differences between peoples are accidents of history ― the result of mutations, migrations, natural selection, the isolation of some populations, and interbreeding among others," writes science journalist Elizabeth Kolbert. They are not racial differences because the very concept of race ― to quote DNA-sequencing pioneer Craig Venter ― "has no genetic or scientific basis."

Then again, we have a recent New York Times op-ed by David Reich, a well-respected scientist, who says that, "But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among races."

"Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual's genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago ― before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years," he continues.

"With the help of these tools, we are learning that the while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today's racial constructs are real."

Which means that while the concept of race could be a social construct, there is scientific evidence that different human populations do have variations in genetic material that translates into measurable, real-life impacts.

Reich writes, "Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases."

"For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease."

But while it's easier to accept that different genetics will lead to varying degrees of susceptibility to diverse diseases, Reich's argument becomes much more difficult to stomach when it ventures into behavior and cognition, despite growing evidence that genetics is a predictor in both lifestyle behavior (when you get married) and intelligence (IQ scores). It's not more difficult to stomach because it's wrong ― if human beings are the totality of expressions of their genetic blueprint, then it seems logical that expression includes physical, behavioral and cognitive elements.

My concern stems from my belief that we may not yet be mature enough ― as a society ― to deal with the inevitability of his research from a place of respect, fairness, and inclusion. Human beings instinctively and constantly compare ourselves to each other to gauge our sense of status in whatever society we belong to.

Our sense of wellbeing and happiness is a relative measure of how we stand compared to the next person. In fact, everything about us is relative. We actively create different groups to compare against and feel superior to. And within our own group, we actively and constantly compare ourselves against other individuals to inform our sense of wellbeing.

Given this tendency ― which, ironically enough, is also a genetically determined trait since it is a part of our neurological behavior ― can we really expect our society not to weaponize any genetically-driven differences in behavior and cognition to drive deeper wedges between us and justify discriminations based on different genetic ancestry?

I understand that Reich is a scientist who's making rational deductions based on his findings. He doesn't have a political agenda and seems fully aware (and concerned) of the potential societal misuse of his findings for racist purposes. In fact, he ends the op-ed with an expression of hope for how we ― human beings ― will deal with the inevitability of acknowledging differences among "races."

I just hope that his hope isn't misplaced.

Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006.