Violent metaphors Thoughts from the intersection of science, pseudoscience, and conflict.

Time 2020-07-15 21:04:08

Web Name: Violent metaphors Thoughts from the intersection of science, pseudoscience, and conflict.

WebSite: http://violentmetaphors.com

ID:26494

Keywords:

from,the,Thoughts,

Description:

How do scientists talk about race? For quite some time asmall group of geneticists have been engaged in deep conversations about howbest to convey the complexities of, and the relationship between race, DNA, andhuman variation to the general public. We come from different backgrounds—Ewanis the director of the European Bioinformatics Institute, Adam is a geneticistand science writer, Aylwyn is a human evolutionary geneticist, and I am ananthropological geneticist—and nationalities, but are united in our agreementthat patterns of human genetic variation do not support the biological divisionof people into races.Over the course of a year, we worked together on a statementthat best reflects our consensus view of human genetic variation, race, andeven the fraught topic of race and IQ. We wanted to correct the misconceptionsthat many people have about these topics, and directly confront a number of untrueideas promoted by a small group of pseudo-scientists who refer to themselves as“race realists” or proponents of “human biological diversity” (HBD). The result is a (rather lengthy) statement which Ewan has posted in its entirety here. I want to summarize its main points here with excerpts, but I encourage everyone to go read the whole thing. We intend for this statement to contribute to the ongoing conversation between scientists, social scientists, scholars in the humanities, the media, and the public.(Also please note that I kept the original British spellingsin excerpts that I quoted from the statement). Research in the 20th century foundthat the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asianetc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning thatdifferences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match thetraditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is thatrace is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree onthese terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biologicalcategories. Describing race as a social construct does not undermine itsexistence, nor its importance; it merely points out that there is nofundamental biological basis for race.Some people claim that theexquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain bysequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actuallyshow that the older notions of races as biological categories (some dating backto the 18th century) were basically correct in the first place. Asevidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses instudies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continentalgroups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent themethods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both geneticand physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for theconcept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.Geneticists use a variety of toolsto visualise the subtle and complex patterns of genetic variation betweenpeople, and to mathematically cluster them together based on relatedness. Suchmethods are helpful for exploring data, but have also been the source of widerconfusion. For example, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots often showdistinct, colourful clusters of dots that appear to separate groups of peoplefrom different parts of the world. In some cases, these clusters even seem tocorrespond to traditional racial groupings (e.g. ‘Africans’, ‘Europeans’ and‘Asians’). It is images such as these which are often deployed as geneticevidence for the existence of separate races. But these methods can be misleadingin ways which non-experts – and even some specialists – are unaware of. Forexample, some of the observed genetic clustering is a reflection of the samplesthat were included in the study and how they were collected, rather than anyinherent genetic structure. DNA sample collection typically follows existingcultural, anthropological or political groupings. If samples are collectedbased on pre-defined groupings, it’s entirely unsurprising that the analyses ofthese samples will return results that identify such groupings. This does nottell us that such taxonomies are inherent in human biology.sometimes assert that allegeddifferences in the mean value of IQ when measured in different populations –such as the claim that IQ in some sub-Saharan African countries is measurablylower than in European countries – are caused by genetic variation, and thusare inherent. The purported genetic differences involved are usually attributedto recent natural selection and adaptation to different environments orconditions. Often there are associated stories about the causes of thisselection, for example that early humans outside Africa faced a morechallenging struggle for survival, or that via historical persecution andrestriction of professional endeavours, Ashkenazi Jews harbour genes selectedfor intellectual and financial success.Such tales, and the claims aboutthe genetic basis for population differences, are not scientifically supported.In reality for most traits, including IQ, it is not only unclear that geneticvariation explains differences between populations, it is also unlikely. Tounderstand why requires a bit of background.(Most genome-wide association studiesfor detecting variants associated with complex traits such as IQ, known asGWAS) have been carried out in populations sampled from across Europe, and haveancestries consistent with this sampling. In many cases though, only certainsubsets of people are included in these analyses – for good scientific reasons.For example, samples of “European” populations used in genetic studies oftenhave excluded up to as many as 30% of self-identified Europeans. This isbecause some individuals introduce hard-to-model complications into the data,forming distinct sub-clusters or complicating the genetic model. For example,Finns and Sardinians are often excluded as they have quite distinct geneticancestries compared to many other Europeans, as are some people in India, northAfrica, Latino/Hispanics, and many individuals with complex ancestries, despiteconfident self-identification within their ethnic group. Researchers thereforeoften exclude them from the set of people used in a particular GWAS analyses,on the basis that their unique population histories can invalidate thestatistical models used in these techniques.This, in turn, can confuse peoplewho read the studies and observe distinct and seemingly ‘natural’ populationclusters emerge. If they aren’t familiar with the practice of removing theseindividuals with more complex ancestries (or don’t read the detailed methods,which are often tucked away in elusive supplementary sections of a publishedpaper), they could easily be misled into thinking that the populations in theseanalyses are much more distinct than they are in reality. The resulting biasesare poorly understood, and the terminology involved can be confusing tonon-specialists. Furthermore, while it is clear to GWAS researchers that the resultsof their analyses tend to be specific to the population studied and theirpredictions cannot be reliably extended to other populations with verydifferent ancestry, this is not widely recognised or understood bynon-specialists.IQ scores are heritable: that is,within populations, genetic variation is related to variation in the trait. Buta fundamental truism about heritability is that it tells us nothing aboutdifferences betweengroups. Even analyses that have tried to calculate the proportion of thedifference between people in different countries for a much morestraightforward trait (height) have faced scientific criticisms. Simply put,nobody has yet developed techniques that can bypass the genetic clustering andremoval of people that do not fit the statistical model mentioned above, whilesimultaneously taking into account all the differences in language, income,nutrition, education, environment, and culture that may themselves be the causeof differences in any trait observed between different groups. This applies toany trait you could care to look at – height, specific behaviours, diseasesusceptibility, intelligence.Not only that, the geneticknowledge we gain from studying our mainly-European pools of participantsbecomes highly unreliable when it is applied to those with differentancestries. Although it is a common trope to argue that we will have the answerto the question of the genetic basis of group differences in traits “in thenext five years”, or “in the next decade”, the advances in genomics reveal thatthe question is far more complex than we could have imagined, even just a fewyears ago. Consequently, anyone who tells you that there’s good evidence on howmuch genetics explain group differences (rather than individual differences) isfooling you – or fooling themselves.However, there are some stronghints towards the answer. The genetic variants that are most stronglyassociated with IQ in Europeans are no more population-specific than any othertrait. To put it bluntly, the same genetic variants associated with purportedly higher IQ inEuropeans are also present in Africans, and have not emerged, or been obviouslyselected for, in recent evolutionary history outside Africa. Moreover, since itis a complex trait, the genetic variation related to IQ is broadly distributedacross the genome, rather than being clustered around a few spots, as is thenature of the variation responsible for skin pigmentation. These very differentpatterns for these two traits mean that the genes responsible for determiningskin pigmentation cannot be meaningfully associated with the genes currentlyknown to be linked to IQ. These observations alone rule out some of the cruderracial narratives about the genetics of intelligence: it is virtually inconceivablethat the primary determinant of racial categories – that is skin colour – isstrongly associated with the genetic architecture that relates tointelligence. Finally, multiple lines of evidenceindicate that there are complex environmental effects (as might reasonably beexpected) on measures of IQ and educational attainment. Many socioeconomic andcultural factors are entangled with ancestry in the countries where thesestudies are often performed – particularly in the USA, where structural racismhas historically and continues to hugely contribute to economic and socialdisparities. We cannot use populations in these countries to help answer thequestion of why IQ scores are claimed to be lower in other countries with entirely differentsocial, economic, and cultural histories, nor to answer the role of geneticsfor alleged differencesin IQ measures between groups inside a country with strong societal differenceslinked to ancestry (for example, the USA). Thus, confident assertions thatcurrent GWAS show us that ‘race’ is associated with cognitive function aresimply wrong. It is our contention that any apparent population differences in IQ scoresare more easily explained by cultural and environmental factors than they areby genetics.The history of our species is complex and convoluted, and our genomes reflect that. As we delve deeper into the DNA of the people of the world, the science of genetics becomes even more complex too. But we see no scientifically sound evidence that contemporary genetics can be used to recapitulate biological or historical concepts for race. It is our duty and wish that this understanding is spread far and wide. The authors wish to thank Stuart Ritchie for his valuable contributions to our discussion.I hope that everyone has a wonderful holiday. If you d like to read something about science, I have a new-ish post up at Forbes to close the year out: Five Amazing Things We Learned About History From Ancient DNA In 2018 .Every year ancient DNA research deepens our understanding of history a bit more, and 2018 was truly a remarkable year for ancient DNA research.By February the total number of genomes characterized from ancient individuals surpassed 1,300.I want to highlight five of what I think are the most interesting discoveries made this yearA disabled veteran and former fake news huckster has squeezed $17 million out of American conservatives with a promise to “fund the wall.” The press has covered the crowdfunding campaign, and even dug a bit into his shady prior endeavors. But I can’t find a single report really analyzing how the man behind this campaign, Brian Kolfage, is benefiting personally. He s given an audience of disaffected conservatives, frustrated by Trump s failures, a way to buy the feeling of a successful movement. It s an unscrupulous way to monetize irrationality and xenophobia, and it s going to succeed even as the campaign to fund the wall fails.(Kolfage has sued people in the past for criticizing him. With that in mind, I’ll point out the obvious: this piece shares previously reported facts about Kolfage and his campaign, as well as my opinions based on those facts. For example, the numbers below come from the linked public sources. My conclusion based on those reported facts, that Kolfage is an unscrupulous huckster, is purely my opinion. I do not have any reason to believe that he has broken any laws.) This was a big year for conspiracy theories. They’ve staked out more space in the headlines than we used to be comfortable with and stayed long enough that we’re starting to get used to it. The energy feeding them comes from above, as Trump and other mainstream media figures find new ways to harness conspiracy theory culture, and from below, as movements like Q Anon find ways to raise their profile with cynical self-awareness.October was particularly gruesome. While relatively benign groups were busy ginning up new conspiracy theories for the benefit of the US and Russian governments—a bizarre flipflop of their traditional hostility to mainstream power—two men made headlines in a horribly familiar way. One murdered eleven people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the other mailed more than a dozen bombs to Trump’s critics. They apparently both believed that Jews and liberals were plotting against them, and they decided to fight their imaginary enemies by slaughtering strangers.The wall of stickers on the MAGA Bomber s van were a perfect visual representation of the fog of angry paranoia fueling that movement today.These are two different expressions of the same basic phenomenon. Not every conspiracy theorist will act on their beliefs, and even fewer will become violent. But those extremists aren’t arising in a vacuum. They radicalize over time, after years of absorbing frantic, paranoid calls to action the culture that grows up around particularly invidious conspiracy theories. We can’t do much to control the bell end of violent extremists directly; only law enforcement is really equipped to do that, and unfortunately only after the damage has already been done. But going into the holidays and 2019, we—and that does include you, the reader—can do something to disarm the culture that radicalizes them. Continue reading My latest for Forbes discusses the new paper by Rascovan and colleagues, “Emergence and Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis during the Neolithic Decline.”Researchers investigated the hypothesis that the so-called “Neolithic Decline”—population decreases throughout Europe—was caused at least in part by pandemics. To do this, they cleverly made use of one feature of paleogenomics that often causes researchers to tear their hair out. When we sequence or genotype ancient DNA extractions, we get back data from all the DNA extracted from the ancient source, including large amounts of microbial DNA. This can be incredibly frustrating if you’re trying to reconstruct a genome of the human whose bone (or tooth, or hair) you’re extracting from; it can be enormously expensive to sequence enough DNA to get a whole human genome. However, in this case, the researchers were able to look at published datasets to see if they could find evidence of pathogens in DNA published from Neolithic individuals buried in a high-density passage grave in the Frälsegården cemetery in Falbygden (western Sweden).You can read more here.@ArchaeOhlrau, who works on Trypillia mega-sites (which Rascovan et al. implicated in the origins of plague), did a Twitter thread on this paper critiquing some of their interpretations and providing some much-needed context. For example,And most importantly: there are no human remains from mega-sites. Thus, their hypothesis of a plague outbreak can t be falsified. Inhumations occur at the end of Trypillia, during the transition to burial mounds or in special contexts like the Verteba cave.— René Ohlrau

TAGS:from the Thoughts 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Thoughts from the intersection of science, pseudoscience, and conflict.

Hot Websites