Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Race: The Looming 'Crisis' in Human Genetics

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    700 Posts

    The Looming Crisis in Human Genetics

    Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

    About five years ago, genetics researchers became excited about new methods for “genome-wide association studies” (GWAS). We already knew from twin, family and adoption studies that all human traits are heritable: genetic differences explain much of the variation between individuals. We knew the genes were there; we just had to find them. Companies such as Illumina and Affymetrix produced DNA chips that allowed researchers to test up to 1m genetic variants for their statistical association with specific traits. America’s National Institutes of Health and Britain’s Wellcome Trust gave huge research grants for gene-hunting. Thousands of researchers jumped on the GWAS bandwagon. Lab groups formed and international research consortia congealed. The quantity of published GWAS research has soared.

    In 2010, GWAS fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes. The data are already collected, with DNA samples from large populations already measured for these traits. It’s just a matter of doing the statistics and writing up the papers for Nature Genetics. The gold rush is on throughout the leading behaviour-genetics centres in London, Amsterdam, Boston, Boulder and Brisbane.

    GWAS researchers will, in public, continue trumpeting their successes to science journalists and Science magazine. They will reassure Big Pharma and the grant agencies that GWAS will identify the genes that explain most of the variation in heart disease, cancer, obesity, depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s and ageing itself. Those genes will illuminate the biochemical pathways underlying disease, which will yield new genetic tests and blockbuster drugs. Keep holding your breath for a golden age of health, happiness and longevity.

    In private, though, the more thoughtful GWAS researchers are troubled. They hold small, discreet conferences on the “missing heritability” problem: if all these human traits are heritable, why are GWAS studies failing so often? The DNA chips should already have identified some important genes behind physical and mental health. They simply have not been delivering the goods.

    Certainly, GWAS papers have reported a couple of hundred genetic variants that show statistically significant associations with a few traits. But the genes typically do not replicate across studies. Even when they do replicate, they never explain more than a tiny fraction of any interesting trait. In fact, classical Mendelian genetics based on family studies has identified far more disease-risk genes with larger effects than GWAS research has so far.

    Why the failure? The missing heritability may reflect limitations of DNA-chip design: GWAS methods so far focus on relatively common genetic variants in regions of DNA that code for proteins. They under-sample rare variants and DNA regions translated into non-coding RNA, which seems to orchestrate most organic development in vertebrates. Or it may be that thousands of small mutations disrupt body and brain in different ways in different populations. At worst, each human trait may depend on hundreds of thousands of genetic variants that add up through gene-expression patterns of mind-numbing complexity.

    Political science

    We will know much more when it becomes possible to do cheap “resequencing”—which is really just “sequencing” a wider variety of individuals beyond the handful analysed for the Human Genome Project. Full sequencing means analysing all 3 billion base pairs of an individual’s DNA rather than just a sample of 1m genetic variants as the DNA chips do. When sequencing costs drop within a few years below $1,000 per genome, researchers in Europe, China and India will start huge projects with vast sample sizes, sophisticated bioinformatics, diverse trait measures and detailed family structures. (American bioscience will prove too politically squeamish to fund such studies.) The missing heritability problem will surely be solved sooner or later.

    The trouble is, the resequencing data will reveal much more about human evolutionary history and ethnic differences than they will about disease genes. Once enough DNA is analysed around the world, science will have a panoramic view of human genetic variation across races, ethnicities and regions. We will start reconstructing a detailed family tree that links all living humans, discovering many surprises about mis-attributed paternity and covert mating between classes, castes, regions and ethnicities.

    We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

    If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Monday, January 4th, 2021 @ 03:49 AM
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    England England
    South Coast
    Zodiac Sign
    Self Employed
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1,438 Posts
    It seems to me that, having suppressed many of Darwin's findings (that were too politically incorrect for the Marxist age we live in) we've now rediscovered them via another route. Why didn't the geneticists just read his book?

    The next question is ... how much of this "new" knowledge will be deemed suitable for the public?

  3. #3
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Friday, February 26th, 2010 @ 02:44 AM
    Germanic and Slavic American
    1/2 Bavarian and 1/2 Galician
    United States United States
    Texas Texas
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    (Warning, this post is kind of long and rambling.... but science is a passion of mine, so it's easy for me to go on and on about it.)

    I think it's interesting to see how different approaches to this science unfold over time, as the thinking and the tools become more sophisticated.

    Most natural sciences go through a series of broad phases as they mature.

    A sign of an "immature" science is a focus on taxonomy and classification.

    "Let's create a table of different kinds of elements"
    "Let's create a list of different types of stars"
    "Let's create a map relating parts of the brain to behaviors"
    "Let's create a list of gene-trait correlations"
    and so on.

    Once the maps are drawn and detailed, a sign of a science maturing is a shift from taxonomy to process/functionality: HOW do these things work? instead of WHAT are they?

    "Why does each element have the traits it has?"
    "How do stars evolve from one type to another, and why?"
    "How are the neurons connected to produce a particular behavior?"
    "How does a particular gene sequence lead to a particular phenotypic trait?"

    Genetics is still very young. Right now, in genetics, people are all excited about the mapping. I'm going to simply create a list of GENE X is correlated with TRAIT Y.

    I think the really exciting stuff will come in the future.

    The really exciting stuff will be when we've advanced to the question of mechanism.

    Somehow, this particular DNA sequence leads to the formation of a particular set of proteins that lead to a change in the structure of the organism's nervous system that results in.... (e.g.) risk taking behavior, or sexuality, or whatever.

    In my opinion, that's where the MEAT is, intellectually.

    ....but that's just me.

Similar Threads

  1. Genetics Identifies New Human Ancestor
    By Shadow in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Thursday, July 28th, 2016, 10:05 PM
  2. The Genetics of Race
    By Rudra Chai Siphra in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Saturday, October 25th, 2008, 01:23 PM
  3. Genetics of Modern Human Origins and Differentiation
    By Euclides in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Monday, April 10th, 2006, 04:25 PM
  4. Genetic Disease and the Development of Human Genetics
    By Euclides in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, May 31st, 2004, 05:17 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts