Dear All New Scientist contained a very good article last month discussing just these issues (see below). Best wishes Dave Under the skin 20 Apr 02 Our DNA says there 's no such thing as race. So why do doctors still think it matters, asks Anil Ananthaswamy THOSE OF US who have felt a racist 's stare know that it scalds our skin and triggers emotions ranging from anger to shame. Last year, that anger boiled over in race riots that rocked the US and Britain. Of course, those riots sprang from a complex web of causes, but it 's also true that opponents on each side had one simple thing in common : the colour of their skins. It might seem a long way from the streets of Cincinnati or Bradford to the hospitals and research institutes where scientists seek to explain the diversity of human biology. But well-meaning doctors say they, too, need to pay attention to race. They argue that it 's a useful indicator of people 's predisposition to disease or response to drugs. Meanwhile, other scientists think that this is nonsense. Geneticists know that the racial differences most of us perceive are little more than skin-deep. They say that medical research and treatment based on visible racial characteristics is a waste of time at best and downright dangerous at worst. Even so, the latest genetic data has added a further twist to the argument. It turns out that you can group people into genetically similar clusters after all -it 's just that they don 't correspond to conventional racial groups. But they may provide doctors with better categories for research and treatment until the time when diagnosis and therapy can be tailored to an individual patient 's genes. For most people, geneticists ' talk about the non-existence of races runs up against the evidence of our own eyes. The people you meet on the street are easy to classify as being of African, South Asian, European, or some other origin. How do we explain these apparently clear differences between people of different ... well, races? Don 't external features such as skin colour, hair type, eye shape and body stature separate us? They do, but only on the surface. Many of these dramatic differences are adaptations to different climates and don 't imply any deeper genetic differences, says Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, a population geneticist at Stanford University in California. Black people are black because of melanin, the pigment that protects their skin from the damage caused by strong sunlight. White people are white because they lack melanin, since the pigment would prevent their skin from making enough vitamin D under the weak Sun of high latitudes. The tall, thin stature that helps the Masai in eastern Africa stay cool would be a disadvantage in the Arctic where the Inuit evolved with stout torsos and short limbs. But while the Masai and the Inuit represent two extremes of external appearance, in fact there are no abrupt boundaries between human populations. Features that appear unambiguous when you see an individual on the street look a lot less clear-cut when you view a wider spread of humanity. "If you walk from Senegal to Japan and you are asked to mark a line where the African characteristics stop and the Oriental characteristics begin, that 's a very hard task and one that genetics cannot help solve," says Guido Barbujani, a geneticist at the University of Ferrara in Italy. The notion of genetically meaningful races began to crumble in 1972, when Richard Lewontin, a geneticist at Harvard University, analysed variations in blood proteins taken from populations around the world. His conclusions came as a shock : humans from different "races" are not as genetically different as their appearance would suggest. He found that nearly 85 per cent of humanity 's genetic diversity occurs among individuals within a single population, such as the Swedes. Another 8 per cent occurs between populations of the same race -Swedes and Spaniards, for example. Only 7 per cent was accounted for by consistent differences between races. In other words, two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races. At the time, some researchers doubted Lewontin 's findings, pointing out that variation in proteins did not accurately reflect variation in DNA. But nearly 25 years later, Barbujani and his colleagues surveyed DNA sequence diversity directly, and their results -published in 1997 -were nearly identical to Lewontin 's. Other labs have also replicated these results. Lewontin and Barbujani 's research provides a way of measuring our diversity that does not depend on our external appearance. And it shows that as a species we are unusually homogenous. In biology, a "race" -or subspecies -is defined as a population that is geographically isolated and genetically distinct from others of the same species. To determine if a species has races, geneticists first quantify the genetic diversity of the species on a scale of 0 to 1. A 0 means that individuals from different populations are no more different than individuals from the same population, while a 1 means that each population is made up of genetically identical individuals, and all the genetic differences exist between populations. For races to exist, a species should have a genetic diversity number of at least 0.25 to 0.3. Mammals such as coyotes, elephants, gazelles and grey wolves have genetic diversity numbers that range from 0.3 to 0.8, and geneticists recognise subspecies within them. But for humans, the number is 0.15. Compared with other animals, we don 't meet the threshold. Moreover, the genetic make-up of human "races" overlaps so broadly that you can 't accurately predict someone 's race by their genes. Barbujani and his colleagues analysed a set of 21 DNA sequences from 1330 individuals from 32 populations worldwide. Using the most sophisticated statistical software available, they asked a computer to assign each individual to his or her continent of origin. The results, to be published in the journal Genome Research, show that the computer couldn 't do it. With a single DNA sequence, the computer got it wrong 80 per cent of the time. As more sequences were added, the computer got better, but even at its best the computer still failed 30 per cent of the time. So the races we think we see have little relevance to biology. But is there a better way to get at humanity 's underlying genetic variations? David Goldstein of University College London thinks so. "There is quite a simple alternative to racial labels in representing the genetic structure," he says. Goldstein and his colleagues analysed DNA samples from people in eight populations from Asia, Africa and Europe, and used statistics to sort the individuals into genetically similar groups. They found that the people divided into four clusters, broadly corresponding to four geographical areas : Western Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. But the clusters did not follow established racial lines. For instance, 62 per cent of Ethiopians were assigned to the cluster containing most Norwegians, Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians, and 21 per cent of Afro-Caribbean individuals were grouped alongside West Eurasians. It 's tempting to regard these clusters as the "real" races of humanity, but things may not be so simple. Barbujani and his colleagues performed a similar analysis using two entirely different sets of genetic markers and samples from over 30 populations -a much larger group than Goldstein 's. To their surprise, they found that the two sets of markers yielded two different clustering patterns, both different from Goldstein 's. One set of markers broke people down into one largely Eurasian group, plus two other groups in which individuals came from all over the world. The other set led to four groups : one made up of African and Oceanic people, one containing Asians and native Americans, and two other groups that were mainly Eurasian. The differences in the two groupings are so large that Barbujani concludes there is no obvious way of classifying humans into a few, well-defined groups. Goldstein, however, still believes there is an underlying set of clusters that represent the inherent genetic structure of humanity, and that finding it is mainly a matter of studying the right genetic markers. "We are all using too small a number of markers," he says. "My guess is that when we use a large enough set of markers and an exhaustive enough set of individuals, the results will stabilise. In fact, I 'm quite sure that they will." Whatever the outcome of this dispute, one thing is clear : conventional notions of race are -or should be -dead. Even where doctors find race useful in predicting the risk of certain diseases, they would do better to abandon it in favour of the more general notion of ancestry. Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, are prone to a rare genetic mutation that causes breast cancer, a mutation not shared by other white people. A focus on race can also blind us to real groupings that cut across conventional racial lines. Sickle-cell anaemia, for example -often regarded as an African disease -occurs in people from all over the world, including those from India and the Mediterranean, because a single copy of the sickle-cell gene protects individuals against malaria, which is common in all those regions. And when it comes to the more complex diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and coronary heart disease, the situation gets even murkier. Take hypertension, for instance. African-Americans suffer higher rates of high blood pressure than white Americans. But are the underlying causes genetic, environmental, socio-economic or a complex mixture of all three? No one knows, says Michael Stein of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee. Race, when used as a proxy for our genetic make-up, is a crude classification that glosses over the real causes of complex diseases such as hypertension, he says. For instance, stress -mental, physical, or financial -can cause hypertension, and black people in the US are more likely to suffer socio-economic stress than white people. "By focusing on race we 've really been very simplistic in our approach to understanding hypertension," Stein says. "We 've done ourselves a disservice." Yet medical studies continue to regard race as an important predictor of disease risk or response to drugs. Last year, for example, Derek Exner of the University of Calgary in Canada and his colleagues reported that a drug called enalapril lowered blood pressure more effectively in white patients than in black patients. The researchers suggest that the findings may have a genetic basis, because other studies have shown that black and white people differ in their ability to metabolise drugs such as enalapril. In the light of what geneticists are saying about race, many have criticised such studies. "All race-based biological research should be phased out, because racial biology is an oxymoron," says Robert Schwartz, a former chief of the department of haematology and oncology at the New England Medical Center in Boston. Nevertheless, some physicians are already claiming that enalapril should not be prescribed to African-Americans. Also, race-based research can reinforce stereotypes and encourage the blaming of patients for their illnesses. For instance, in Britain, South Asians are seen as a "problem" population because of their higher risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease. Medical literature often refers to the "South Asian health problem," says Nish Chaturvedi, an epidemiologist at the Imperial College School of Medicine in London. "If you read that too often, it does sound like South Asians themselves are the problem, rather than some of the diseases that occur," she says. Still, some researchers maintain that races are useful categories. "Comparing incidence rates between races may provide some insights as to the cause of disease. When you are thinking about allocating health resources and developing prevention programmes, then looking at disease by race is very important," says cancer researcher Ray Merrill of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. There is a way to appease both camps, says Goldstein. Genetic clusters of the sort that he and Barbujani have identified may give doctors the hints they need, while avoiding racial baggage. Take drug response, for instance. Researchers normally study variations in genes that code for drug metabolising enzymes (DMEs). Mutations in the DMEs can affect how we process drugs, turning a dose that is ineffectively low for one person into a fatal overdose for another. Traditionally, researchers have tried to correlate these variations to race -and the traditional races do in fact differ in the DME variations they display. But Goldstein thinks we can do better. He argues that DME variations don 't correspond very closely to racial categories. "We 'll see that maybe a drug works well in a higher fraction of individuals from one part of the world than another part, but it 's not going to be the case that a drug works terrifically in China and terribly in the UK," he says. "There just aren 't those kinds of sharp differences." In contrast, variation in six genes that code for DMEs was strongly correlated with the four genetic clusters he found in his latest study. "There are some cases where the racial classification fails spectacularly," says Goldstein. For instance, Chinese and Papua New Guineans, who would both fall into the "Asian" racial group, ended up in separate clusters -and their DME variations were significantly different. As useful as all this may be, it still falls short of the ideal. Knowing someone 's genetic cluster still gives you only a rough guess as to a given drug 's potency -more accurate than if you were using racial labels, but still not a firm prediction. "The long-term goal must be to find the individual mutations that matter, and genotype people," says Goldstein. "Forget about what race they are, or even what genetic cluster they are from, just genotype them directly and find the drug that works best on that genotype." But that 's still some years off. In the meantime, some sort of ancestry-based clustering may provide the tool medicine needs to get past the concept of race once and for all. Anil Ananthaswamy Anil Ananthaswamy is a science writer in Berkeley From New Scientist magazine, vol 174 issue 2339, 20/04/2002, page 34 Alison Macfarlane wrote: > Another response to the same. > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > To: Spirit of 1848 <[log in to unmask]> > Copies to: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask] > From: Paula Braveman <[log in to unmask]> > Date sent: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:27:01 -0700 > Subject: [spiritof1848] Jack Geiger's response to Satel article > > [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] > > Jack Geiger sent the following eloquent letter to the editor of the NY > Times responding to Sally Satel's May 5 article. > > May 8, 2002 > > To the Editor: > > To any competent and conscientious physician, Dr. Sally Satel's > justification for > being a "Racially Profiling Doctor" must seem an alarming mixture of bad > science and bad > medicine. Dr. Satel is determining the "race" of her patients on the basis > of a few > visible but superficial characteristicsskin color, facial features, hair > texturethe product of > a handful of genes that, in any individual, may have no association with > other factors linked > to disease susceptibility. Further, since there is more genetic variation > between any two > African Americans than there is between them and any two whites of the same > gender, and > vice versa, she has no basis for inventing an innate biological > predisposition in any one of > them. To automatically apply variations among population groups to every > patient is to > gamble with undertreatment, overtreatment, missed diagnoses and false > diagnoses, and her > staatistical count of rare black/white nucleotide variations is medically > meaningless, since > those may occur in junk DNA, inactive genes, or genes that have nothing to > do with disease. > Dr. Satel asserts that "stereotyping often works."" Well, it works > for some cardiologists > who project classic negative stereotypes about energy, intelligence and > compliance onto > some black patients, and then recommend against bypass surgery even in the > face of urgent > clinical indications. It works for emergency room physicians who assume > that black > patients seeking relief from the agony of a sickle cell crisis must be drug > addicts looking for > a fix. It works for physicians who surmise that a wealthy professional > minority woman > with abdominal pain must have gonorrhea. All these cases are amply > documented in the > peer-reviewed medical literature. Such spurious racial profiling and > stereotyping are abhorrent in > medicine, as the case of its most notorious proponent, Josef Mengele, makes > clear. > > H. Jack Geiger, M.D. > Arthur C. Logan Professor of > Community Medicine, Emeritus > City University of New York > Medical School > > ************************ > Paula Braveman, MD, MPH > Professor of Family and Community Medicine > University of California, San Francisco > 500 Parnassus Avenue, Room MU-306E > San Francisco, California, USA 94143-0900 > telephone: 415-476-6839 > facsimile: 415-476-6051 > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > We welcome posting on social justice & public health that provide: > a) information (e.g. about conferences or job announcements or > publications relevant to social justice & public health), and > b) substantive queries or comments directly addressing issues > relevant to social justice and public health. > > Please do NOT post petitions on the bulletin board, as they clog up > the works; instead, if you have a petition you want to circulate, > please post a notice about the petition and provide your email > address so people can email you to get a copy of the petition. Also, > to limit e-mail volume, please do not send posts directed toward a > single individual to the list at large. Instead of hitting 'reply', > cut and paste the person's address into the 'to' field, and send your > message directly to the her/him. > > Community email addresses: > Post message: [log in to unmask] > Subscribe: [log in to unmask] > Unsubscribe: [log in to unmask] > List owner: [log in to unmask] > Web page: www.progressivehn.org > > To subscribe or un-subscribe send an e-mail to the address > specified above with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" > in the subject line. > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > __________________________________________________________________ Alison Macfarlane St Bartholomew School of Nursing and Midwifery 20 Bartholomew Close West Smithfield Tel 0207 040 5832 London EC1A 7QN Email [log in to unmask] _________________________________________________________________ > ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] ******************************************************* -- Dave Gordon Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research University of Bristol 8 Priory Road Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK E-Mail: [log in to unmask] Tel: (44)-(117)-954 6761 Fax: (44)-(117)-954 6756 ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] *******************************************************