Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 10 2020, @01:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the Who-Are-You? dept.

Genetic ancestry tests are a multi-billion dollar industry. In exchange for a sample of genetic material, one receives charts and figures mapping them onto popular concepts of race. The problem with this approach is that although there are minor genetic differences that allow geneticists to trace population migrations, these differences don't support the idea that one can sort races on genetic differences alone. Social scientists have argued that given how race definitions have changed over time and place, that race classifications are more a social construct defined more in terms of geographic proximity and cultural norms than they are based on genetics. At the other end of the spectrum is the concept of genetic essentialism. This views the concept of race as being exclusively defined in terms of genetic makeup and how these differences imbue different races with different inherent abilities or liabilities. Genetic essentialist views promote the concept of genetic exclusivity and reinforces racial stereotypes, underpinning negative policies such as eugenics and apartheid.

The problem with genetic ancestry testing, apart from the privacy issues that we typically see stories about here, is the inconsistency of analysis and popular misconceptions of what the results mean. With tens of millions of people taking these tests every year, an open question has been what effect these results have on people's concepts of race. Some have argued that they are likely to reinforce a genetic essentialist view of race because the results are broken down into distinct groups and people interpret the results as being objective and authoritative. Others have argued the opposite in that people have a more social construct idea of race when the results do not confirm their experience ("All my life I thought I was German, but I found out I'm actually Italian!").

Researchers from the University of British Columbia attempted to answer this question with a paper published in the open access journal Plos One. They conducted a randomized controlled trial where they assembled a group of people who were willing to take a genetic ancestry test and provided half of them with a test. The group was then evaluated to gauge the extent that they supported genetic essentialism ideas. In addition, at the outset the group was also quizzed on their general knowledge of genetics. What the researchers found was that, on average, getting these test results did not change one's views on genetic essentialism; however, when considering a person's overall level of genetics understanding, they found that genetic essentialism ideas were strengthened in people who had lower knowledge of genetics after they received their ancestry test results. "Taking a test thus has a polarizing effect, magnifying differences in essentialist beliefs even further between those with weaker and stronger understandings of the science behind them."

Roth WD, Yaylacı Ş, Jaffe K, Richardson L. (2020) Do genetic ancestry tests increase racial essentialism? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227399


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by fadrian on Monday February 10 2020, @03:25PM (2 children)

    by fadrian (3194) on Monday February 10 2020, @03:25PM (#956352) Homepage

    ... other than trying to make this paper a politicized hot topic?

    I think that what they found has little to do with beliefs about genetics, but a lot to do with the fact that people who know less about a subject area would be more susceptible to thinking issues of all kinds because they have less information to start with and thus have poorer judgment in these subjects. The interesting thing is what this says in general - to convince a person who has a deficit in a subject area, you not only have to give them proper, factual information, but also must rid them of their false beliefs in the subject area - a much harder task. And some people are so wedded to their own beliefs, you will never convince them.

    --
    That is all.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @03:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @03:46PM (#956361)

    Also has a lot to do with how media report on many scientific studies, a 60% +-10% to them becomes 100% total proof and is reported as such.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @10:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 10 2020, @10:14PM (#956566)

    For most people at this time, races are the result of genetics. As more awareness grows for the lack of evidence for our current classification system, that will likely change. But for a plurality of people, one's race is based upon the races of the parents and as a result genetic in nature.

    It's not a particularly good view of what happens as weird things can happen, I used to know a woman that looked Asian, in that her eyes were almond shaped and she had a relatively dark complexion, but according to her, she had no relatives from Asia. At least not recent enough to account for the appearance.

    It also fails to account for people that are just more comfortable living as though they're a different racial or ethnic classification from what they were born with. Rachel Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal [wikipedia.org] caused quite the stir by trying to pass as Black despite having no known Black relatives.