Dean's World

My only quibble is that Mr. Goldstein (like many others) goes to far in insisting that there's no biological meaning to race. In a lot of ways, that's true; but when it becomes dogma, it drives the doctors crazy. Race is an indicator (though not a predictor) of a shared genetic heritage that can indicate proclivity toward (or against) certain diseases. The high tendency toward sickle cell anemia and malaria resistance among those of African descent is the most well known example, but there are lots of others. And there are probably lots we haven't found yet; but if researchers try to look into these, they can be tripped up by the "race is a social construct" dogmatists.

To insist that there's no biological component to race is, frankly, silly PC crap. We can well argue over how much the biological components matter. We can observe that the range of variation within one race is large enough to contain individuals of another race, making it extremely difficult to define race. But when we deny any biological component to race, we rob doctors of an important diagnostic tool. That's dangerous.

Josh,

I agree that they're minor differences. But when I read essays (I can't find one right now, but I've seen them occasionally) where researchers are shut down because the biology of race is a taboo subject, and thus we lose out on possible treatment programs, then I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Race (i.e., differences in skin color, facial features, etc., deriving from which continent your ancestors came from), like blood type, should be used by doctors in diagnosing and treating diseases. But we do not classify people by blood type for "affirmative action", nor do we have demagogues screaming that certain blood types are morally inferior or are politically oppressed, and we should not do so with race either. I once wrote a story based on a war between blood types just as I satirically described here. It's a reductio ad absurdam. Problem is, everything you think of as a reduction ad absurdam is now being taught as truth by some professor somewhere.

Martin —

I think you'll find I'm the farthest thing from PC. In the early days of the blogospher, Steve Sailer showed up in my comments to make the same kind of argument you're making here. Essentiall, Josh (above) is correct: the way we use race and the way race actually works genetically are disconnected; my solution was to get rid of race as we use it, not to get rid of the science of population genetics. My argument is a semantic one, but an important one nevertheless, as it is precisely the semantic misunderstanding of "race" that, once it finds its way into public policy, becomes problematic.

Here is the link to my email exchange with Sailer; and here's a follow-up post debating Aaron Hawkins, now deceased. Read through the comments, as well, for some further back and forth; I think some good debate took place there.

Well it only makes sense. Diabetes runs higher in the black community than any other sub-population in the United States except possibly American Indians. Doctors need to know this, and more importantly, black and Native American people need to know this--they're at risk big time.

Black men have almost a ten year lower life expectancy from the general population. Heart disease and the diabetes cut them down like crazy once they hit middle age. They need to know this. Doctors do know it, but in-depth study of it is lacking. Some assume it's cultural factors, and maybe that's it... or maybe it's not it. Or maybe it's culture AND something else. If we're afraid to ask the question, we just don't know do we?