Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
differences' among people? How might those criteria be made flesh through
measurable differences in a person's appearance, behaviour, performance
or health?
Study Task:
In light of the questions posed immediately above, think of
group-level physical differences that have sometimes been said to distin-
guish the appearance of the following: west Africans, west Europeans and
Jews. Make a list of these differences, focussing on ones that seem to be
'objectively' true. In your view, are these differences 'meaningful'? If so, can
you specify the reasons why?
The questions posed above are highly sensitive ones. They open the door
to some differences being judged negatively as 'threats', 'risks', 'imperfec-
of
Nature
announcing the 'completion' of the human genome map (see
Plate 4.4
). Composed of pixels of people's faces, which together com-
prise the double helix of DNA, the cover was scrupulously inclusive of all
humanity in its image selections. Why has the hunt for sub-dermal human
difference occurred? Quite aside from scientific curiosity ('knowledge for
knowledge's sake'), there are careers and fortunes to be made in what's called
pharmacogenetics (i.e. drugs tailored to people's genetic needs) and the
invention of other bespoke biomedical interventions. There are also lives to
be improved (depending on how one defines 'improve') by identifying and
then treating specific illnesses or behaviours common to subsets of people
and which seem to have a genetic origin of some kind. However, as I noted
in passing earlier, some critics worry that a new 'consumer eugenics' is fast
coming our way - one presented in the positive language of 'liberty' and
'freedom'.
The question then arises: can one identify group-level differences in the
human genome as a matter of
fact
, free from presuppositions about how
the groups are defined? This question matters a great deal, and for two rea-
sons. First, if the categories are presupposed then one may be looking for
patterns of genetic difference and similarity among the wrong set of indi-
viduals. To use a classic scientific trope, the 'data cannot speak for itself '
because the categorical basis for data sorting and comparison is problematic
from the get-go. Second, categories of group difference have a social exis-
tence outside of science - and an often nefarious one too (think of how
the referents of the term 'race' have suffered from racism in the labour
market, education and other arenas besides, both now and in the past).
This means that scientists interested in human biological difference must
be careful to separate their own epistemic practices from those of lay actors
in the wider society. Otherwise they can be accused of using categories con-
taining cultural value judgements to search for enduring patterns of group
biological diversity. This accusation remains especially relevant to molecular
