The educational and health complexities in American society cannot be explained by a single theory. However, no one theory continues to have as much of an impact on our social construct than Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection. It is doubtful that Charles Darwin himself predicted the impact his assertions would have on our interactions within present-day society as well as the effects propagated throughout the world. Yet, his theories of genetic variations, incorrectly applied, filter into our socio-political and health paradigms and permeate our educational and health infrastructure while politicians and corporations quibble over moral and ethical obligations that drive a wedge between cultures defined more by economics than biological differences.
A central theme of population genetics is that “race is an inherent biological characteristic that accurately reflects human ancestry and the flow of common threads of genetic material in biologically distinct populations over time and geography” (Fine et al., 2005). As such, genetics research has the potential to identify populations at risk of developing particular diseases, thereby providing the opportunity for tailored preventive medicine therapies as well as personalized medicine by use of identified biological markers (Burchard et al., 2003). Although mapping race and genes is not a new phenomenon, modern technology has the propensity to propel these theories into research and, if proven true, actual practice.
Opponents of using the biological notion of race argue that the species Homo sapiens consists of a single population not biologically distinct while citing the Human Genome project that shows humans share 99.9% of their genetic makeup (Fine et al., 2005; Lee 2005). According to this theory, race is not a biologic construct but a social construct with detrimental consequences that sustain arguments for racial profiling. However, racial profiling based on phenotypic and socio-demographic characteristics already exists and is the foundation for disparities in education, health, and health care. It is not in society’s best interest to ignore the impact of biologic variations particularly when the differences adversely impact health and health economics for large portions of the population that suffer from rare biologic anomalies that are unique to specific racial groups: for example, sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease just to name two.
Arguments for and against biologic notions of race and race-based research are circular with no clear beginning (origin) or end (definitive conclusion). However, the adverse applications of Social-Darwinism and the subsequent racism that stems from its theories continue to plague logical, data-based decision making with respect to health and health care. Genomics and pharmacogenomics technologies have the capacity to propel society beyond petty aggravations of antiquated notions of race and, subsequently thwart health disparities while paving a clear path toward personalized medicine.
However, it is important to assure society that genomics technologies do not go unchecked. One way of ensuring that genomics technology does not exacerbate health disparities is the application of a public health code of ethics (Thomas, et al 2005) routed in the principles of medical ethics while ensuring questions related to the allocation of resources for the overall good of the community are adequately addressed; less society continues to sweep notions of race and health disparities under the proverbial rug of genetic and social equipoise. Such notions are steeped in obsolete ideas of genetically dominant-survivalist-theories that propagate health disparities while leading us further away from superior medical technologies and optimal health.
Note: This blog is based on articles from the 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health – Race and Genetics
References
Burchard EG, Ziv E, Coyle N, et al. The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:1170-1175.
Fine MJ, Ibrahim, SA, Thomas, SB. The role of race and genetics in health disparities research. Am J Pub Health. 2005; 95(12): Editorial 2125-2128.
Lee SS. Racializing drug design: Implications for pharmacogenomics for health disparities. Am J Pub Health. 2005; 95(12) 2133-2138.
2 comments:
That's a very interesting blog. Darwin has been the source of controversy from the moment he presented his theories publicly and will remain controversial until the end of time. Unless someone comes up with definitive proof for or against his theories (which will probably never happen), both sides will simply have to agree to disagree. Darwin may well be one of the most misinterpreted and misrepresented scientists ever.
I think it's foolish and irresponsible to discount the physical/genetic differences between races. If the difference in genetic material is only 0.1%, then it is a very profound difference, as seen in the genetic predisposition of various groups. The genetic material may be the same but the combinations of that material are limitless as seen in the uniqueness of each individual even within a race. It would make sense to me that individuals within a particular race would have configurations of genetic material that are unique to that race, even though the individual components are shared by all. I'm not that knowledgeable about DNA but it seems kind of simple to me.
I agree that a code of ethics is required for any research. Genetics research especially can be manipulated and misapplied in a variety of ways, including sexual and racial bias. It can also be thwarted by paranoids who say there is no inherent difference between the sexes and the races. Of course there are differences. The fact that we are different is not the problem: It's human judgement that places a false value on those differences and causes all of our problems.
I agree that Darwin's theory of evolution has been the cause of much controversy through the years, and it continues to spark debates throughout classrooms across the country. But if this theory that our race only accounts for 0.1% is almost impossible when you think of the wide variations within each race. Should this theory be the primary argument behind our coutry's apparent health disparities, or as Holly points out, "racial profiling." If we follow this 0.1% race genetic makeup, should we assume that all persons within a particular race would suffer from, "rare biologic anomalies that are unique to specific racial groups: for example, sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease..." I agree with Holly that this theory should not affect our acknowledgement of health disparities. I also agree that there should be a code of ethics for any research, including genetics research. And, I agree with Donna; it is not our genetic makeup or our race that makes us different. It is how we treat others based on those differences.
Post a Comment