Changes

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of [[racial grouping|grouping races]], vary by culture and over time, and are often [[Controversy|controversial]] for scientific as well as [[social identity|social]] and [[identity politics|political]] reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural kinds or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorised on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of [[racial grouping|grouping races]], vary by culture and over time, and are often [[Controversy|controversial]] for scientific as well as [[social identity|social]] and [[identity politics|political]] reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural kinds or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorised on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.

 

Some argue that although "race" is a valid [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi, 2004 "Conceptualizing human variation" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S17 - S20 [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html Conceptualizing human variation] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from [[custom]], have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.<ref>For example this statement expressing the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association at [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm their webpage]: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them." Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal gradation]]."  Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are [[social construction|social construct]]s ("Society in Focus)  ISBN 0-205-41365-X [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-540X%28199110%297%3A5%3C7%3A%27EAORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage 'The European': Allegories of Racial Purity]'' Anthropology Today, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct., 1991), pp. 7-9 doi:10.2307/3032780 Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22 Post World War II"]. 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on [[DNA]] analysis. [http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm][http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63][http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm]

Some argue that although "race" is a valid [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi, 2004 "Conceptualizing human variation" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S17 - S20 [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html Conceptualizing human variation] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from [[custom]], have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.<ref>For example this statement expressing the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association at [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm their webpage]: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them." Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal gradation]]."  Many anthropologists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are [[social construction|social construct]]s ("Society in Focus)  ISBN 0-205-41365-X [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-540X%28199110%297%3A5%3C7%3A%27EAORP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage 'The European': Allegories of Racial Purity]'' Anthropology Today, Vol. 7, No. 5 (Oct., 1991), pp. 7-9 doi:10.2307/3032780 Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22 Post World War II"]. 2005. August 28, 2006.</ref> whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on [[DNA]] analysis. [http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm][http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007][http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63][http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm]

===Races as clades===

===Races as clades===

By the 1970s many evolutionary scientists were avoiding the concept of "subspecies" as a [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] category for four reasons:  

By the 1970s many evolutionary scientists were avoiding the concept of "subspecies" as a [[taxonomy|taxonomic]] category for four reasons:  

* very few data indicate that contiguous subspecies ever become species {{Fact|date=June 2007}}

* very few data indicate that contiguous subspecies ever become species  

* geographically disjunct groups regarded as subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be distinct species {{Fact|date=June 2007}}

* geographically disjunct groups regarded as subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be distinct species  

* subspecies had been recognized on the basis of only 2-5 [[phenotypic]] characters, which often were adaptations to local environments but which did not reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole {{Fact|date=June 2007}}

* subspecies had been recognized on the basis of only 2-5 [[phenotypic]] characters, which often were adaptations to local environments but which did not reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole  

* with the advent of molecular techniques used to get a better handle on genetic introgression (gene flow), the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal [[melanin]] in human populations){{Fact|date=June 2007}}

* with the advent of molecular techniques used to get a better handle on genetic introgression (gene flow), the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal [[melanin]] in human populations)

These criticisms have coincided with the rise of [[cladistics]]  

These criticisms have coincided with the rise of [[cladistics]]  

For anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race.  They emphasize that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories ''in their initial grouping of samples''".  For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation.  This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity.

For anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race.  They emphasize that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories ''in their initial grouping of samples''".  For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation.  This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity.

They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways.  They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race.   

They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways.  They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race.   

<blockquote>For empirical reasons we prefer to place emphasis on clinal variation, which recognizes the existence of adaptive human hereditary variation and simultaneously stresses that such variation is not found in packages that can be labeled ''races''.</blockquote>{{Fact|date=June 2007}}

<blockquote>For empirical reasons we prefer to place emphasis on clinal variation, which recognizes the existence of adaptive human hereditary variation and simultaneously stresses that such variation is not found in packages that can be labeled ''races''.</blockquote>

Indeed, recent research reports evidence for smooth, clinal genetic variation even in regions previously considered racially homogeneous, with the apparent gaps turning out to be artifacts of sampling techniques (Serre & Pääbo 2004).  These scientists do not dispute the importance of cladistic research, only its retention of the word race, when reference to populations and clinal gradations are more than adequate to describe the results.

Indeed, recent research reports evidence for smooth, clinal genetic variation even in regions previously considered racially homogeneous, with the apparent gaps turning out to be artifacts of sampling techniques (Serre & Pääbo 2004).  These scientists do not dispute the importance of cladistic research, only its retention of the word race, when reference to populations and clinal gradations are more than adequate to describe the results.

Finally, geneticist [[Richard Lewontin]], observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not among populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by [[Sewall Wright|Sewall Wright's]] population structure statistic F_ST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation². However, critics charge that Lewontin failed to juxtapose the figures properly. They cite at least two errors in Lewontin's calculations: (1) his figure of 85%:15% (within populations genetic variability vs. between populations genetic variability) is simply the average of ''all'' the genetic loci on hand, and thus fails to represent the variation at individual loci (for instance, the genetic loci for skin color do not vary 85% between individuals and only 15% between populations). And (2) Lewontin's analysis failed to address the genetic variability ''within an individual'', since humans are diploid organisms, receiving one set of chromosomes from each parent (Sarich and Miele 2004).

Finally, geneticist [[Richard Lewontin]], observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not among populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by [[Sewall Wright|Sewall Wright's]] population structure statistic F_ST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation². However, critics charge that Lewontin failed to juxtapose the figures properly. They cite at least two errors in Lewontin's calculations: (1) his figure of 85%:15% (within populations genetic variability vs. between populations genetic variability) is simply the average of ''all'' the genetic loci on hand, and thus fails to represent the variation at individual loci (for instance, the genetic loci for skin color do not vary 85% between individuals and only 15% between populations). And (2) Lewontin's analysis failed to address the genetic variability ''within an individual'', since humans are diploid organisms, receiving one set of chromosomes from each parent (Sarich and Miele 2004).

[[A. W. F. Edwards]] claimed in 2003 that such conclusions are unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the [[correlation structure]] of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12879450&dopt=Abstract "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy."], Edwards AW., Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in ''PubMed'', 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801.</ref>  While if true it would make Lewontin's argument unwarranted, Edward's paper does not address the existence or absence of human races. (See [[Lewontin's Fallacy]].)

[[A. W. F. Edwards]] claimed in 2003 that such conclusions are unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the [[correlation structure]] of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12879450&dopt=Abstract "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy."], Edwards AW., Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in ''PubMed'', 2003 Aug;25(8):798-801.</ref>  While if true it would make Lewontin's argument unwarranted, Edward's paper does not address the existence or absence of human races. (See [[Lewontin's Fallacy]].)

Also, it has been argued that the calculation of within group and between group diversity has violated certain expectations regarding human genetic variation. Calculation of this variation is known as F_ST and Long and Kittles (2003) have questioned the validity of this value as a reproducible statistic. The first problem is that effective population size is assumed to be equal in all instances of the calculation of F_ST, but if population sizes vary, then allele relatedness among alleles will also vary. The second problem is that F_ST calculation has assumed that each population is evolutionarily independent. Calculation of F_ST can therefore only be made for the set of populations being observed, and generalisations from specific data sets cannot be applied to the species as a whole.<ref name = "long">Long and Kittles (2003). [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v075/75.4long.pdf ''Human genetic variation and the nonexistence of human races''] (PDF): '''Human Biology, V. 75, no. 4, pp. 449-471.</ref>

Also, it has been argued that the calculation of within group and between group diversity has violated certain expectations regarding human genetic variation. Calculation of this variation is known as F_ST and Long and Kittles (2003) have questioned the validity of this value as a reproducible statistic. The first problem is that effective population size is assumed to be equal in all instances of the calculation of F_ST, but if population sizes vary, then allele relatedness among alleles will also vary. The second problem is that F_ST calculation has assumed that each population is evolutionarily independent. Calculation of F_ST can therefore only be made for the set of populations being observed, and generalisations from specific data sets cannot be applied to the species as a whole.<ref name = "long">Long and Kittles (2003). [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_biology/v075/75.4long.pdf ''Human genetic variation and the nonexistence of human races''] (PDF): '''Human Biology, V. 75, no. 4, pp. 449-471.</ref>

Long and Kittles tested four models for determining F_ST and concluded that the model used most often for estimating this statistic is the simplest and worst fitting. Their best fit model was still a poor fit for the observed genetic variation, and calculation of F_ST for this model can only be made on a population by population basis. They conclude that African populations have the highest level of genetic diversity, with diversity much reduced in populations outside of Africa. They postulate that if an extra-terrestrial alien life form killed the entire human species, but selected a single population to preserve, the choice of population to keep would greatly effect the level of diversity represented. If an African population were selected then no diversity would be lost, whereas nearly a third of genetic diversity would be lost if a Papuan New Guinea population were chosen. Indeed within population genetic diversity in African populations has been shown to be greater than between population genetic diversity for Asians and Europeans. They conclude that their findings are consistent with the [[American Association of Physical Anthropologists]] 1996 statement on race

Long and Kittles tested four models for determining F_ST and concluded that the model used most often for estimating this statistic is the simplest and worst fitting. Their best fit model was still a poor fit for the observed genetic variation, and calculation of F_ST for this model can only be made on a population by population basis. They conclude that African populations have the highest level of genetic diversity, with diversity much reduced in populations outside of Africa. They postulate that if an extra-terrestrial alien life form killed the entire human species, but selected a single population to preserve, the choice of population to keep would greatly effect the level of diversity represented. If an African population were selected then no diversity would be lost, whereas nearly a third of genetic diversity would be lost if a Papuan New Guinea population were chosen. Indeed within population genetic diversity in African populations has been shown to be greater than between population genetic diversity for Asians and Europeans. They conclude that their findings are consistent with the [[American Association of Physical Anthropologists]] 1996 statement on race

{{quotation|that all human populations derive from a common ancestral group, that there is great genetic diversity within all human populations, and that the geographic pattern of variation is complex and presents no major discontinuity.}}

that all human populations derive from a common ancestral group, that there is great genetic diversity within all human populations, and that the geographic pattern of variation is complex and presents no major discontinuity.

They also state that none of the race concepts they discuss are compatible with their results.<ref name="long"/>

They also state that none of the race concepts they discuss are compatible with their results.

These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race.  Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as:

These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race.  Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as:

{{quotation|A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses.  It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).}}

<blockquote>A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses.  It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).</blockquote>

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing."  Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing."  Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).