Changes

[[Image:RaceRelationsDay.jpg|right|frame]]

[[Image:RaceRelationsDay.jpg|right|frame]]

The term '''race''' refers to the concept of dividing people into [[population]]s or [[Group (sociology)|group]]s on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. [http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race] America Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The most widely used human racial [[Category (taxonomy)|categories]] are based on visible [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s (especially [[skin color]], [[face|facial features]] and hair texture), and self-identification. [http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departments/science/bio/evol_pop_dyn/does_race_exist.pdf "Does Race Exist?"], ''Scientific American Magazine''.

The term '''race''' refers to the concept of dividing people into [[population]]s or [[Group (sociology)|group]]s on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. [https://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race] America Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA). The most widely used human racial [[Category (taxonomy)|categories]] are based on visible [[Trait (biological)|trait]]s (especially [[skin color]], [[face|facial features]] and hair texture), and self-identification. [https://schools.tdsb.on.ca/rhking/departments/science/bio/evol_pop_dyn/does_race_exist.pdf "Does Race Exist?"], ''Scientific American Magazine''.

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.

<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Race''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Race '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Race''''', follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Race '''''this link'''''].</center>

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 [https://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 [https://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 [https://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. "[https://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. [https://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm][https://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007][https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63][https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm]

----

----

The [[eugenics]] movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by [[Arthur Gobineau]]'s ''[[An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races]]'' (1853-1855) and [[Vacher de Lapouge]]'s "anthroposociology", asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by culture as well as by physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and [[genocide]] were often motivated by supposed racial differences (Horowitz 2001).

The [[eugenics]] movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by [[Arthur Gobineau]]'s ''[[An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races]]'' (1853-1855) and [[Vacher de Lapouge]]'s "anthroposociology", asserted as self-evident the biological inferiority of particular groups (Kevles 1985). In many parts of the world, the idea of race became a way of rigidly dividing groups by culture as well as by physical appearances (Hannaford 1996). Campaigns of oppression and [[genocide]] were often motivated by supposed racial differences (Horowitz 2001).

In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, ''[[The Descent of Man]]'', he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority.  In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes.  As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed. The destruction of the weaker peoples seemed desirable to many scientists at the time.  It was thought that "fit" people would replace the "unfit" and human evolution would be accelerated.<ref>Charles Darwin, [http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html ''The Descent of Man'', Chapter 7 - On the Races of Man.] Consider, for instance, the following excerpt: "We thus see that many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer much in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life, and not exclusively from being transported to a new climate. Mere alterations in habits, which do not appear injurious in themselves, seem to have this same effect; and in several cases the children are particularly liable to suffer. It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races."</ref> Nevertheless, he also noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were (Darwin was himself a [[monogenesis|monogenist]] on the question of race, believing that all humans were of the same species and finding "race" to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction among groups):

In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, ''[[The Descent of Man]]'', he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority.  In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes.  As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed. The destruction of the weaker peoples seemed desirable to many scientists at the time.  It was thought that "fit" people would replace the "unfit" and human evolution would be accelerated.<ref>Charles Darwin, [https://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html ''The Descent of Man'', Chapter 7 - On the Races of Man.] Consider, for instance, the following excerpt: "We thus see that many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer much in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life, and not exclusively from being transported to a new climate. Mere alterations in habits, which do not appear injurious in themselves, seem to have this same effect; and in several cases the children are particularly liable to suffer. It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races."</ref> Nevertheless, he also noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were (Darwin was himself a [[monogenesis|monogenist]] on the question of race, believing that all humans were of the same species and finding "race" to be a somewhat arbitrary distinction among groups):

<blockquote>Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

<blockquote>Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

Discussions of race, how humans might be divided on an [[infraspecies]] basis, are made more complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with [[genotypic]] or [[phenotypic]] variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful.

Discussions of race, how humans might be divided on an [[infraspecies]] basis, are made more complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with [[genotypic]] or [[phenotypic]] variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful.

These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since [[2002]]: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without concentrating on particular geographical areas, Serre & Pääbo chose individuals for study from remote and discrete regions. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic "clusters" (i.e., groupings that might plausibly be equated to earlier races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal]]," which denies the presumed clear assignability of all individuals to traditional racial categories. The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., [[epidemiology]]), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the [[United States]] with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater utility to epidemiological research. Tang et al. find that race/ethnic membership (or membership in one of the genetic "clusters" of Rosenberg et al.) is of greater utility within the United States that is one's corrent geographical location. Further recent research<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html "An Algorithm to Construct Genetically Similar Subsets of Families with the Use of Self-Reported Ethnicity Information"], Andrew D. Skol, Rui Xiao, Michael Boehnke, and Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 366 Investigators, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in ''Am. J. Hum. Genet.'', 77:346-354, 2005.</ref> correlating self-identified race with [[population genetics|population genetic]] structure [http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html Structure 2.1] echoed the conclusions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo:

These distinctions of research aims and scale can be seen by the example of three major research papers published since [[2002]]: Rosenberg et al. (2002), Serre & Pääbo (2004), and Tang et al. (2005). Both Rosenberg et al. and Serre & Pääbo study global genetic variation, but they arrive at different conclusions. Serre & Pääbo attribute their differing conclusions to experimental design. While Rosenberg et al. studied individuals from populations across the globe without concentrating on particular geographical areas, Serre & Pääbo chose individuals for study from remote and discrete regions. By sampling individuals from major populations on each continent, Rosenberg et al. find evidence for genetic "clusters" (i.e., groupings that might plausibly be equated to earlier races). In contrast, Serre & Pääbo find that with respect to geography human genetic variation is continuous and "[[Cline (population genetics)|clinal]]," which denies the presumed clear assignability of all individuals to traditional racial categories. The research interest of Rosenberg et al. is medicine (i.e., [[epidemiology]]), whereas the research interest of Serre & Pääbo is human evolution. Tang et al. studied genetic variation within the [[United States]] with an interest in whether race/ethnicity or geography is of greater utility to epidemiological research. Tang et al. find that race/ethnic membership (or membership in one of the genetic "clusters" of Rosenberg et al.) is of greater utility within the United States that is one's corrent geographical location. Further recent research<ref>[https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html "An Algorithm to Construct Genetically Similar Subsets of Families with the Use of Self-Reported Ethnicity Information"], Andrew D. Skol, Rui Xiao, Michael Boehnke, and Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 366 Investigators, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in ''Am. J. Hum. Genet.'', 77:346-354, 2005.</ref> correlating self-identified race with [[population genetics|population genetic]] structure [https://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html Structure 2.1] echoed the conclusions in Tang. Indeed, the contrasting conclusions between global and national levels of analysis were predicted by Serre & Pääbo:

{{quotation|It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are [distinguished]... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.}}

{{quotation|It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are [distinguished]... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.}}

Three main components of the U.S. population having been drawn from remote parts of the world, the long clinal bridges between the groups that exist in Eurasia have disappeared and those populations seem rather starkly isolated when examined in their new environment.

Three main components of the U.S. population having been drawn from remote parts of the world, the long clinal bridges between the groups that exist in Eurasia have disappeared and those populations seem rather starkly isolated when examined in their new environment.

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

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

A [[clade]] is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode. Whereas [[Carolus Linnaeus]] established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, [[cladistics]] seeks to establish a taxonomy &mdash; the [[phylogenetic tree]] &mdash; based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms.  Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the [[clade]]:

A [[clade]] is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. https://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode. Whereas [[Carolus Linnaeus]] established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, [[cladistics]] seeks to establish a taxonomy &mdash; the [[phylogenetic tree]] &mdash; based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms.  Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the [[clade]]:

A [[phylogenetic tree]] like the one shown above is usually derived from [[DNA]] or [[protein]] [[DNA sequence|sequences]] from populations. Often [[mitochondrial DNA]] or [[Y-chromosomal Adam|Y chromosome]] sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not [[genetic recombination|recombine]] and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of [[chimpanzee]]s and humans, which is believed to have originated in [[Africa]]. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things:

A [[phylogenetic tree]] like the one shown above is usually derived from [[DNA]] or [[protein]] [[DNA sequence|sequences]] from populations. Often [[mitochondrial DNA]] or [[Y-chromosomal Adam|Y chromosome]] sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not [[genetic recombination|recombine]] and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of [[chimpanzee]]s and humans, which is believed to have originated in [[Africa]]. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things:

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[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[https://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). [https://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

In the case of mtDNA research, lineages consist of people descended from one female ancestor.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  This work is being supplemented by recent research by molecular biologists studying the human [[genome]].<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  With a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Some of these [[single nucleotide polymorphisms]] (SNPs) are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans, which means that they are also subject to natural selection.  Nowever, most of these SNPs are [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution|neutral]], meaning they do not express themselves phenotypically and are not subject to natural selection (see [[International HapMap Project]]).<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  Because this so-called "junk DNA" is not subject to natural selection, it changes very little over the generations.<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  Consequently, scientists can use the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans to map additional "lineages" (in the case of nuclear DNA, descent from an apical male ancestor).<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224-225</ref>  The result has been a new industry in which individuals can send genetic samples to laboratories that identify the person's [[Y chromosome]] or [[mtDNA]] lineage, popularized by scientists such as [[Spencer Wells]].<ref>Spencer Wells (2002) ''The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey'', Penguin, UK; Random House, USA</ref>

In the case of mtDNA research, lineages consist of people descended from one female ancestor.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  This work is being supplemented by recent research by molecular biologists studying the human [[genome]].<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  With a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Some of these [[single nucleotide polymorphisms]] (SNPs) are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans, which means that they are also subject to natural selection.  Nowever, most of these SNPs are [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution|neutral]], meaning they do not express themselves phenotypically and are not subject to natural selection (see [[International HapMap Project]]).<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  Because this so-called "junk DNA" is not subject to natural selection, it changes very little over the generations.<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224</ref>  Consequently, scientists can use the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans to map additional "lineages" (in the case of nuclear DNA, descent from an apical male ancestor).<ref> Nadia Abu el-Haj (2007) Rethinking Genetic Genealogy" in ''American Ethnology'' 34(2): 224-225</ref>  The result has been a new industry in which individuals can send genetic samples to laboratories that identify the person's [[Y chromosome]] or [[mtDNA]] lineage, popularized by scientists such as [[Spencer Wells]].<ref>Spencer Wells (2002) ''The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey'', Penguin, UK; Random House, USA</ref>

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry.  Recently, Lynn Jorde and Steven Wooding argued that "Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry." <ref>Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S28 - S33 [http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html Genetic variation, classification and 'race']</ref>

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry.  Recently, Lynn Jorde and Steven Wooding argued that "Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry." <ref>Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding, 2004, "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'" in ''Nature Genetics''  36, S28 - S33 [https://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html Genetic variation, classification and 'race']</ref>

The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity ''a priori''. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned ''a posteriori'' using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 377 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were able to assign 1,056 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, of which five correspond to major geographic regions.

The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity ''a priori''. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned ''a posteriori'' using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 377 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were able to assign 1,056 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, of which five correspond to major geographic regions.

Genetic techniques that distinguish clustering between continents can also be used to describe clustering within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers. Indigenous populations from neighboring geographic regions on average share more recent common ancestors. As a result, allele frequencies will be correlated between these groups. This phenomenon is often seen as a cline of allele frequencies. The existence of allelic clines has been offered as evidence that individuals cannot be allocated into genetic clusters (Kittles & Weiss 2003). However, others argue that low levels of differentiation between groups merely make the assignment to groups more difficult, not impossible (Bamshad et al. 2004).  Also, clines and clusters, seemingly discordant perspectives on human genetic diversity may be reconciled. A recent comprehensive study has stated: "At the same time, we find that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters."<ref>Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure [http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010070]</ref>  Such new data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies.  

Genetic techniques that distinguish clustering between continents can also be used to describe clustering within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers. Indigenous populations from neighboring geographic regions on average share more recent common ancestors. As a result, allele frequencies will be correlated between these groups. This phenomenon is often seen as a cline of allele frequencies. The existence of allelic clines has been offered as evidence that individuals cannot be allocated into genetic clusters (Kittles & Weiss 2003). However, others argue that low levels of differentiation between groups merely make the assignment to groups more difficult, not impossible (Bamshad et al. 2004).  Also, clines and clusters, seemingly discordant perspectives on human genetic diversity may be reconciled. A recent comprehensive study has stated: "At the same time, we find that human genetic diversity consists not only of clines, but also of clusters."<ref>Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure [https://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010070]</ref>  Such new data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies.  

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races".{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Genetic lineages have in common with older notions of race the idea of biological relatedness.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  Unlike older notions of race, however, they are not connected to claims about human behavior or character.  Nadia Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life."  Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that in order to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages, one must understand that  

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races".{{Fact|date=June 2007}} Genetic lineages have in common with older notions of race the idea of biological relatedness.{{Fact|date=June 2007}}  Unlike older notions of race, however, they are not connected to claims about human behavior or character.  Nadia Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life."  Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that in order to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages, one must understand that  

The question is, how highly do genetic lineages correlate with self-identified races?  Scientists are divided.  Some recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race/ethnicity (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

The question is, how highly do genetic lineages correlate with self-identified races?  Scientists are divided.  Some recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race/ethnicity (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

However, in analyses that assign individuals to groups it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is [[wiktionary:admixture|admixture]]. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially [[Hispanic]] groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003)<ref name="Shriver03" /> found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Also, in a survey of college students who self-identified as “white” in a northeastern U.S. university, ~30% of whites had less than 90% European ancestry.<ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1275602</ref>

However, in analyses that assign individuals to groups it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is [[wiktionary:admixture|admixture]]. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially [[Hispanic]] groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003)<ref name="Shriver03" /> found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Also, in a survey of college students who self-identified as “white” in a northeastern U.S. university, ~30% of whites had less than 90% European ancestry.<ref>https://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1275602</ref>

Moreover, many have criticized this notion of lineage which is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck,{{Fact|date=June 2007}} while disregarding (because unavailable using genomic technology) countless other ancestors every individual has and shares with others, including people of different "lineages."  Charles Rotimi, of Howard University's National Human Genome center, has highlighted the methodological flaws in research &mdash; that "the nature or appearance of genetic clustering (grouping) of people is a function of how populations are sampled, of how criteria for boundaries between clusters are set, and of the level of resolution used" all bias the results &mdash; and concluded that people should be very cautious about relating genetic lineages to their own sense of identity.<ref>Charles Rotimi (2003) "Genetic Ancestry Tracing and the Abridan identity: A Double-Edged Sword?" in ''Developing World Bioethics'' 3(2): 153-154.</ref>  Moreover, Stephan Palmie has responded to Abu el-Haj's claim that genetic lineages make possible a new, politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference by suggesting that efforts to link genetic history and personal identity will inevitably "ground present social arrangements in a time-hallowed past," that is, use biology to explain cultural differences and social inequalities.<ref>Stephan Palmie (2007) "Genomic Moonlighting, Jewish Cyborgs, and Peircian Abduction" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 249</ref>

Moreover, many have criticized this notion of lineage which is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck,{{Fact|date=June 2007}} while disregarding (because unavailable using genomic technology) countless other ancestors every individual has and shares with others, including people of different "lineages."  Charles Rotimi, of Howard University's National Human Genome center, has highlighted the methodological flaws in research &mdash; that "the nature or appearance of genetic clustering (grouping) of people is a function of how populations are sampled, of how criteria for boundaries between clusters are set, and of the level of resolution used" all bias the results &mdash; and concluded that people should be very cautious about relating genetic lineages to their own sense of identity.<ref>Charles Rotimi (2003) "Genetic Ancestry Tracing and the Abridan identity: A Double-Edged Sword?" in ''Developing World Bioethics'' 3(2): 153-154.</ref>  Moreover, Stephan Palmie has responded to Abu el-Haj's claim that genetic lineages make possible a new, politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference by suggesting that efforts to link genetic history and personal identity will inevitably "ground present social arrangements in a time-hallowed past," that is, use biology to explain cultural differences and social inequalities.<ref>Stephan Palmie (2007) "Genomic Moonlighting, Jewish Cyborgs, and Peircian Abduction" in ''American Ethnologist'' 34(2): 249</ref>

Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has diminished over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as ''[[Craniofacial Anthropometry|craniofacial anthropometry]]'', but these disciplines have been abandoned by the mainstream scientific community. Today they have only two common uses. They are used in ''[[forensic anthropology]]'' as an indicator of ethnicity of skeletal remains. And they can be used as euphemisms for making racially based distinctions that are now regarded as being [[racist]] and baseless by mainstream culture.

Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has diminished over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as ''[[Craniofacial Anthropometry|craniofacial anthropometry]]'', but these disciplines have been abandoned by the mainstream scientific community. Today they have only two common uses. They are used in ''[[forensic anthropology]]'' as an indicator of ethnicity of skeletal remains. And they can be used as euphemisms for making racially based distinctions that are now regarded as being [[racist]] and baseless by mainstream culture.

Since 1932, some [[college]] [[textbook]]s introducing physical anthropology have increasingly come to reject race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race. According to one academic journal entry, where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 ''Journal of Physical Anthropology'' employed these or nearly synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996.<ref>Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, "Perishing Paradigm: Race—1931-99," ''American Anthropologist'' 105, no. 1 (2003): 110-13. A following article in the same issue, by Mat Cartmill and Kaye Brown, questions the precise rate of decline, but from their biased perspective agree that the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor.</ref>  The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species".<ref name="AAAonRace">[http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"]</ref>

Since 1932, some [[college]] [[textbook]]s introducing physical anthropology have increasingly come to reject race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race. According to one academic journal entry, where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 ''Journal of Physical Anthropology'' employed these or nearly synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996.<ref>Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, "Perishing Paradigm: Race—1931-99," ''American Anthropologist'' 105, no. 1 (2003): 110-13. A following article in the same issue, by Mat Cartmill and Kaye Brown, questions the precise rate of decline, but from their biased perspective agree that the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor.</ref>  The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, currently holds that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species".<ref name="AAAonRace">[https://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"]</ref>

In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful [[heuristic]] device,<ref>(Wilson ''et al.'' 2001), (Cooper ''et al.'' 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004 p.599)</ref> and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,<ref>(Schwartz 2001), (Stephens 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004 p.599)</ref> on the grounds that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.<ref>(Smedley and Smedley 2005), (Helms ''et al.'' 2005), [http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2004000300003&lng=es&nrm=iso]. Lewontin, for example argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them (Lewontin 1972).</ref>

In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful [[heuristic]] device,<ref>(Wilson ''et al.'' 2001), (Cooper ''et al.'' 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004 p.599)</ref> and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless,<ref>(Schwartz 2001), (Stephens 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004 p.599)</ref> on the grounds that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries.<ref>(Smedley and Smedley 2005), (Helms ''et al.'' 2005), [https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2004000300003&lng=es&nrm=iso]. Lewontin, for example argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them (Lewontin 1972).</ref>

Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,<ref>(Risch ''et al.'' 2002), (Bamshad 2005). [[Neil Risch]] argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system...  In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance...  So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"(Gitschier 2005).</ref> that these categories correspond with clusters [[Race and genetics#Genetic variation is structured by geographic origin|inferred from multilocus genetic data]],<ref>(Harpending and Rogers 2000), (Bamshad ''et al.'' 2003), (Edwards 2003), (Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004), (Tang ''et al.'' 2005), (Rosenberg ''et al.'' 2005): "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe".</ref> and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.<ref>(Mountain and Risch 2004)</ref>

Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,<ref>(Risch ''et al.'' 2002), (Bamshad 2005). [[Neil Risch]] argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system...  In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance...  So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"(Gitschier 2005).</ref> that these categories correspond with clusters [[Race and genetics#Genetic variation is structured by geographic origin|inferred from multilocus genetic data]],<ref>(Harpending and Rogers 2000), (Bamshad ''et al.'' 2003), (Edwards 2003), (Bamshad ''et al.'' 2004), (Tang ''et al.'' 2005), (Rosenberg ''et al.'' 2005): "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe".</ref> and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.<ref>(Mountain and Risch 2004)</ref>

In February, 2001, the editors of the medical journal ''Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine'' asked authors to no longer use "race" as an explanatory variable and not to use obsolescent terms. Some other peer-reviewed journals, such as the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' and the ''American Journal of Public Health'', have made similar endeavours.<ref> Frederick P. Rivara and Laurence Finberg, "Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity," ''Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine'' 155, no. 2 (2001): 119. For similar author's guidelines, see Robert S. Schwartz, "Racial Profiling in Medical Research," ''The New England Journal of Medicine'', 344 (no, 18, May 3, 2001); M.T. Fullilove, "Abandoning 'Race' as a Variable in Public Health Research: An Idea Whose Time has Come," ''American Journal of Public Health'', 88 (1998), 1297-1298; and R. Bhopal and L. Donaldson, "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health." ''American Journal of Public Health'', 88 (1998), 1303-1307.</ref> Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health recently issued a program announcement for grant applications through February 1, 2006, specifically seeking researchers who can investigate and publicize among primary care physicians the detrimental effects on the nation's health of the practice of medical racial profiling using such terms. The program announcement quoted the editors of one journal as saying that, "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex."<ref> See program announcement and requests for grant applications at the NIH website, at URL: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-057.html.</ref>

In February, 2001, the editors of the medical journal ''Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine'' asked authors to no longer use "race" as an explanatory variable and not to use obsolescent terms. Some other peer-reviewed journals, such as the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' and the ''American Journal of Public Health'', have made similar endeavours.<ref> Frederick P. Rivara and Laurence Finberg, "Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity," ''Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine'' 155, no. 2 (2001): 119. For similar author's guidelines, see Robert S. Schwartz, "Racial Profiling in Medical Research," ''The New England Journal of Medicine'', 344 (no, 18, May 3, 2001); M.T. Fullilove, "Abandoning 'Race' as a Variable in Public Health Research: An Idea Whose Time has Come," ''American Journal of Public Health'', 88 (1998), 1297-1298; and R. Bhopal and L. Donaldson, "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health." ''American Journal of Public Health'', 88 (1998), 1303-1307.</ref> Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health recently issued a program announcement for grant applications through February 1, 2006, specifically seeking researchers who can investigate and publicize among primary care physicians the detrimental effects on the nation's health of the practice of medical racial profiling using such terms. The program announcement quoted the editors of one journal as saying that, "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex."<ref> See program announcement and requests for grant applications at the NIH website, at URL: https://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-057.html.</ref>

A [[Statistical survey|survey]], taken in 1985 (Lieberman ''et al.'' 1992), asked 1,200 anthropologists how many '''disagree''' with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species ''Homo sapiens''."  The responses were:

A [[Statistical survey|survey]], taken in 1985 (Lieberman ''et al.'' 1992), asked 1,200 anthropologists how many '''disagree''' with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species ''Homo sapiens''."  The responses were:

*'''[[physical anthropologist]]s 41%'''

*'''[[physical anthropologist]]s 41%'''

*'''[[cultural anthropologist]]s 53%'''<ref>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>

*'''[[cultural anthropologist]]s 53%'''<ref>Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "[https://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>

The figure for physical anthropologists at [[PhD]] granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing.  This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify ''biological race'' within the ''species'' ''Homo Sapiens''); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.

The figure for physical anthropologists at [[PhD]] granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing.  This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify ''biological race'' within the ''species'' ''Homo Sapiens''); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.

The same survey, taken in 1999 <ref>[http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf]</ref>, showed the following changing results for anthropologists:

The same survey, taken in 1999 <ref>[https://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf]</ref>, showed the following changing results for anthropologists:

*'''[[physical anthropologist]]s 69%'''

*'''[[physical anthropologist]]s 69%'''

*'''[[cultural anthropologist]]s 80%'''

*'''[[cultural anthropologist]]s 80%'''