Talk:Race (biology)
This article is just beginning. I am looking through the literature in medicine and human genetics. I am making some notes here on references. It will tae a while before this article is in reasonable shape, as no article I can find really addresses the question of race and genetics, per say. Nancy Sculerati 18:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for your work here, Nancy. WE really need a good biology/genetics discussion of the race concept, in order to manage the debate in the social science article on race. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:57, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Manly JJ. Deconstructing race and ethnicity: implications for measurement of health outcomes. [Review] [106 refs] [Journal Article. Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Review] Medical Care. 44(11 Suppl 3):S10-6, 2006 Nov. UI: 17060816 "Racial and Ethnic Classifications Are Not Biologically Meaningful The most difficult challenge facing investigators who perform research in ethnically diverse groups is an assumption embedded in racial and ethnic classifications, ie, that race/ethnicity reflects an underlying genetic or cultural homogeneity. It is common practice, however, to assign race on socially defined classification of phenotypic traits such as skin color and hair features.13 Because of this incongruity between theory and research practice, race is a construct that lacks biologic basis.14,15 There is more genotypic variation within races than between them;13,16 it is difficult, therefore, to classify humans into discrete biologic categories with rigid boundaries. Part of the confusion stems from the tremendous heterogeneity within the traditional, “federally” defined ethnic group classifications in the United States.15 These classifications, based on the protocol used by the U.S. Census,17,18 are actually a combination of racial self-categorization (white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, other) and ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic). Hispanics can be of any race using this classification method. This protocol confuses issues of heritage and immigration status; for example, in some studies, “African Americans” include only non-Hispanic black individuals who were born in the United States (black), whereas other studies may also include black immigrants from the West Indies or Africa. Race, nationality, place of birth, and immigration status are not the only sources of heterogeneity within these traditional ethnic group classifications; the level at which the culture of origin is maintained also varies among individuals within one ethnic group. Because racial classifications are socially determined, they can change over time and vary among geographic locations and cultural groups. For example, in the United States in the early 20th century, certain national and ethnic groups were classified as different racial groups in a way that is not maintained today. Driven by their role in inspecting new immigrants to the states, the U.S. Public Health Service classified Slavs, Hebrews, Nordics, Asiatics, Negroes, and Anglo-Saxons as biologically distinct racial groups.19 Census categories for race in the United States and Brazil have been shown to shift in relation to changing political and social conditions.20 Racial classifications shift with time and locations because they are markers for social policy, cultural beliefs, and political practices.20,21 Researchers must contend with the fact that their results may rapidly become outdated or will be geographically specific. It is this imprecision that may explain incomparable findings between studies of “Hispanics” or “Asians,” because significantly different populations may be gathered under each label. Finally, the concepts and labels of ethnicity, race, and culture often are blurred, which can result in inconsistent classification of people into groups.13,14"
Fullilove MT. Comment: abandoning ‘race’ as a variable in public health research—an idea whose time has come. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1297–1298.
Article is not just about human races, right?
The opening words of this article make it sound as if the article is going to be about human races, not about the concept of race as used in biology in general. But I made a placeholder called "race (biology)" at the top of race with this note: See race (biology) for the biological concept of races (of any species). The following article concerns the notion of human races. In other words, the article I anticipated was going to concern the broader biological notion of races (of any species). Perhaps we should use variety (biology) or subspecies or strain (biology) for the notion?
If you want to make an article that is just focused on what biologists have to say about the human races, grand. That's not what I had in mind with the article by this title, but it's not a bad idea. I don't think, however, that we should remove all aspects of the biology of race from the general race article. And in that case, we should have two pointers at the top of race: one to race (biology), about the "varieties" of human beings, and one to variety (biology) (or subspecies), about the varieties of everything else.
Hope this makes sense... --Larry Sanger 00:52, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
It does make sense, Larry, except that I have never heard of race being used for other than humans. This fact [if I am right] is in itself interesting, because it lends additional weight to the social science view that the term is value-loaded rather than passively following scientific categorizations and analyses. Let's see what our biology experts can come up with here! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:25, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
- I have also never heard the term "race" used in a scientific way about anything but humans. Sometimes in literature, there might be a metaphorical statement about the race of waterford crystal or something, but in vertebrate biology races are not discussed, nor in microbiology- to my knowlege. There it is strains, or subspecies, or varieties, or breeds. Never races. I could be wrong, but would need to see a proper reference to know that. I don't think that I am. Nancy Sculerati 08:09, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, I had heard the term used frequently, but perhaps that's because my Dad is a seabird biologist, and "race" appears to occur quite a bit in discussions of varieties of bird species: see this Google search for a very wide variety of sources, including many scientific sources. See also this "FAQ." --Larry Sanger 10:28, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Dictionary definitions
You could be right, Larry. I am going to put a bunch of dictionary definitions here and see how we can modify the intro. However, although race may be used as a synonym for subspecies or variety, it is sort of informal in actual use except for humans, in which nobody talks about subspecies. Anyway, here goes:
Oxford English dictionary, for one meaning of the noun race: " I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin. In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period." 1. a. The offspring or posterity of a person; a set of children or descendants. Chiefly poet. b. Breeding, the production of offspring. Obs. c. A generation. Obs. rare. 2. a. A limited group of persons descended from a common ancestor; a house, family, kindred. b. A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. c. A group of several tribes or peoples, regarded as forming a distinct ethnical stock. d. One of the great divisions of mankind, having certain physical peculiarities in common. The term is often used imprecisely; even among anthropologists there is no generally accepted classification or terminology. 3. a. A breed or stock of animals; a particular variety of a species. b. A stud or herd (of horses). Obs. 4. A genus, species, or variety of plants (cf. quot. 1880). 5. One of the great divisions of living creatures: a. Mankind. In early use always the human race, the race of men or mankind, etc. b. A class or kind of beings other than men or animals. (race of Elves). c. One of the chief classes of animals (as beasts, birds, fishes, insects, etc.) 6. Without article: a. Denoting the stock, family, class, etc. to which a person, animal, or plant belongs, chiefly in phr. of (noble, etc.) race. b. The fact or condition of belonging to a particular people or ethnical stock; the qualities, etc. resulting from this. 7. Natural or inherited disposition. Obs. rare. II. A group or class of persons, animals, or things, having some common feature or features.