Why Humans are Different -- Oy Vey!

How do we talk about human differences in a society that believes that "diversity" should be celebrated, but only if it's skin deep?

That conundrum has been on my mind because of the intense personal reaction that's bubbled to the surface in the weeks since my new book, Abraham's Children: Race, Identity and the DNA of the Chosen People, was released. The narrative arc of the book highlights the remarkable new insights gleaned from DNA research about our shared Israelite ancestry -- genetic markers that help all of us trace our personal stories back in time and illuminating the hidden history of the Bible. DNA sheds light on numerous mysteries, including the story of Moses and Aaron; the fate of the Lost Tribes; the impact of Jesus in establishing a new course in religion by moving away from tribal connections and ancestry to faith; the origins of Ashkenazi (European) Jewry; and the role of DNA in shaping religious and Western identity in Jews and Christians.

But the sub-text of the book is what has caught some people's attention. I explore what we popularly refer to as "race" but what scientists call "populations." In 2001, when the early sketch of the human genome was unveiled, President Clinton declared that we were more than 99 percent genetically similar. It was a kum-ba-ya moment, but it did not reflect a nuanced scientific perspective on human biodiversity.

In the last few years, we've entered a more precarious era of scientific research. We've been able to map the entire human genome and examine chunks of DNA, known as haplotypes, and what they tell us starkly challenges conventional wisdom. These genetic blocks have been linked to a variety of disease and other human characteristics, including behaviors, in specific populations that some scientists had believed were spread evenly across all groups.

One of the world's most interesting subpopulations, at least to geneticists, is the Jews. Over the course of Ashkenazi history, the rate of non-Jewish lineages that have slipped into the Jewish gene pool, per generation, is estimated at 0.5 percent -- the lowest known rate of paternity certainty of any identifiable population -- a remarkable testimony if not necessarily to spousal loyalty than to Jewish fidelity. Jews are not a "race" -- the word carries the historical baggage of pseudo-science, which is why scientists shy away from using it -- but they do share distinct characteristics, such as a susceptibility to certain diseases.

The net is that we are not just one human family with superficial differences. While reflective of a common genetic blueprint, human evolution is remarkably regionalized with meaningful differences showing up from ancestral population to ancestral population. Said another way: humans spread globally and evolved locally. Scientists are gradually identifying population differences -- hard-wired -- in each population's ability to taste, smell, digest, in bone structure, physiological capacities -- and yes, even brain function. Abraham's Children addresses, on its discussion of the history of the "Jewish race" -- that's how Jews were commonly referred to until World War II -- and the debate over Jewish IQ, which has received (to my chagrin) the most attention in the media.

This new focus of human genome research poses a social challenge for all of us, for the overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal capacities and abilities are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. That is not science. Our DNA tells contrasting stories: the early, crude map suggested that we are individuals with a shared past, while a magnified look at our genes finds patterns of small but meaningful population differences. The challenge is to harmonize these competing narratives of unity and separation. The great paradox of human biodiversity research is that the only way to understand how similar humans are is to learn how we differ. The thorny reality is that if all of us were alike, the entire Human Genome Project would be fruitless. That's the constructive dialogue I am hoping that Abraham's Children will encourage.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm equal-opportunity on this stuff. I really
don't CARE what your heritage, age, gender,
ethnicity, religious preference are, I really
don't. How's your WORK ethic? Are you a go-getter, are you a jackass at the jobsite,
do you go through the day with a chip on your
shoulder, your nose out of joint, are you
consistent, do you help others and try to
resolve problems? I've worked with a lot
of different people over the last 20 years
and one thing I've noticed is that with some
people, you can tell right off if they take
their job seriously and try to do it right.
It doesn't matter what language they speak,
what they look like, you can tell a professional
by how they do what they do. Two professionals
don't even have to have a common language,
necessarily, so long as they're both trained
in the same field and can work together.
But, you also have people that carry around
a little plate of politics with a side of
easily offended sensibilities with opportunism
sauce. Then you've got your gamesters, folks
who show up and do the minimum and bet the
boss won't be chasing em all the time.
This isn't genetics, it's common sense.

Insofar as the religion stuff is concerned,
I think we're all basically going to Hell
anyway, if Jesus or whatever was hanging
around still, likely the world would look
like the aftermath of War Of The Worlds with
this guy with long hair and sandals doing
a pretty fair impression of Emperor Palpatine
shooting lightning out of his hands at all
the people trying to collect money on His
behalf, using his name in vain, and generally
being a bunch of bastards when they thought
no one was watching. So, I think the Big Hippie
already bolted, probably having drinks by
the light of Alpha Centauri with the family
or something...and as far as the DNA thing
goes? Well, Oakland, CA isn't the ONLY place
that Father's Day is a confusing holiday...LOL

[Ides]

Even if we do find differences in human function based in DNA, the arguments that will arise become far more complex than simple in relation to our sociological and ethical considerations. If one group is "programmed" to be less efficient than another, do we treat them paternalistically, do we abandon them, do we work harder to provide opportunities, do we look for environmental and historical factors that could have affected their DNA, and if policy has created these problems do we approach that policy with an eye to remedying them? Do we look forward, do we look back, do we survey the current sociopolitical and ethical climate?

That said, sociology and ethics are considerations in what we even begin to study in these haploids. They are considerations in the very sharing of this information (do we risk people using just enough information to get the wrong idea or do we withhold until a broader picture is seen?) Disease or disposition? Intelligence or infection? Everyone will have their own preferences in what is more important and that alone is an ethical consideration.

[Trilby]

So, um, that was a fairly pointless article.

[SamThornton]

I'm sorry, but the arguments made here aren't very convincingly supported by what are offered as "facts."

For example, the statement that begins, "Scientists are gradually identifying population differences -- hard-wired..." just doesn't cut it as a relevant fact. Which scientists? Where do they make the purported claim? What is their evidence? What is their expertise? What does the peer review say?

It's easy to find statements by "scientists" that make claims which are demonstrably false. Why should we believe that these "facts" are any different?

Considering the author's affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute, an organization widely regarded as an apologist and fact-spinner for those espousing radical right wing views, I think it's reasonable to demand more proof for the extreme views proposed here.

[saibotchilizm]

Since "genes" were first understood, many have gone down the flawed course of assuming our DNA determines everything we do.

It doesn't. Cultural and societal factors overwhelm the effects of genetics in human behavior. Americans aren't genetically pre-disposed to speak English and watch crappy reality TV shows; that's what we've been taught by our culture.

[AceInTheHole]

PS
I INTEND TO BUY YOUR BOOK,"ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN" TOMORROW!

[AceInTheHole]

The DNA phenomenon and it's potential seems to be amazing to an old codger like myself. And maybe it will discover some truly phenomenal t and very interesting things, if the right questions are asked. Questions like, 1. Can the appropriate DNA reseach discover the etiology of insanity in populations. 2. Can the appropriate DNA research discover the etiology of spirituality and faith in populations. 3. Can the appropriate DNA research discover the etiology of empathy and generousity in populations, ect. Bottom line is, if we looked at and applied DNA study in a far more precocious and even advant-garde way, can the oppropriate (although seemingly out of the box) studies of DNA help us discover the answers to many of our sociological problems as well as our diferences? I hope so. That's just something to muse. But I've always believed that you can't get great answers unless you ask great questions. And scientist don't always, nor can they be expected to ask the greatest questions, although most of them are under the delusion that they do.

[dissolvethecorporation]

Of course we should pursue this research if it helps identify and/or cure diseases and genetic disorders, but we must remain vigilant that it is not misapplied. Opportunity should be equally available to all, and targeting select groups for certain roles in government or industry based on a generalization of perceived potential is extremely dangerous.