Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy

Abstract

In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: "Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?" It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy comparing human races to dog breeds is not only widespread in history and pop culture, but also sounds like scientific justification for eschewing the social construction of race, or for holding racist beliefs about human nature. Here we answer Haldane's question in an effort to improve the public understanding of human biological variation and "race"-two phenomena that are not synonymous. Speaking to everyone without expert levels of familiarity with this material, we investigate whether the dog breed analogy for human race stands up to biology. It does not. Groups of humans that are culturally labeled as "races" differ in population structure, genotype-phenotype relationships, and phenotypic diversity from breeds of dogs in unsurprising ways, given how artificial selection has shaped the evolution of dogs, not humans. Our demonstration complements the vast body of existing knowledge about how human "races" differ in fundamental sociocultural, historical, and political ways from categories of nonhuman animals. By the end of this paper, readers will understand how the assumption that human races are the same as dog breeds is a racist strategy for justifying social, political, and economic inequality.

Hawking radiation and analogue experiments: A Bayesian analysis

“…See alsoNorton (2011) for an importantly different take on analogical arguments. Norton's analysis focuses on analogical arguments that proceed via subsumption of the target system into a larger class of entities, including the source system.…”

Scanning the human genome for “signatures” of positive selection: Transformative opportunities and ethical obligations

“…First, researchers must be aware that their results could be misappropriated for evil by racial supremacists 96 and other hate groups or otherwise misconstrued, resulting in harm. We encourage geneticists to seek anti‐racism training, to review best practices from scholarly leaders on this subject related to human genetics, and to help limit the spread of misinformation through outreach and science communication efforts 65,97–99 . Several research groups have also begun preparing and releasing companion educational materials released simultaneously with their publications to help guard against the work being misused or misinterpreted 100–104 .…”

Genomics literacy matters: Supporting the development of genomics literacy through genetics education could reduce the prevalence of genetic essentialism

“…For example, someone might have high standard genomics literacy about dog breeds and still believe in genetic essentialism (Norton, Quillen, Bigham, Pearson, & Dunsworth, 2019). This could occur because patterns of genetic variation in dog breeds are the opposite of the patterns in humans (Norton et al, 2019). There is more genetic variation between dog breeds than within them (Norton et al, 2019).…”

“…A person could therefore have a high degree of standard genomics literacy and nevertheless believe in genetic essentialism. For example, someone might have high standard genomics literacy about dog breeds and still believe in genetic essentialism (Norton, Quillen, Bigham, Pearson, & Dunsworth, 2019). This could occur because patterns of genetic variation in dog breeds are the opposite of the patterns in humans (Norton et al, 2019).…”