Prisoners of Abstraction? The Theory and Measure of Genetic Variation, and the Very Concept of “Race”

Abstract

It is illegitimate to read any ontology about ''race'' off of biological theory or data. Indeed, the technical meaning of ''genetic variation'' is fluid, and there is no single theoretical agreed-upon criterion for defining and distinguishing populations given a particular set of genetic variation data. By analyzing three formal senses of ''genetic variation,'' viz., diversity, differentiation, and heterozygosity, we argue that the use of biological theory for making claims about race inevitably amounts to a pernicious reification. Biological theory does not force the concept of ''race'' upon us; our social discourse, social ontology, and social expectations do. We become prisoners of our abstractions at our own hands, and at our own expense.

Realism, Antirealism, and Conventionalism about Race

“…Since 1962, substantially more evidence in support of the empirical claims made by both authors has accumulated, but there is no settling the reality of race in this debate, because they were using two distinct concepts of race, biological and bio-genomic, respectively. (Kaplan 2011;Winther 2011Winther , 2014Kaplan and Winther 2013; see also Andreasen 2007;Tal 2012). Here we focus on normative concerns.…”

“…10 One realist argument notes that insofar as some of these populations are not entirely orthogonal to socially identified races, biology can pick out, as a legitimate category of interest, race-like populations, especially at the level of continents (see Risch et al 2002). That is, this realist argument notes that, while the match is not perfect, populations socially identified as races overlap significantly with some populations that can be picked out using, for example, modern genomic clustering techniques and hence that at least some bio-genomic clusters/races are also social races (see Kaplan 2011;Kaplan and Winther 2013). 11 But some antirealists argue that many populations picked out by these biological approaches will not resemble social races.…”

Genomic ancestry, cognitive ability, and socioeconomic outcomes

“…The exact terminology used for them (race, subspecies, variety, population, genetic cluster, (biogeographic) ancestry group, lineage population etc.) is a matter of on-going debate, but need not concern us here (Andreasen, 2000;Brues, 1990;Fuerst, 2017;Kaplan & Winther, 2013;Kitcher, 2007;Sesardic, 2010). No matter the terminology chosen, human population genetic differences are real, and since human groups have been relatively or completely isolated in varied environments for many thousands of years, it is not just Page 3 of 68.…”

Abstractions, parts, and explanations in cancer sciences

“…En este ámbito, se incluye tanto al desarrollo de tecnologías para la investigación (y procedimientos heurísticos de manipulación y control), como al puente por el que el conocimiento científico deviene o se instancia en procesos económicos, políticos o culturales (cf. Kaplan & Winther, 2013).…”