So they're describing "Europeans," "Asians," and "Africans," as if these "races" were biologically real rather than being socially constructed. Don't they realize how dangerous their rhetoric is, and how it could encourage people to believe that racial differences are in some sense biologically real?
Genetic tool improves estimation of cancer risk in diverse racial groups
-
Hey,
This is your best sock-puppet, yet!
This post will problably flame out like all the rest, but you never know.
https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2021-02-23-genetic-tool-improves-estimation-of-prostate-cancer-risk-in-diverse-ethnic-racial-groups.aspx
So they're describing "Europeans," "Asians," and "Africans," as if these "races" were biologically real rather than being socially constructed. Don't they realize how dangerous their rhetoric is, and how it could encourage people to believe that racial differences are in some sense biologically real? -
The entirety of the original article uses self-reported race and ethnicity (a category that even the Emil Kirkegaard's of the world recognize is socially constructed) interchangeably.
It directly contradicts your claim that they are treating race as biologically real.
-
"We are addressing a major public health problem and simultaneously addressing a concern that genomics and genetic tests may exacerbate health disparities because people of non-European ancestry are severely under-represented in most studies."
They are overtly treating "European ancestry," "Asian ancestry," and "African ancestry" as separate and discrete biological categories for purposes of their study and indicating there are biological differences between these groups leading to differential disease risk that needs to be assessed on basis of racial ancestry.
What do you think "men of African genetic ancestry" means?
-
Read the methods section. They are using the categories consistently with sociology and the majority of population genetecists.
^ This is absolutely false. Sociologists such as Dorothy Roberts have repeatedly and strongly attacked this use of race in medical science.
-
Oh, dear. This is worse than I thought.
Good for her. That proves nothing. Sociologists routinely publish research with self-reported race as independent variables and health outcomes as dependent variables. Useful, but banal. It doesn't confirm race as a biologically legitimate category, and any sociologist attacking it is an outlier and off base. I don't care what you saw on Twitter.
-
Also, the idea that you would accept that socially constructed categories would be associated with differential disease risk means that you are accepting them as biologically meaningful. Do you even soc?
ROFL
Yeah, I've published on this before and am presenting on such outcomes this month. You haven't discovered anything.
-
Also, the idea that you would accept that socially constructed categories would be associated with differential disease risk means that you are accepting them as biologically meaningful. Do you even soc?
ROFL
Yeah, I've published on this before and am presenting on such outcomes this month. You haven't discovered anything.You've supposedly published on this subject before, but you're unfamiliar with Dorothy Roberts?? Cool story, bro.
-
Dorothy Roberts is easily one of the most prominent sociologists who has written about these subjects in scholarly and popular media. What's weird is that you're supposedly a sociologist, but you somehow have no awareness about this controversy at all??
What role should race play in medicine?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/what-role-should-race-play-in-medicine/In scientific research, race remains a quandary. Some researchers assert that race, as a variable, captures meaningful plots of genetic ancestry—an opportunity to further big dreams like personalized medicine and ethno-pharmacogenomics. Others argue that biologic concepts of race are inextricably yoked to notions of eugenics, bigotry and burden, and decry their continued presence in medical journals. Somewhere in the middle, the inconsistencies of race in medicine perplex and gnaw at uncertain scientists, who are intimidated by the prospect of inescapable damnation.
Yet despite the uncomfortable ambiguities that sur/round race and medicine, the variable remains present as a well-worn neighbor of scientific inquiry. Race has been, as the eminent sociologist Troy Duster calls it, “buried alive.”
Should biologists stop grouping us by race?
https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/04/should-geneticists-move-beyond-race/Teaching medical students to challenge 'unscientific' racial categories
https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/10/medical-schools-teaching-race/“Right now, students are learning an inaccurate and unscientific definition of race,” said Dorothy Roberts, a law and sociology professor
...See full postThe paper cited by OP treats European, Asian, and African as coherent biological categories. Others have actually overtly *defended the existence of race* by showing how self-identification with a racial category matches genomic "clusters."
-
Also, the idea that you would accept that socially constructed categories would be associated with differential disease risk means that you are accepting them as biologically meaningful. Do you even soc?
ROFL
Yeah, I've published on this before and am presenting on such outcomes this month. You haven't discovered anything.
You've supposedly published on this subject before, but you're unfamiliar with Dorothy Roberts?? Cool story, bro.Who said I'm unfamiliar with Dorothy Roberts? Quote please.
I said I didn't care.
-
Who said I'm unfamiliar with Dorothy Roberts? Quote please.
I said I didn't care.She's easily the most prominent sociologist who has published on this subject including in hard science journals and received mainstream media attention in her discussions. The fact that you don't care means you're nonchalant about the leading discourse within your own field or how sociologists interface with physical scientists.
-
Who said I'm unfamiliar with Dorothy Roberts? Quote please.
I said I didn't care.
She's easily the most prominent sociologist who has published on this subject including in hard science journals and received mainstream media attention in her discussions. The fact that you don't care means you're nonchalant about the leading discourse within your own field or how sociologists interface with physical scientists.She has a strong interdisciplinary presence, but you are overstating it. I'm glad you are acknowledging that your earlier remark was based on making something up about me though.
Are you or are you not under the impression that publishing health outcomes by race is discouraged in sociology?