Introduction
Since the beginning of anthropology in the 20th century, human variation, especially race, has been an important research topic. Recently, scientists have been using genomic data to evaluate the scope and nature of human variation. Due to the increased paid direct-to-consumer ancestry examinations, there has been an increased debate concerning the connection between race and genomics. This shows that there are still many unanswered questions about genes and race. This study will give a comprehensive understanding of the discoveries about genetics and how the latest data affects race’s legal and social learning.
Race as a Social and Biological Construct
According to social scientists, race has long been understood as a social category developed to support and justify racism. They categorized people based on their cultural values into small phenotypes and assigned a specific value to their social hierarchy (Cerdeña, Grubbs, and Non, 2022). This concept has been around for a long time, with the US being the first country to give people different racial values.
However, biologists have taken ‘race’ as a biological term resulting from human migration and genetic isolation, which causes the formation of unique populations with the same DNA. The Human Genome Project, finalized in 2003, showed that all humans are 99.9% identical based on DNA and that no difference exists between races (Cerdeña, Grubbs, and Non, 2022). This shows that all persons are from the same genetic background, despite their race.
Interdisciplinary Views on Human Variation
Many approaches have been taken from other disciplines, such as psychology, history, biology, and geography, and all have sought to understand human variation and how it applies to the world. Most anthropologists currently agree that human genetic variation comes from evolutionary history. History states that all the races originated from a common origin, Africa, and due to geographic isolation, admixture with currently existing hominins, and not having random mate choices due to sociocultural factors (Duello et al., 2021).
The main result of these activities is humans who are very genetically similar but with different phenotypic variations. That is why most of the studies that have been conducted show an 80-90% variation in human populations and around a 10-15% difference between populations (Benn Torres, 2019). Therefore, since there is less variation between populations and more variation within populations, the principles of biologically unique populations cannot be used to justify human races.
Another study based on evolutionary history has shown a clinical pattern of genetic variations, and specific genetic variants have been distributed across different geographical regions (Duello et al., 2021). Due to this, many humans have chosen to marry those who are close to their geographical areas, leading to similar genetics.
The Role of Substructure in Genetic Variation
Another explanation of genetic variation is based on the substructure. Substructure is the accumulation of common clusters within a given population. Substructures can be found in genetic drift, combination, geographical barriers, and the pressures of different environments (Duello et al., 2021). This principle reflects more on the direct relationship between the genetic and geographic distances, where different substructures can be easily noticed when the population is viewed from a broader perspective.
Benn Torres (2019, Para 15) evaluated the different variation patterns and found distinct similarities between various human substructures, supporting the notion of more variation within populations than between populations. The primary global substructures observed were the Americas, Oceania, Africa, Europe, and East Asia (Benn Torres, 2019). In addition, researchers have resulted in a finer genotype based on two South African Indigenous populations, the San and Khoikhoi, which have garnered much interest due to their distinct cultural and linguistic differences. They found that there were structures inside these tribes that were due to eco-geographic features and not because of linguistic differences.
Direct-to-Consumer Ancestry Tests
The explanation of race has been expanded due to direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry tests. Ancestry tests are conducted when consumers are compared to pre-established reference groups to measure their similarity to those groups. According to anthropologists, these tests determine the biological race (Benn Torres, 2019). Determining biological race is based on the biological data of ancestral estimates, which gives information and distinction between different human groups, such as race.
The results from these studies can then be used to show that racial differences are not due to political, economic, social, or cultural factors but natural occurrences between different human species (Cerdeña, Grubbs, and Non, 2022). Most biologically based definitions do not factor in human variation, which is why some top scholars are against using genetic ancestry to learn more about social identities.
Social Ramifications: The Case of Sargent Brown
Although there is a possible reification of biological race, people must consider the ability of genetic ancestry to entangle the same issues that it reifies. Based on this framework, racial experiences are beyond racial experiences. Still, genetic ancestry tests can disclose the genetic ancestries that oppose consumer ideas on the convergence of social identities and biology. This issue is essential because it has the basis for legally protecting marginalized racial groups.
For instance, there was a court case in 2017 based on genetic ancestry by Sargent Brown, who accused the civil suit of Michigan and fifteen other defendants against the case of racial harassment, discrimination, and emotional distress (Benn Torres, 2019). Although Brown was white, when he took an ancestry test, he found that he had an 18% portion of his ancestry from Africa (Benn Torres, 2019). Upon disclosing this information to his colleagues, he faced much discrimination and was racially harassed, which led to his resignation. He was later awarded a damages fee of $65,000 to compensate for his racial experiences (Benn Torres, 2019).
This case shows how genetics’ biological and social perspectives come together because while his biological and ancestry information revealed his identity, he faced the social cause of discrimination. This case shows that when Brown learned of his biological notion of race and identified himself as white, he believed he had African ancestry. This is a common misunderstanding clearly presented in many civil suits. Since Brown had an 18% African genetic ancestry, it guaranteed his legal protection because he is a member of a marginalized group (Benn Torres, 2019).
On the contrary, Brown’s cultural and physical features did not change his ancestry test. Brown’s social identity changed for him and his co-workers because they stopped identifying with him as white and instead said that he was black. This shows that biology alone is not enough to expose someone to racism; the different human understanding alters a person’s understanding of race (Cerdeña, Grubbs, and Non, 2022). However, considering how biological ancestry tests are interpreted, genetic ancestry functions in methods aligned with political and social contexts. This shows that more studies are needed on the relationship between law, biology, and race.
Conclusion
There has been much ongoing research aimed at reflecting on evolving ideas in studying human differences. The anthropology discipline has evolved from focusing on race based on human diversity to a more holistic approach to nature and its impact on race. While people from different races may have different cultural and linguistic differences, DNA analysis shows that all humans have a common African ancestry. That is why there is more variation within human races than between them.
In addition, it has been found that the biological interpretation of race depends on the social and political contexts of an individual. This has been demonstrated using the case of Brown after discovering that he had an African ancestry despite being white. However, there is still a need for more research to determine the distinction between biology, law, and race.
The Importance of Peer-Reviewed Journals
Peer-reviewed journals are of paramount importance because they help monitor the quality of research published in different research fields. They help ensure that the data provided is accurate and of high quality and scrutinize the journals to ensure their credibility. In addition, peer-reviewed journals help researchers keep up-to-date information on their fields. This is because researchers learn about this research before anyone else, allowing them to build on it or stimulate new ideas. While reviewing, researchers may get to make a connection with distinct journals and their editors for more clarification.
Finally, peer-reviewed sources are more authoritative because they present reliable and more standard information than non-reviewed articles. When an article has been peer-reviewed, researchers can trust the information because experts in that field have analyzed it and presented the best practices. That is why they can be used for academic and other arguments to justify a person’s opinion.
References
Benn Torres, Jada. 2019. “Anthropological perspectives on genomic data, genetic ancestry, and race.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 13 (5). Web.
Cerdeña, Jessica P., Vanessa Grubbs, and Amy L. Non. 2022. “Genomic supremacy: The harm of conflating genetic ancestry and race.” Human Genomics 16 (1). Web.
Duello, Theresa M, Shawna Rivedal, Colton Wickland, and Annika Weller. 2021. “race and genetics vs. ‘race’ in genetics: A systematic review of the use of african ancestry in genetic studies.” Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 9 (1). Web.