The latest issue is science contains three ideological articles about how science education must be reformed to become more inclusive and antiracist. Most of the authors of all three works are affiliated with science education departments or institutes, which may explain the mission-oriented tone of the works. Today we will discuss one of them, and the other one will be explained soon.
This article argues that genetics education remains systemically racist and should be attacked, dismantled, and made explicit anti-racist. In fact, this article could have been written by Ibram Kendi. If only he knew a thing or two about genetics. As usual with such works, the issues it raises are primarily of the past and are not currently “systematic” in genetics education. This article provides no evidence that today's genetics classes are rife with racism, white supremacy, advocacy for eugenics, or other bad practices that create division among people. On the other hand, this article still emphasize Divisions between people, especially 'race', are considered as 'socially constructed' as these divisions are seen as groups with different powers that must be recognized and removed. is.
My main objection to this piece, in addition to being divisive, is that it assumes that genetics is being taught today in the same way it was 70 years ago, when in fact it is not. And most of all, they are trying to turn a science lesson into an ideology lesson. This is a course that “deconstructs'' modern genetics, eliminates white supremacy, and reinjects “anti-racist'' values into it. The authors have taught genetics and participated in other genetics classes, but they are dealing with a problem that is not a problem, and their solution will only make genetics education even worse. It will create a generation of ideologues who know less about genetics than previous generations.
Click on the title to view the PDF.Excerpts from works are indented
First, there is the problem stated in postmodern terms. Please note the terminology:
The ways in which genetic research is conducted and its results are deeply steeped in and influenced by the dynamics of power and privilege in broader society. The types of questions asked, the biological differences sought, and how populations are defined and examined all depend on each dominant culture (often Eurocentric, white, economically advantaged, masculine, heteronormative) and its dominant ways of knowing and being (3). Discoveries from research in human genetics and genomics subsequently influence existing sociopolitical dynamics by supporting claims about putative differences between populations and the prevalence of particular traits in particular populations. (3). Historically, such research has been used to support the eugenics movement, justifying forced sterilization and genocide. [JAC: this happened in the past and is not happening now.[ Yet it would be a mistake to assume that such research is merely a discredited past relic, a stain on the otherwise objective and rational track record of genetic research. Rather, it was mainstream work conducted by prominent researchers and supported by major professional societies. The reality is that some modern human genetics is still informed by the same racist logic (4). [JAC: no examples given.]
I'm not sure what the “logic of racism” is here. Examining reference (4), we find no evidence of “racist logic” in modern science, but we do find an explanation of its use in ancient teachings and a discussion of how to think of “ancestry.” Masu. In fact, the references are teeth Populations vary geographically and continuously, meaning average genetic differences between “races” even though there are no diagnostic and fixed differences between named “races” (I prefer to use the term “geographical population,” but Duncan et al. deny this claim. Luana Maloha) And in a recent paper on ideology and science, I argue that even in the United States, It showed that there are three types of “races'': white, East Asian, Hispanic, and black (“Hispanic'' is not normally considered a race, but it is considered a race in the United States. ) They can be distinguished because they are mainly from Mexico) do not have Although sociopolitical components have no biological meaning, they do differ on average in genetic traits and sequences. If you only know an American's genes, you can guess a person's self-reported ancestry with over 99% accuracy.
Although we are only beginning to explore what these differences mean for traits, behavior, and medical outcomes, geographic isolation leads to genetic differences due to natural selection and genetic drift, so these differences may be related to ancestral differences. reflects the geographical distribution of This is why genetic ancestry research companies can provide a fairly accurate view of your genetic ancestry (for example, I'm almost 100% Askkenazi Jewish). This won't work if the geographic populations are genetically identical.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to expose and dismantle systemic racism in contemporary genetics education. It must be “anti-racist” not “race-neutral.” As Kendi emphasizes in his book on anti-racism, we must deny at every turn that human races and populations are biologically different. Because that inevitably leads to ranking and racism. In other words, what is bad for society is study Genetic differences between populations:
Genetic distinctions between human populations are not natural. They are the result of classifications developed by geneticists for the purposes of their research and the questions they pursue.
. . . The search for genetic differences between populations, even if not done using explicit racial categories, can yield problematic findings in that social hierarchies can appear “natural” There is a gender. ,, [JAC: they then cite the caste divisions in India, and I know little about that. But the point—that differences equal ranking and racism—is the same.]
. . . . Our argument here is that successful genetic education must be anti-racist and not race-neutral. Therefore, a central learning goal of human genetics education is to understand that environmental and scientist definitions of genetic populations are not neutral but are shaped by the historical, social, and political contexts in which genetic populations exist. It should be something to do.
In fact, genetic groups can be analyzed using statistics alone, regardless of their “historical, social, and political context.” Now, calling these groups races, ethnic groups, populations, etc. is arbitrary.
Furthermore, the goal of genetics education should not be to teach how genetics works, but to dismantle this racism.
First, if we want to dismantle racism (and other systems of oppression) in science and society, we must understand how such oppression is woven into the fabric of genetics research and start early on through education. Frequently these practices need to be disrupted and countered. .
But, as I said, there is no evidence that genetic racism continues today, and in fact the authors have to make questionable statements such as:
In this sense, the Human Genome Project was developed and sustained within a sociopolitical context that supported (and still supports) value-based group differences.
That is, although the “sociopolitical context” was thought to be based on showing group differences that could be the basis for prejudice (not a fact), this “fact” was only developed in that context. It has even been used to target the Human Genome Project, which is believed to be a non-profit organization. I'm biased, but last That prejudice! In other words:
To dismantle racism, we must first recognize that racial differences are purely social constructions, but at the same time, perhaps these socially constructed differences correlate with well-being. You need to be aware of them as well. (Of course, I don't deny that racism reduces the well-being of minorities, but even to practice racism you need to recognize different groups in some way, and that is partly We also recognize that genetic differences are genetic, and even though the genetic differences we see are just differences, they have been used as a platform for historical racism and bigotry.
Therefore, we must avoid color blindness. recognize Color (of course, this is largely determined by genetics) is said to be the key to eliminating racial disparities. (The authors say almost nothing about socio-economic differences within the group; their focus is entirely on race.):
The understanding that race is not genetic (or biological) means that race is a social construct, or that race can and does shape our biology. It does not automatically translate into this understanding. Furthermore, knowing that race is a social construct ignores the systemic nature of racism and the resulting inequalities, thereby leading to racial disparities in health and other areas. is not automatically accounted for. Opposing only beliefs about race-based genetic differences and focusing solely on similarities between racial groups obscures the real and devastating differences in the well-being of minority racial groups . This can lead to racial “colorblindness” due to genetic traits, seeing everyone as the same and turning a blind eye to the effects of racism on people's biology.
Finally, the authors offer three recommendations for how to teach genetics in both secondary (middle school and high school) and postsecondary (university) genetics classes.
1.) Highlight the sociopolitical context of the environment
2.) The intertwining of environment and biology.
3.) Scrutinize the sociopolitical classification of human groups.
Point 1 is designed to highlight the debilitating effects that a racist environment has on minorities, and point 2 is designed to highlight how environments that impose differences on people through racism have a negative impact on people's biology. Point 3 shows how racism is defined and used. Races have served political purposes to gain power over other races. The author recommends several textbooks that help create a “brave and safe space” for students.
At the high school level, there is a strong example of a curriculum that engages students with a focus on ambitious science, its sociopolitical aspects, and social justice (13, 14). The number of excellent books is increasing (15) and online resources for anti-racist genetics and biology education. Examples include LabXchange's “Racism as a Public Health Crisis” curriculum and Fred's Hutchinson Cancer Center's “Race, Racism, and Genetics” materials. These resources include support for teachers to create brave and safe spaces to discuss race and genetics. Funding and dedicated support of national and professional science and science education organizations also aids these efforts.
Of course, using these books turns a genetics course into a course on anti-racist ideology and reduces the amount of time students spend learning “race-neutral” genetics. However, the authors are less concerned with how much genetics students learn. They are much more concerned with promoting a generation of students to create social change that they believe is beneficial.
In the short term, the role of scientists in the education of future scientists and teachers appears to be one of the most powerful levers for change. Undergraduate courses in biology and genetics, often taught by faculty from those departments, are where the “seeds” of sociopolitical awareness in genetics can begin.
Now, I don't see that much in genetics courses, but I think it's great to work on ridding the world of the racism that still exists. And when teaching human genetics, we expose the flaws in the old diagnostic “great genetic differences” view of humanity and instead emphasize that humans are now an intertransitional population, and therefore The depiction of race is optional. But the truth must also be told. Races are groups that evolved in ancient, geographically isolated environments, and there are real biological differences between them. And, of course, we should at least insert the caveat that the differences that exist do not invalidate the moral prescription that members of different groups have equal rights and deserve equal treatment.
The worst part about this paper, and its two accompanying papers (one here and one here), is that it is part of a national movement to turn education into propaganda, and to This means that it is part of a movement to change the purpose of education as a whole, from simply teaching education to others. Awakened directors' truth about teaching their students temporal and political “personal truths.”