Hungarian Sequencing Company Vets DNA For 'Gypsy Or Jew' Genes 467
ananyo writes "Hungary's Medical Research Council (ETT), which advises the government on health policy, has asked public prosecutors to investigate a genetic-diagnostic company that certified that a member of parliament did not have Roma or Jewish heritage. The MP in question is a member of the far-right Jobbik party, which won 17% of the votes in the general election of April 2010. He apparently requested the certificate from the firm Nagy Gén Diagnostic and Research. The company produced the document in September 2010, a few weeks before local elections. Nagy Gén scanned 18 positions in the MP's genome for variants that it says are characteristic of Roma and Jewish ethnic groups; its report concludes that Roma and Jewish ancestry can be ruled out." Adds ananyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.
Nonsense? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."
These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.
It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid, and to not *care* about racial purity.
While notions of race are tied up in all sorts of political correct nonsense and/or racist stereotyping, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a certain nexus of genes that are associated with what we commonly call race, and no amount of politically correct handwaving will make the science go away. Things like sickle cell anemia are associated with people of African descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics), as is Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jewish_people [wikipedia.org]), high rates of adult lactase enzymes in people of Northern European descent, low rates of alcohol dehydrogenase in several Asian groups, and so forth.
Long story short, while the concept of race is socially constructed (what is considered "white" has changed significantly over the last 100 years), the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.
Crapola (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the rather complex history of invasions and migrations through Hungary, I can't even imagine what one would qualify as a pure Hungarian. We're not talking about largely homogeneous populations like Iceland or Norway, we're talking about a country that has been the stomping ground from everyone from Central Asians to Germans to Mediterranean types. Read a history of that region. The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would kind of be like applying modern astronomy to the celestial spheres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres [wikipedia.org]
Re:Crapola (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you employed reason while looking at racist crap. Never works, trust me on that.
Re:ananyo is bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. It's been a while since then, and the interbreeding with Neanderthals that happened only to the future caucasoids and mongoloids. In particular, light-colored hair developed twice, among caucasoids and a certain tribe of pacific islanders.
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?
I suppose this guy could claim he was trying to screen himself for something like Tay-Sachs disease [wikipedia.org] or something else genetically related to being Jewish...
But still....kinda hard to see a law like this in existance...shouldn't you be able to test yourself for whatever reason you wish?
Re:Nonsense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cline and race have the same definition, so their use is interchangeable. The general public knows what race means and not cline. So if you want to speak to the general public use race.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if by "racist" you don't mean "white person who says anything bad about someone who's not white" and consider it fairly.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.
Not so much, because hybridization is the norm, not the exception. That is, it is perfectly possible for a "white" person in the US to have many "black" genetic markers. My family has been in North American for over 300 years, and it would be astonishing if I didn't have some African, Jewish and Native American ancestors.
So while it is correct to say that "certain genetic markers have higher rates of association with certain socially constructed cultural groups" the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless. So it is clearly false to claim that genetic tests for "race" are "scientifically valid" (whatever that means... certainly they are anti-Bayesian, which is the only meaning "scientifically valid" should have.)
Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.
As an example of the lack of genetic distinction between "races": both Irish and Eastern European immigrants to Canada were once considered racially distinct from Anglo-Scottish immigrants. They were literally considered "not white" (which you allude to.) Likewise, Korean and Japanese people are genetically identical, but belong to socially distinct and often mutually antagonistic "racial" groups.
Genetic differences between cultural groups may (but do not necessarily) exist. This does not validate genetic tests for "race" because "race" is a genetically meaningless concept due to the weakness of the association between cultural groups and genetics.
Re:Political agenda here? (Score:5, Insightful)
There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs.
You'd think so, but it's not actually the case. e.g. Any two black Africans are no more likely to have common DNA than any black African and a white European. Sure, they're both going to have higher levels of enzymes that synthesize melanin, but that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't determine by looking at them. Race is an false concept invented out of ignorance and tribalism.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid
Judaism is not encoded in anyone's DNA. People convert to Judaism all the time, and people convert away from Judaism to other religions all the time. My great-grandfather was a blond-haired, blue-eyed German who was raised by Catholic parents, who fell in love with my great-grandmother, converted to Judaism, and immigrated to America. Unless you are one of those people who thinks that converts are not really "Jews" (which is not a position that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jewish movements [openly] accept), you cannot claim that genetic tests can reveal whether or not someone is Jewish.
A second issue with the tests is that there are several genetically distinct Jewish populations (hint: this is because genetics has more to do with geography than with religion). The Ethiopian Jews have a very different genetic "fingerprint" than European or Middle-Eastern Jews, and I am just going to go out on a limb and guess that the test performed on this politician did not include genetic markers from Ethiopia. I similarly doubt that genetic markers from Central Asia populations were included, or from controversial communities like the Lemba. Not all Jews have white skin, black hair, or prominent noses, and not all Jews have European DNA.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only populations you can really rule out are populations that were isolated to the point of being forgotten, like Ethiopian Jews.
Re:But.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And as OP shows, they were right. Uneducated people cannot interpret them correctly, so instead they work their imagination, and use the tests for racial profiling and discrimination nazi-style (notably this is the CORRECT usage of nazism, as that is exactly what nazi idea was - that humans have racial elements that make them less worthy that are genetic based on race, rather then largely independent of race, such as stupidity).
Here you see the danger of ignorance at work, yet again. Saddest part is, we already have done this particular dance in the past, several times. And it never ended well. And as sad as it is, the argument that "people need to be protected from their own ignorance" appears to have merit. Though personally, I would prefer education as a solution rather then enforcing ban on exploiting ignorance.
Re:ananyo is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's part of us. [nature.com] I would be interested to know if white people's blond hair, blue eyes, and large noses have Neanderthal origins. After all, they lived in cold climates far longer than modern humans.
The issues from TFA shed light on a the ethical complexity of genetics. Personally, I want a copy of my genome. I have some specific health related reasons I want it, but it would be cool to do things with it, like find out roughly what percentage Native American I am (I'm at least 1/32nd Cherokee), if that's even possible. Where have my mitochondria evolved most recently? Do I have the cheating gene? [go.com]
Hungary has it wrong on two counts. First, they outlawed extracting genetic information except for health reasons. That's got to put a real damper on genetic research, and the Libertarian in me is crying foul. It's my genes, and I should be free to do what I want with them. Second, they're going after the genetics lab over this dumb law, rather than going after the MP for racist behavior. Let's hope we have more success in the US in drafting legislation to protect peoples right to genetic privacy, while giving people full access to data about themselves, and promoting genetic research.
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
If not, they probably shouldn't be labeled as a far-right party. The left-right dichotomy is about ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth. I feel as though lumping in extremist groups, which have little or nothing to say about economic policy, with other right or left-leaning groups to be a disingenuous attempt to make the more mainstream, non-extremeist parties look bad by association. Whether it's lumping in a group of racial bigots with the right or eco-terrorists with the left, it doesn't accomplish anything and just detracts from meaningful conversation by providing for easily constructed straw men for people on both sides of the isle.
That your comment has turned into the usual Europe vs. US crapfest just goes to show why lumping in extremist groups is a bad idea. It just fosters additional rhetoric and generalizations that aren't conducive for civil discourse.
Please don't (Score:5, Insightful)
If good gives up, evil prevails.
Re:Political agenda here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, now try doing that on a large group of black africans and white europeans. You'll get a bunch of clusters, but the black africans aren't any more likely to be in the same cluster than a white european and a black african. There are going to be similarities between closely related groups, but those similarities don't match up with what we traditionally call race.
Re:Nonsense? (Score:4, Insightful)
That really is a beautiful picture. It's a shame that it doesn't have any context to explain what it shows. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that it supports your position?
Re:Hard to know what to think of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)
I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?
This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.
Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-Roma racism in Europe (esp. Eastern Europe) has purely pragmatic roots. Denounce it as non politically correct all you want, but there's a strong correlation between Roma and petty criminals - especially those Roma who are identifiably Roma (i.e. wear the appropriate clothing, speak the language etc). Of course, this isn't because there is some kind of "Roma DNA" that includes some "thief gene" in it. It's because European Roma culture historically was, and to a large extent remains, conductive of petty crime. Today, this is primarily a self-perpetuating problem, much like disproportionally high numbers of criminals among African Americans in the USA - association of the whole group with crime leads to discrimination of it uniformly regardless of how individual members conduct themselves, which in turn means that their individual opportunity to achieve a higher status in life is that much less, which means that many are turned towards crime again as the most rewarding way of living that is left available to them. But, from the perspective of your average Eastern European citizen, who knows that out of ten thieves he saw in his life, eight were Roma, it doesn't matter - "fool me once" and all that.
Anti-Jewish racism, on the other hand, is mostly political - Nazi heritage and all that.
Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a Canadian. By your definition that makes me an American.
Nah; you're a North-American. ;-)
The simplest way to explain why "American" refers to a citizen of just the one country is to consider the question "What's the only country in the world with 'America' in its name?" The English term "American" is an adjective that refers to that one country. That's why English-speaking people everywhere use "American" to refer to citizens of that country. Similarly, they use "Canadian" to refer to anything related to the country with the string "Canada" in its name.
Granted, it is confusing to have "America" also used in the names of a couple of continents. But we should be smart enough to handle that issue. This problem doesn't exist with, e.g., "Africa". It is used in the names of several countries, so when you want to talk about citizens of one of those countries, you usually wouldn't say "African"; you'd include another part of the country's name.
There have been a few attempts to coin names based on the "US" abbreviation, but that sorta flopped. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of other countries whose names (in translation) include "United States of". So "citizen of the United States" is technically ambiguous, and refers to different countries when you translate it into various other languages.
But no other country uses the character string "America" in its name, so it can be safely and unambiguously used (in any language) to refer to a citizen of just the one country.