There has recently been something of an uproar over the new book A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade, with much of the criticism centering on Wade’s claim that race is a meaningful biological category. This subject is one with which I1 have some personal connection since as a child growing up in South Africa in the 1980s, I was myself categorized very neatly by the Office for Race Classification: 10. A simple pair of digits that conferred on me numerous rights and privileges denied to the majority of the population.
Explanation of identity numbers assigned to citizens by the South African government during apartheid.
And yet the system behind those digits was anything but simple. The group to which an individual was assigned could be based on not only their skin color but also their employment, eating and drinking habits, and indeed explicitly social factors as related by Muriel Horrell of the South African Institute of Race Relations: “Should a man who is initially classified white have a number of coloured friends and spend many of his leisure hours in their company, he stands to risk being re-classified as coloured.”
With these memories in mind, I found Wade’s concept of race as a biological category quite confusing, a confusion which only deepened when I discovered that he identifies not the eight races designated by the South African Population Registration Act of 1950, but rather five, none of which was the Griqua! With the full force of modern science on his side2, it seemed unlikely that these disparities represented an error on Wade’s part. And so I was left with a perplexing question: how could it be that the South African apartheid regime — racists par excellence — had failed to institutionalize their racism correctly? How had Wade gotten it right when Hendrik Verwoerd had gone awry?
Eventually I realized that A Troublesome Inheritance itself might contain the answer to this conundrum. Institutions, Wade explains, are genetic: “they grow out of instinctual social behaviors” and “one indication of such a genetic effect is that, if institutions were purely cultural, it should be easy to transfer an institution from one society to another.”3 So perhaps it is Wade’s genetic instincts as a Briton that explain how he has navigated these waters more skillfully than the Dutch-descended Afrikaners who designed the institutions of apartheid.
One might initially be inclined to scoff at such a suggestion or even to find it offensive. However, we must press boldly on in the name of truth and try to explain why this hypothesis might be true. Again, A Troublesome Inheritance comes to our aid. There, Wade discusses the decline in English interest rates between 1400 and 1850. This is the result, we learn, of rich English people producing more children than the poor and thereby genetically propagating those qualities which the rich are so famous for possessing: “less impulsive, more patient, and more willing to save.”4 However this period of time saw not only falling interest rates but also the rise of the British Empire. It was a period when Englishmen not only built steam engines and textile mills, but also trafficked in slaves by the millions and colonized countries whose people lacked their imperial genes. These latter activities, with an obvious appeal to the more racially minded among England’s population, could bring great wealth to those who engaged in them and so perhaps the greater reproductive fitness of England’s economic elite propagated not only patience but a predisposition to racism. This would explain, for example, the ability of John Hanning Speke to sniff out “the best blood of Abyssinia” when distinguishing the Tutsi from their Hutu neighbors.
Some might be tempted to speculate that Wade is himself a racist. While Wade — who freely speculates about billions of human beings — would no doubt support such an activity, those who engage in such speculation should perhaps not judge him too harshly. After all, racism may simply be Wade’s own troublesome inheritance.
Footnotes
1. In the spirit of authorship designation as discussed in this post, we describe the author contributions as follows: the recollections of South Africa are those of Lior Pachter, who distinctly remembers his classification as “white”. Nicolas Bray conceived and composed the post with input from LP. LP discloses no conflicts of interest. NB discloses being of British ancestry.
2. Perhaps not quite the full force, given the reception his book has received from actual scientists.
3. While this post is satirical, it should be noted for clarity that, improbably, this is an actual quote from Wade’s book.
4. Again, not satire.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 4, 2014 at 10:32 am
Gina D
Nice blog. I hope you cross post it on Amazon where non scientists can read it before they buy and get confused.
June 4, 2014 at 11:50 am
Reader
Using the slur of “racist” does not make an argument incorrect.
Likewise, just because the accounts of the number of races vary, it doesn’t mean race doesn’t exist. People disagree on the number of shapes but shapes still exist.
The entire Cultural Marxist “race is a social construct” propaganda is quite tiresome. Few people believe this crap, which is why the Cultural Marxists feel they must shout it even louder. Sorry, but this is propaganda, not science.
I think that what really terrifies people is that we have in fact learned that evolution has been recent and regional. While Wade may or may not be correct about some particulars, the general gist of his book more than likely is correct, something that we are going to have to come to terms with.
Unless, of course, you want to continue down the path of liberal creationism:
May 27, 2015 at 12:26 am
Harry Hab
Agreed. What happened to the neanderthals, by the way?
June 4, 2014 at 7:58 pm
julian
Lior: I think you could have been a really good scientist if only you were born english rather than south african.
-a barbarian scot (by blood)
June 4, 2014 at 9:15 pm
Debora Marks
I wonder why people had such high expectations from Wade?
Is it such a surprise that Wade takes this purposefully provocative, simplistic stance? Isn’t this (often) what’s otherwise called journalism?
June 6, 2014 at 3:30 am
Steve Bloomberg
***I found Wade’s concept of race as a biological category quite confusing, a confusion which only deepened when I discovered that he identifies not the eight races designated by the South African Population Registration Act of 1950, but rather five, none of which was the Griqua! ***
I take it that the five Wade is referring to are essentially on the basis of main continental ancestry as it’s at that level that you see the greatest discontinuities between groups (Risch et al).* Of course within continents you can also identify smaller clusters all the way down to families. As Jerry Coyne, a Professor of Ecology & Evolution at University of Chicago noted there is no exact number of races. Coyne noted:
“What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
Under that criterion, are there human races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.”
* http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
June 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Josh
“Likewise, just because the accounts of the number of races vary, it doesn’t mean race doesn’t exist. People disagree on the number of shapes but shapes still exist.”
Duh. A population has substructure, so you cold theoretically keep making races all the way down to the identical twin level.
June 10, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Steve Sailer
Right. The most useful way to think about racial groups are as extended families whose ancestry is partly inbred.
May 27, 2015 at 12:21 am
Harry Hab
That’s exactly right. And to a good first approximation, that divides into subsaharan africans and all the rest. My brown-skinned students from India think I’m taking the piss when I inform them that they are Caucasians.
June 17, 2014 at 1:50 am
Klas
Instead of reading Wade solely through the prisma of your own experiences, looking for his intent, wouldn’t it be more scientific to comment on the biology in the book?
It would be more interesting to read for biology interested people.
June 29, 2014 at 6:26 am
Bug10
Just so you guys know the difference everyone is fighting over is about 8-15% out of 0.1% and that is an average difference in the same alleles. The difference is extremely small.
Also before anyone brings up Neanderthals and the 98%, they are also not that different and recent evidence strongly suggests they were just as smart. Chimps are also far more diverse from one another than humans, but that includes different genes not just alleles so it makes a much bigger difference. Same goes for dogs, they are not measured the same way as humans. Dog breeds does not equal humans.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6833/20140430/neanderthals-just-as-smart-as-modern-humans.htm
http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/technology/article/1503536/neanderthals-were-just-smart-modern-humans-say-researchers
Here is a scientific review of Wades central piece of evidence. He either willfully or out of stupidity, misrepresented data. There is no two ways around it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-raff/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade_b_5375137.html
May 27, 2015 at 12:32 am
Harry Hab
An interesting hypothesis I read is that sapiens did not exactly drive neanderthalensis into the “warring over resources” way one might naively expect — the population densities of either were way too low. It’s just that sapiens was able to live in larger groups at higher local (and therefore also average) population densities. Sometimes they fought, sometimes they interbred, mostly they ignored each other. And slowly neanderthalensis melted into sapiens; I have the eyebrow ridges to prove it.
June 29, 2014 at 6:39 am
Bug10
Dog and Chimp diversity in comparison to humans a usual argument by racists is wrong.
Dogs and Chimps are way more diverse genetically.
http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/genetic-variation-between-dog-breeds-the-reality-of-human-differences/
and..
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120302.html
What you guys also need to understand is that those difference mean different things than with humans. SNPs between dogs are going to have different size effect, different ways of working etc, same goes for Chimps.
So yeah…
November 17, 2015 at 10:31 pm
Find out more
Thanks for finally talking about >Nicholas Wades troublesome inheritance | Bits
of DNA <Loved it!
November 24, 2015 at 8:53 pm
Marnie Dunsmore
Lior,
This is an insufficient statement for what is required to do “good” biology. You tweeted this the other day:
“If you can’t stand algebra, keep out of evolutionary biology” – John Maynard Smith.
I’ve seen plenty of papers in evolutionary biology where the “math” was correctly formulated, but other problems, often quite fundamental and obvious ones, lead to published statements which are erroneous, misleading or grossly exaggerated, and harmful.
So, while a weak math background may sometimes be a cause of concern in evolutionary biology, I’d say that there are plenty of other problem in this field.
Increasingly, I’m of the opinion that almost the entire field of evolutionary biology suffers from a quite severe Eurocentric bias, as well as gender bias.
I’ve seen plenty of papers published in prominent journals that use statistics to hide their dubious deductions, which make it difficult for the average person to see what is going on. Yet, these unsupportable “conclusions” soon turn up in arguments in the popular press, and at the highest levels of government and corporations, to make often hard to detect arguments supporting race and gender discrimination.
It doesn’t help that the field seems to have a tremendous problem policing academics of major research institutes who blog and harass people online under pseudonyms. Hey, some even blog and harass using their own name. You only need to look at blogs such as the West Hunter blog to see that.
Nope, weakness in math skills is not by any means the only problem of evolutionary biologists. I’d say far more serious is a gross inability to implement basic standards of ethics and safeguards against bias.
November 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Marnie Dunsmore
Lior, according to this study, there is no lack of skill, math or otherwise, in biotechnology or genomics. Given the fact that the field is increasingly dismissing and bypassing half of its potential workforce, the problems of building a competent workforce in genomics lie beyond a lack of math skill.
This study is on Canadian Women in biotechnology, but it is doubtful that things are any better here in the US.
http://genomealberta.ca/blogs/new-report-outlines-womens-experiences-of-gender-bias-in-canadas-biotechnology-sector.aspx
As professors in the field of biotechnology, I would expect you and your colleagues to be familiar with such research.
Some findings:
“Gender bias has a real and discernible negative effect on women in the bio-economy workforce.”
The number of women in the bio-technology workforce has “fallen by 11.5% since 2008”
“On the other hand, with more than half of Canada’s biotechnology companies reporting skills shortages”
“All the male hirers included in the BioTalent Canada LMI survey chose men when given the choice between male and female candidates. Female hirers chose candidates of both genders, though slightly more than half picked men.”
“Attitudes about the relative skills of men and women reveal some fairly “traditional” biases”
“Overt discrimination or harassment were challenges for nearly half of all respondents, and more so for women than men.”
“Many employers seemed to be reluctant to hire or promote women with young children or who might be likely to have children in the future. Another
common theme was the feeling that women were given less respect and appreciation than men for their work.”
“The data collected suggest a difficult work environment for a great deal of women in the bio-economy.”
“Gender bias, whether conscious or unconscious, affects many bio-economy workplaces and has an influence on the careers of skilled female workers.”
“59% of science graduates from Canadian universities are women.”
“Women hold fewer than 20% of senior positions in biotechnology.” And this cannot be attributed to only a “pipeline problem”, since the number of women graduating with biotechnology degrees in science has been well above 20% for more than twenty years (plenty of time to have reached those senior positions, if other factors such as gender bias and overt discrimination were not forcing out many women.)
Suggested reading: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians