Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It does. Medical research has to take race into account, and race can be identified from genetic analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
The final sentence of this interesting artical points out that
researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing difference between genetically defined clusters as genetic in origin, since social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors may result in extreme confounding. What does it all mean?
1. The broad ethnic categories are meaningful (African, Asian et al). There are no significant sub groups within these. Hispanics are a complex group.
2. Within these broad categories, some consistent genetic differences are found which may be relevant to clinical research - the example given was hypertension.
3. It is important not to confuse these with
social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and other environmental factors. They are NOT GENETIC differences.
What we always knew is that some people are black, especially in Africa, some are white, especially in Europe. We know that some physical conditions (like sickle cell anaemia) are associated with ethnic category.
At this level the notion of "race" or "ethnic status" has some basis in biology.
However, what some Social Darwinists, sociobiologists, eugenicists, and romantic nationalists want us to believe is that social differences are racially determined and also critically that some groups (their own) are an evolutionary advance on others. This is in the realm of fantasy and dangerous in its effects.
The best ilustration of why this is so crazy was the famous Jane Elliot experiment - see this link if you are not familiar with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott
Socially, and not biologically, people can fix on a physical attribute (blue eyes, black skin, blond hair) and attach immense significance to it which is entirely a product of persuasion and has no reality.
Note that just as your artical points out there are no sub groups within the broad ethnic categories, so many others have observed that there is no genetic marker whatever for being a Jew and there is no historical reason why there should be one either. There is no Jewish race.
When I say that humans are not divided into races, apart from trivial characteristics, then I am not proven wrong by this artical. Obviously it is not trivial to have sickle cell anaemia (for example), but socially and as a way to divide groups of human beings that is trivial. Races are a social construct and as such it is not honest to say it might be justified by biological evidence.