Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:06, 3 October 2010

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (May 2009)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Race refers to the classification of humans into populations or groups based on various factors such as culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics.

Conceptions and groupings of races vary over time and reflect societal customs in defining essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits.

As a biological term, race describes genetically divergent populations of humans that can be marked by common phenotypic and genotypic traits. This sense of race is often used in forensic anthropology analyzing skeletal remains, biomedical research, and race-based medicine.

Race, however, has no official biological taxonomic significance—all humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Nor is there scientific basis for any racial or ethnic hierarchy.

The study of shared traits among peoples is also conducted along ethnic lines, involving the endogamic history of groups.

Concepts and realities of race

Today, many anthropologists consider race, with respect to how individuals in society interact with each other, to be a cultural construct independent of biological or genetic variation. Having arisen as an ideology about differences between peoples, race is something to be analyzed apart from biological or genetic considerations. While race as a concept is older—Marco Polo in his travels, for example, describes the Persian race—the history of race reveals that 19th and 20th century concepts of its meaning and modern sensibilities about how society views race date back only to the 17th century.

The word "race," as related to lineage, while appearing to come from the medieval French or possibly Italian razza is derived from the French haras, having been at one point translated—initial "h" dropped in speech—into the Italian razza, pointing to English and Italian being derived and adapted, respectively, from the French. (In older Italian, around the time of Marco Polo's characterization of the Persians as a race, razza applied only to animals while schiatta applied to people; that use of schiatta continues today.)

Anthropologists also point out that genomic analysis has shown that racial distinctions are "not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful." Most variations in human genes, in fact, pre-date the time of the migration of Homo sapiens sapiens out of Africa, leading genetic researchers to concluded that the "possibility that human history has been characterized by genetically relatively homogeneous groups ('races'), distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence."

This does not mean that genomic analysis cannot inform us on the historical demographics of peoples or offer insight on how peoples are related to each other, even the where and when of their contact. Race as a surrogate correlating to geographic origins or to genetic differences can be a useful concept for race-based medicine, more properly referred to as pharmacogenomics; but even in such a form, the concept can be open to abuse.

Among the very first American colonists, African entrepreneurs who had arrived as laborers engaged in society and commerce on an equal footing, with equal rights, as Europeans—and with similar attitudes. The Enlightenment brought with it, in the 18th century, the synthesis of humans as unequals, with blacks placed as the lowest of the races in the Great Chain of Being. Tragically, those characteristics most closely associated with classifying races: skin color, hair color and texture, and facial characteristics—while evolutionarily important—are among the most superficial of human genetic traits.

Modern debate

Models of human evolution

In a 1995 article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson suggested that any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race.

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, are theorized to have evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus is theorized to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus.

Anthropologists have been divided as to whether Homo sapiens evolved as one interconnected species from H. erectus (called the Multiregional Model, or the Regional Continuity Model), or evolved only in East Africa, and then migrated out of Africa and replaced H. erectus populations throughout Europe and Asia (called the Out of Africa Model or the Complete Replacement Model). Anthropologists continue to debate both possibilities, and the evidence is technically ambiguous as to which model is correct, although most anthropologists currently favor the Out of Africa model.

Lieberman and Jackson argued that while advocates of both the Multiregional Model and the Out of Africa Model use the word race and make racial assumptions, none define the term. They conclude that "Each model has implications that both magnify and minimize the differences between races. Yet each model seems to take race and races as a conceptual reality. The net result is that those anthropologists who prefer to view races as a reality are encouraged to do so" and conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead describe genetic differences in terms of populations and clinal gradations.

Race as subspecies

With the advent of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, many biologists sought to use evolutionary models and populations genetics in an attempt to formalise taxonomy. The Biological Species Concept (BSC) is the most widely used system for describing species, this concept defines a species as a group of organisms that interbreed in their natural environment and produce viable offspring. In practice, species are not classified according to the BSC but according to typology by the use of a holotype, due to the difficulty of determining whether all members of a group of organisms do or can in practice potentially interbreed. BSC species are routinely classified on a subspecific level, though this classification is conducted differently for different taxons, for mammals the normal taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies.

More recently the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) has gained a substantial following. The PSC is based on the idea of a least-inclusive taxonomic unit (LITU), in phylogenetic classification no subspecies can exist because they would automatically constitute a LITU (any monophyletic group). Technically species cease to exist as do all hierarchical taxa, a LITU is effectively defined as any monophyletic taxon, phylogenetics is strongly influenced by cladistics which classifies organisms based on evolution rather than similarities between groups of organisms. In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'". Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies. One main obstacle to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition.

Species of organisms that are monotypic (i.e., form a single subspecies) display at least one of these properties:

• All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
• The individuals vary considerably but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned (many plant species fit into this category, which is why horticulturists interested in preserving, say, a particular flower color avoid propagation from seed, and instead use vegetative methods like propagation from cuttings).
• The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation displays a lack of allopatric partition between groups (i.e., a clearly defined boundary demarcating the subspecies), which is usually required before they are recognised as subspecies.

A polytypic species has two or more subspecies. These are separate populations that are more genetically different from one another and that are more reproductively isolated, gene flow between these populations is much reduced leading to genetic differentiation.

Morphological subspecies

Traditionally subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. Or to put it another way "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not identify any degree of differentiation. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the seventy-five percent rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The seventy-five percent rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with ninety or ninety-five percent rule.

In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other. However, it is customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones.

On the other hand in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, but there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists. Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.

Because of the difficulty in classifying subspecies morphologically, many biologists have found the concept problematic, citing issues such as:

• Visible physical differences do not always correlate with one another, leading to the possibility of different classifications for the same individual organisms.
• Parallel evolution can lead to the existence of the appearance of similarities between groups of organisms that are not part of the same species.
• Isolated populations within previously designated subspecies have been found to exist.
• The criteria for classification may be arbitrary if they ignore gradual variation in traits.

Subspecies as genetically differentiated populations

Another way to look at differences between populations is to measure genetic differences rather than physical differences. The Human Genome Project found only gradations in genetic variation, not sharp lines which would naturally define notions of race or ethnicity. "People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."

Genetic differences between populations of organisms can be measured using the fixation index of Sewall Wright, which is often abbreviated to F_ST. This statistic is used to compare differences between any two given populations and can be used to measure genetic differences between populations for individual genes, or for many genes simultaneously. For example it is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This means that about 85% of the variation measured in the human population is within any population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations, or that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group.

It is often stated that human genetic variation is low compared to other mammalian species, and it has been claimed that this should be taken as evidence that there is no natural subdivision of the human population. Wright himself believed that a value of 0.25 represented great genetic variation and that an F_ST of 0.15-0.25 represented moderate variation. It should, however, be noted that about 5% of human variation occurs between populations within continents, and therefore the F_ST between continental groups of humans (or races) is as low as 0.1 (or possibly lower).

In their 2003 paper "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races" Jeffrey Long and Rick Kittles give a long critique of the application of F_ST to human populations. They find that the figure of 85% is misleading because it implies that all human populations contain on average 85% of all genetic diversity. They claim that this does not correctly reflect human population history, because it treats all human groups as independent. A more realistic portrayal of the way human groups are related is to understand that some human groups are parental to other groups and that these groups represent paraphyletic groups to their descent groups. For example, under the recent African origin theory the human population in Africa is paraphyletic to all other human groups because it represents the ancestral group from which all non-African populations derive, but more than that, non-African groups only derive from a small non-representative sample of this African population.

This means that all non-African groups are more closely related to each other and to some African groups (probably east Africans) than they are to others, and further that the migration out of Africa represented a genetic bottleneck, with much of the diversity that existed in Africa not being carried out of Africa by the emigrating groups. This view produces a version of human population movements that do not result in all human populations being independent; but rather, produces a series of dilutions of diversity the further from Africa any population lives, each founding event representing a genetic subset of its parental population. Long and Kittles find that rather than 85% of human genetic diversity existing in all human populations, about 100% of human diversity exists in a single African population, whereas only about 70% of human genetic diversity exists in a population derived from New Guinea. Long and Kittles make the observation that this still produces a global human population that is genetically homogeneous compared to other mammalian populations.

Wright's F statistics are not used to determine whether a group can be described as a subspecies or not, though the statistic is used to measure the degree of differentiation between populations, the degree of genetic differentiation is not a marker of subspecies status. Generally taxonomists prefer to use phylogenetic analysis to determine whether a population can be considered a subspecies. Phylogenetic analysis relies on the concept of derived characteristics that are not shared between groups, usually applying to populations that are allopatric (geographically separated) and therefore discretely bounded. This would make a subspecies, evolutionarily speaking, a clade - a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population. The smooth gradation of human genetic variation in general rules out any idea that human population groups can be considered monophyletic (cleanly divided) as there appears to always have been considerable gene flow between human populations.

Subspecies as clade

By the 1970s many evolutionary scientists were avoiding the concept of "subspecies" as a taxonomic category for four reasons:

• very few data indicate that contiguous subspecies ever become species
• geographically disjunct groups regarded as subspecies usually can be demonstrated to actually be distinct species
• subspecies had been recognized on the basis of only 2-5 phenotypic characters, which often were adaptations to local environments but which did not reflect the evolutionary differentiation of populations as a whole
• with the advent of molecular techniques used to get a better handle on genetic introgression (gene flow), the picture afforded by looking at genetic variation was often at odds with the phenotypic variation (as is the case with looking at genes versus percentage of epidermal melanin in human populations)

These criticisms have coincided with the rise of cladistics

A clade is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. Whereas Carolus Linnaeus established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, cladistics seeks to establish a taxonomy—the phylogenetic tree—based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms. Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the clade. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location.

Most evolutionary scientists have rejected the identification of races with clades for two reasons. First, as Rachel Caspari (2003) argued, clades are by definition monophyletic groups (a taxon that includes all descendants of a given ancestor) since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, none of those groups can be clades.

For anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race. They emphasize that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation.

This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity. They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways. They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race.

For empirical reasons we prefer to place emphasis on clinal variation, which recognizes the existence of adaptive human hereditary variation and simultaneously stresses that such variation is not found in packages that can be labeled races.

Indeed, recent research reports evidence for smooth, clinal genetic variation even in regions previously considered racially homogeneous, with the apparent gaps turning out to be artifacts of sampling techniques (Serre & Pääbo 2004). These scientists do not dispute the importance of cladistic research, only its retention of the word race, when reference to populations and clinal gradations are more than adequate to describe the results.

Population genetics: the change in understanding of population and race

At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists accepted, and taught, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups, while popularly applying that belief to the field of eugenics. Shortly thereafter, the rise of population genetics provided scientists with a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon.

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912), and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953).

Clines

One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines (Brace 1964). In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279).

In a response to Livingston, Theodore Dobzhansky argued that when talking about race one must be attentive to how the term is being used: "I agree with Dr. Livingston that if races have to be 'discrete units,' then there are no races, and if 'race' is used as an 'explanation' of the human variability, rather than vice versa, then the explanation is invalid." He further argued that one could use the term race if one distinguished between "race differences" and "the race concept." The former refers to any distinction in gene frequencies between populations; the latter is "a matter of judgment." He further observed that even when there is clinal variation, "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena… but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels." In short, Livingston and Dobzhansky agree that there are genetic differences among human beings; they also agree that the use of the race concept to classify people, and how the race concept is used, is a matter of social convention. They differ on whether the race concept remains a meaningful and useful social convention.

In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observed, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).

Patterns such as those seen in human physical and genetic variation as described above, have led to the consequence that the number and geographic location of any described races is highly dependent on the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered. For example, if only skin color and a "two race" system of classification were used, then one might classify Indigenous Australians in the same race as Black people, and Caucasians in the same race as East Asian people, but biologists and anthropologists would dispute that these classifications have any scientific validity. Scientists discovered a skin-lighting mutation that partially accounts for the appearance of Light skin in humans (people who migrated out of Africa northward into what is now Europe) which they estimate occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. The East Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. On the other hand, the greater the number of traits (or alleles) considered, the more subdivisions of humanity are detected, since traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to the same geographical location. Or as Ossario and Duster (2005) put it:

Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans' physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people.

More recent genetic studies indicate that skin color may change radically over as few as 100 generations, or about 2,500 years, given the influence of the environment.

Populations

Population geneticists have debated as to whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. In order to do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. It has been pointed out that the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, but also that most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time" Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations; those that fall into an ecological paradigm, and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples of such definitions are:

• Ecological paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species that co-occur in space and time and have an opportunity to interact with each other.
• Evolutionary paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species living in close-enough proximity that any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member.

Richard Lewontin, claiming that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations and not among populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Nevertheless, barriers—which may be cultural or physical— between populations can limit gene flow and increase genetic differences. Recent work by population geneticists conducting research in Europe suggests that ethnic identity can be a barrier to gene flow. Others, such as Ernst Mayr, have argued for a notion of "geographic race" . Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic F_ST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation². Sewall Wright himself commented that if differences this large were seen in another species, they would be called subspecies. In 2003 A. W. F. Edwards argued that cluster analysis supersedes Lewontin's arguments (see below).

These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as:

A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing." Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ~90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ~10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).

Conversely, in the paper "Genetic similarities within and between human populations" Witherspoon et al. (2007) show that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it is still possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. This is because multi locus clustering relies on population level similarities, rather than individual similarities, so that each individual is classified according to their similarity to the typical genotype for any given population. The paper claims that this masks a great deal of genetic similarity between individuals belonging to different clusters. Or in other words, two individuals from different clusters can be more similar to each other than to a member of their own cluster, while still both being more similar to the typical genotype of their own cluster than to the typical genotype of a different cluster.

When differences between individual pairs of people are tested, Witherspoon et al. found that the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" is not adequately addressed by multi locus clustering analyses. They found that even for just three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian) the inclusion of many thousands of loci is required before the answer can become "never". On the other hand, the accurate classification of the global population must include more closely related and admixed populations, which will increase this above zero, so they state "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible". Witherspoon et al. conclude "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population"

Molecular genetics: lineages and clusters

With the recent availability of large amounts of human genetic data from many geographically distant human groups, scientists have again started to investigate the relationships between people from various parts of the world. One method is to investigate DNA molecules that are passed down from mother to child (mtDNA) or from father to son (Y chromosomes). These form molecular lineages and can be informative regarding prehistoric population migrations. Alternatively, autosomal alleles are investigated in an attempt to understand how much genetic material groups of people share.

This work has led to a debate amongst geneticists, molecular anthropologists and medical doctors as to the validity of concepts such as race. Some researchers insist that classifying people into groups based on ancestry may be important from medical and social policy points of view, and claim to be able to do so accurately. Others claim that individuals from different groups share far too much of their genetic material for group membership to have any medical implications. This has reignited the scientific debate over the validity of human classification and concepts of race.

Summary of different biological definitions of race

Current views across disciplines

One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as biology, there is strong consensus. Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the concept of race altogether, and use the concept of population as a less problematic unit of analysis.

Since 1932, an increasing number of college textbooks introducing physical anthropology have rejected race as a valid concept: from 1932 to 1976, only seven out of thirty-two rejected race; from 1975 to 1984, thirteen out of thirty-three rejected race; from 1985 to 1993, thirteen out of nineteen rejected race. According to one academic journal entry, where 78 percent of the articles in the 1931 Journal of Physical Anthropology employed these or nearly synonymous terms reflecting a bio-race paradigm, only 36 percent did so in 1965, and just 28 percent did in 1996. The Statement on "Race" (1998) composed by a select committee of anthropologists and issued by the executive board of the American Anthropological Association as a statement they "believe represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists", declares:

With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, ... it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

In an ongoing debate, some geneticists argue that race is neither a meaningful concept nor a useful heuristic device, and even that genetic differences among groups are biologically meaningless, because more genetic variation exists within such races than among them, and that racial traits overlap without discrete boundaries. Other geneticists, in contrast, argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful, that these categories correspond to clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data, and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.

In February, 2001, the editors of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine asked authors to no longer use race as an explanatory variable and not to use obsolescent terms. Some other peer-reviewed journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, have made similar endeavours. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health recently issued a program announcement for grant applications through February 1, 2006, specifically seeking researchers who can investigate and publicize among primary care physicians the detrimental effects on the nation's health of the practice of medical racial profiling using such terms. The program announcement quoted the editors of one journal as saying that, "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex."

A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were:

• biologists 16%
• developmental psychologists 36%
• physical anthropologists 41%
• cultural anthropologists 53%

The figure for physical anthropologists at PhD granting departments was slightly higher, rising from 41% to 42%, with 50% agreeing. This survey, however, did not specify any particular definition of race (although it did clearly specify biological race within the species Homo sapiens); it is difficult to say whether those who supported the statement thought of race in taxonomic or population terms.

The same survey, taken in 1999, showed the following changing results for anthropologists:

• physical anthropologists 69%
• cultural anthropologists 80%

On May 17, 1998 The American Anthropological Association produced a "Statement on 'Race'":

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population."

In the face of these issues, some evolutionary scientists have simply abandoned the concept of race in favor of "population." What distinguishes population from previous groupings of humans by race is that it refers to a breeding population (essential to genetic calculations) and not to a biological taxon. Other evolutionary scientists have abandoned the concept of race in favor of cline (meaning, how the frequency of a trait changes along a geographic gradient). (The concepts of population and cline are not, however, mutually exclusive and both are used by many evolutionary scientists.)

According to Jonathan Marks,

By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic - that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal - that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left - the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal - was very small.

A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it - as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools - did not exist.

In the face of this rejection of race by evolutionary scientists, many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with "race," following the Second World War, evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to believe that race itself is a social construct, a concept that was believed to correspond to an objective reality but which was believed in because of its social functions.

Races as social constructions

Even as the idea of race was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, some observers criticized the concept. In Europe, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups suggested to Blumenbach that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them" (Marks 1995, p. 54). As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others.

Dr. Craig Venter and scientist Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, he realized that although we are indeed further apart genetically from each other, (1-3% instead of the assumed 1%), the types of variations don't warrant calling each other different races. Venter says quote.."Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

Stephan Palmié has recently summarized, race "is not a thing but a social relation"; or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: history and social relationships will.

In the United States

The immigrants to the Americas came ultimately from every region of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout America the immigrants mixed among themselves and with the indigenous inhabitants of the continent. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors—in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra et al. 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as white in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have less than 90% European ancestry.

Since the early history of the United States, Native Americans, African Americans, and European Americans have been classified as belonging to different races. For nearly three centuries, the criteria for membership in these groups were similar, comprising a person’s appearance, his fraction of known non-White ancestry, and his social circle. But the criteria for membership in these races diverged in the late 19th century. During Reconstruction, increasing numbers of Americans began to consider anyone with "one drop" of known "Black blood" to be Black, regardless of appearance. By the early 20th century, this notion of invisible blackness was made statutory in many states and widely adopted nationwide. In contrast, Amerindians continue to be defined by a certain percentage of "Indian blood" (called blood quantum), due in large part to American slavery ethics. Finally, to be White one had to have perceived "pure" White ancestry.

Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories, such as mulatto and octoroon, and blood quantum distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin et al. 2003).

The difference between how Native American and Black identities are defined today (blood quantum versus one-drop rule) has demanded explanation. According to anthropologists such as Gerald Sider, the goal of such racial designations was to concentrate power, wealth, privilege and land in the hands of Whites in a society of White hegemony and privilege (Sider 1996; see also Fields 1990). The differences have little to do with biology and far more to do with the history of racism and specific forms of White supremacy (the social, geopolitical and economic agendas of dominant Whites vis-à-vis subordinate Blacks and Native Americans), especially the different roles Blacks and Amerindians occupied in White-dominated 19th century America.

The theory suggests that the blood quantum definition of Native American identity enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands, while the one-drop rule of Black identity enabled Whites to preserve their agricultural labor force. The contrast presumably emerged because, as peoples transported far from their land and kinship ties on another continent, Black labor was relatively easy to control, thus reducing Blacks to valuable commodities as agricultural laborers. In contrast, Amerindian labor was more difficult to control; moreover, Amerindians occupied large territories that became valuable as agricultural lands, especially with the invention of new technologies such as railroads; thus, the blood quantum definition enhanced White acquisition of Amerindian lands in a doctrine of Manifest Destiny that subjected them to marginalization and multiple episodic localized campaigns of extermination.

The political economy of race had different consequences for the descendants of aboriginal Americans and African slaves. The 19th century blood quantum rule meant that it was relatively easier for a person of mixed Euro-Amerindian ancestry to be accepted as White. The offspring of only a few generations of intermarriage between Amerindians and Whites likely would not have been considered Amerindian at all (at least not in a legal sense). Amerindians could have treaty rights to land, but because an individual with one Amerindian great-grandparent no longer was classified as Amerindian, they lost any legal claim to Amerindian land. According to the theory, this enabled Whites to acquire Amerindian lands. The irony is that the same individuals who could be denied legal standing because they were "too White" to claim property rights, might still be Amerindian enough to be considered "breeds", stigmatized for their Native American ancestry.

The one-drop rule, on the other hand, made it relatively difficult for anyone of known Black ancestry to be accepted as White during the 20th century. The child of a Black sharecropper and a White person was considered Black. And, significantly, in terms of the economics of sharecropping, such a person also would likely be a sharecropper as well, thus adding to the employer's labor force. However, some people with hints of African ancestry had light enough skin and other features to pass as "white". This did not happen for many people though. Many African-Americans today still possess small traces of European ancestry because of this mixing of races.

In short, this theory suggests that in a 20th century economy that benefited from sharecropping, it was useful to have as many Blacks as possible. Conversely, in a 19th century nation bent on westward expansion, it was advantageous to diminish the numbers of those who could claim title to Amerindian lands by simply defining them out of existence.

It must be mentioned, however, that although some scholars of the Jim Crow period agree that the 20th century notion of invisible Blackness shifted the color line in the direction of paleness, thereby swelling the labor force in response to Southern Blacks' Great Migration northwards, others (Joel Williamson, C. Vann Woodward, George M. Fredrickson, Stetson Kennedy) see the one-drop rule as a simple consequence of the need to define Whiteness as being pure, thus justifying White-on-Black oppression. In any event, over the centuries when Whites wielded power over both Blacks and Amerindians and widely believed in their inherent superiority over people of color, it is no coincidence that the hardest racial group in which to prove membership was the White one.

In the United States, social and legal conventions developed over time that forced individuals of mixed ancestry into simplified racial categories (Gossett 1997). An example is the aforementioned one-drop rule implemented in some state laws that treated anyone with a single known African American ancestor as black (Davis 2001). The decennial censuses conducted since 1790 in the United States also created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into those categories (Nobles 2000). In other countries in the Americas where mixing among groups was overtly more extensive, social categories have tended to be more numerous and fluid, with people moving into or out of categories on the basis of a combination of socioeconomic status, social class, ancestry, and appearance (Mörner 1967).

The term "Hispanic" as an ethnonym emerged in the 20th century with the rise of migration of laborers from American Spanish-speaking countries to the United States. Today, the word "Latino" is often used as a synonym for "Hispanic". The definitions of both terms are non-race specific, and include people who consider themselves to be of distinct races (Black, White, Amerindian, Asian, and mixed groups). In contrast to "Latino" or "Hispanic", "Anglo" refers to non-Hispanic White Americans or non-Hispanic European Americans, most of whom speak the English language but are not necessarily of English descent.

In Brazil

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Compared to 19th century United States, 20th century Brazil was characterized by a perceived relative absence of sharply defined racial groups. According to anthropologist Marvin Harris (1989), this pattern reflects a different history and different social relations. Basically, race in Brazil was "biologized," but in a way that recognized the difference between ancestry (which determines genotype) and phenotypic differences. There, racial identity was not governed by rigid descent rule, such as the one-drop rule, as it was in the United States. A Brazilian child was never automatically identified with the racial type of one or both parents, nor were there only a very limited number of categories to choose from.

Over a dozen racial categories would be recognized in conformity with all the possible combinations of hair color, hair texture, eye color, and skin color. These types grade into each other like the colors of the spectrum, and no one category stands significantly isolated from the rest. That is, race referred preferentially to appearance, not heredity. The complexity of racial classifications in Brazil reflects the extent of miscegenation in Brazilian society, a society that remains highly, but not strictly, stratified along color lines. Henceforth, the Brazilian narrative of a perfect "post-racist" country, must be met with caution, as sociologist Gilberto Freyre demonstrated in 1933 in Casa Grande e Senzala.

Marketing of race: genetic lineages as social lineages

New research in molecular genetics, and the marketing of genetic identities through the analysis of one's Y chromosome, mtDNA or autosomal DNA, has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound. Although the vast majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies, and molecular geneticists generally reject the identification of mtDNA and Y chromosomal lineages or allele clusters with "races", some anthropologists have suggested that the marketing of genetic analysis to the general public in the form of "Personalized Genetic Histories" (PGH) is leading to a new social construction of race.

Typically, a consumer of a commercial PGH service sends in a sample of DNA which is analyzed by molecular biologists and is sent a report, of which the following is a sample

"African DNA Ancestry Report"

The subject's likely haplogroup L2 is associated with the so-called Bantu expansion from West and Central sub-Saharan Africa east and south, dated 2,000-4,000 years ago ... Between the 15th and 19th centuries C.E, the Atlantic slave trade resulted in the forced movement of approximately 13 million people from Africa, mainly to the Americas. Only approximately 11 million survived the passage and many more died in the early years of captivity. Many of these slaves were traded to the West African Cape Verde ports of embarkation through Portuguese and Arab middlemen and came from as far south as Angola. Among the African tribal groups, all Bantu-speaking, in which L2 is common are: Hausa, Kanuri, Fulfe, Songhai, Malunjin (Angola), Yoruba, Senegalese, Serer and Wolof.

Although no single sentence in such a report is technically wrong, through the combination of these sentences, anthropologists and others have argued, the report is telling a story that connects a haplotype with a language and a group of tribes. This story is generally rejected by research scientists because an individual receives his or her Y chromosome or mtDNA from only one ancestor in every generation; consequently, with every generation one goes back in time, the percentage of one's ancestors it represents halves; if one goes back hundreds (let alone thousands) of years, it represents only a tiny fragment of one's ancestry. As Mark Shriver and Rick Kittles recently remarked,

For many customers of lineage-based tests, there is a lack of understanding that their maternal and paternal lineages do not necessarily represent their entire genetic make-up. For example, an individual might have more than 85% Western European 'genomic' ancestry but still have a West African mtDNA or NRY lineage.

Nevertheless, they acknowledge, such stories are increasingly appealing to the general public. Thus, in his book Blood of the Isles (published in the US and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), however, Bryan Sykes discusses how people who have been mtDNA tested by his commercial laboratory and been found to belong to the same haplogroup have parties together because they see this as some sort of "bond", even though these people may not actually share very much ancestry.

Through these kinds of reports, new advances in molecular genetics are being used to create or confirm stories have about social identities. Although these identities are not racial in the biological sense, they are in the cultural sense in that they link biological and cultural identities. Nadia Abu el-Haj has argued that the significance of genetic lineages in popular conceptions of race owes to the perception that while genetic lineages, like older notions of race, suggests some idea of biological relatedness, unlike older notions of race they are not directly connected to claims about human behaviour or character. Abu el-Haj has thus argued that "postgenomics does seem to be giving race a new lease on life." Nevertheless, Abu el-Haj argues that to understand what it means to think of race in terms of genetic lineages or clusters, one must understand that

Race science was never just about classification. It presupposed a distinctive relationship between "nature" and "culture," understanding the differences in the former to ground and to generate the different kinds of persons ("natural kinds") and the distinctive stages of cultures and civilizations that inhabit the world.

Abu el-Haj argues that genomics and the mapping of lineages and clusters liberates "the new racial science from the older one by disentangling ancestry from culture and capacity." As an example, she refers to recent work by Hammer et al., which aimed to test the claim that present-day Jews are more closely related to one another than to neighbouring non-Jewish populations. Hammer et al. found that the degree of genetic similarity among Jews shifted depending on the locus investigated, and suggested that this was the result of natural selection acting on particular loci. They therefore focused on the non-recombining Y chromosome to "circumvent some of the complications associated with selection".

As another example she points to work by Thomas et al., who sought to distinguish between the Y chromosomes of Jewish priests (Kohanim), (in Judaism, membership in the priesthood is passed on through the father's line) and the Y chromosomes of non-Jews. Abu el-Haj concluded that this new "race science" calls attention to the importance of "ancestry" (narrowly defined, as it does not include all ancestors) in some religions and in popular culture, and people's desire to use science to confirm their claims about ancestry; this "race science," she argues, is fundamentally different from older notions of race that were used to explain differences in human behaviour or social status:

As neutral markers, junk DNA cannot generate cultural, behavioural, or, for that matter, truly biological differences between groups ... mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers relied on in such work are not "traits" or "qualities" in the old racial sense. They do not render some populations more prone to violence, more likely to suffer psychiatric disorders, or for that matter, incapable of being fully integrated - because of their lower evolutionary development - into a European cultural world. Instead, they are "marks," signs of religious beliefs and practices… it is via biological noncoding genetic evidence that one can demonstrate that history itself is shared, that historical traditions are (or might well be) true."

On the other hand, there are tests that do not rely on molecular lineages, but rather on correlations between allele frequencies, often when allele frequencies correlate these are called clusters. Clustering analyses are less powerful than lineages because they cannot tell a historical story, they can only estimate the proportion of a person's ancestry from any given large geographical region. These sorts of tests use informative alleles called Ancestry-informative marker (AIM), which although shared across all human populations vary a great deal in frequency between groups of people living in geographically distant parts of the world.

These tests use contemporary people sampled from certain parts of the world as references to determine the likely proportion of ancestry for any given individual. In a recent Public Service Broadcasting (PBS) programme on the subject of genetic ancestry testing the academic Henry Louis Gates: "wasn’t thrilled with the results (it turns out that 50 percent of his ancestors are likely European)". Charles Rotimi, of Howard University's National Human Genome Center, is one of many who have highlighted the methodological flaws in such research—that "the nature or appearance of genetic clustering (grouping) of people is a function of how populations are sampled, of how criteria for boundaries between clusters are set, and of the level of resolution used" all bias the results—and concluded that people should be very cautious about relating genetic lineages or clusters to their own sense of identity.

Thus, in analyses that assign individuals to groups it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Also, in a survey of college students who self-identified as "white" in a northeastern U.S. university, ~30% of whites had less than 90% European ancestry.

Stephan Palmié has responded to Abu el-Haj's claim that genetic lineages make possible a new, politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference by suggesting that efforts to link genetic history and personal identity will inevitably "ground present social arrangements in a time-hallowed past," that is, use biology to explain cultural differences and social inequalities.

Race and intelligence

Researchers have reported differences in the average IQ test scores of various ethnic groups. The interpretation, causes, accuracy and reliability of these differences are highly controversial. Some researchers, such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Richard Lynn, have argued that such differences are at least partially genetic. Others, for example Thomas Sowell, argue that the differences largely owe to social and economic inequalities. Still others such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are cultural constructs that render any attempt to explain such differences (whether genetically or sociologically) meaningless.

Political and practical uses

In biomedicine

Since the turn of the millennium, the use of racial categories as a tool for evaluating genetically conditioned health risks and treatment choices has seen a marked increase. The main impetus for this development is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of certain diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors, such as genetically conditioned health factors, on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics such as phenotype and racial self-identification. Since medical judgment often involves decision-making under uncertain conditions, many doctors consider it useful to take race into account when treating disease because diseases and treatment responses tend to cluster by geographic ancestry. The discovery that certain diseases have a considerable degree of correlation with racial identification further sparked the interest in using race as a proxy for bio-geographical ancestry and genetic buildup. Some of the genetically linked diseases that have been found to be particularly prevalent in some populations are Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease, sickle cell anemia, and Crohn disease. There is a general consensus in medicine that the ability to treat diseases improves with greater specificity of genetic analysis, and that the use of racial groups as a predictor of genetic buildup is a crude and imperfect way to identify genetic clusters that correlate with disease risk. However, until cheaper and more widely available methods of genetic analysis are commonplace, the consideration of race remains a worthwhile practice for many doctors and researchers.

The perceived benefit to using race as a consideration in biomedicine is based on the series of surrogate relationships between self-identified race and disease risk. Analysis of microsatellite DNA markers and SNPs from human populations have shown that using a combination of these polymorphic genes it is possible to determine a person's geographic ancestry with a high degree of accuracy. Furthermore, analyzing the fraction of human genetic variation that lies within and between geographically separated populations has shown that the genes that are geographically highly differentiated in their allelic frequencies are not typical of the human genome in general. Since race can be seen as an imperfect surrogate for ancestral geographic region, it is in turn a surrogate for variation across one's genome. There is therefore a degree of correlation between genome-wide variation and variation at specific loci associated with disease. The ways in which these variants interact with environmental factors can subsequently give an approximation of propensity for disease or for preferred treatment response, although the approximation is less than perfect.

A classic example of a disease that tends to correlate with ethnic clusters is Tay-Sachs, an autosomal recessive disorder that has been shown to be more frequent among Ashkenazi Jews than among other Jewish groups and non-Jewish populations, though it also does occur in other groups. Sickle-cell anemia, another well-known genetic disorder, has been seen as most prevalent in populations of sub-Saharan African ancestry, but it is now known also to be common among Latin-American, Indian, Saudi Arab, and Mediterranean populations. The portion of the population with the sickle cell trait is higher in some regions than in others, since it offers some resistance to malaria and consequently has been positively selected in regions where malaria is present. While a correlation between sickle cell and race does exist, some researchers believe that the trait correlates more strongly with geographic ancestry traced to regions with a historical prevalence of malaria. For example, a substantial percentage of people with Sicilian ancestry also carry the sickle cell trait, since malaria was a serious problem there historically. Gene flow and intermixture can also have an effect on predicting relationships between race and race-linked disorders. Multiple sclerosis, for example, is typically associated with people of European descent, but due to admixture African Americans have elevated levels of the disorder relative to Africans.

Race-based medicine is the term for medicines that are targeted at specific ethnic clusters which are shown to have a propensity for a certain disorder. The first example of this in the U.S. was when BiDil, a medication for congestive heart failure, was licensed specifically for use in American patients that self-identify as black. Previous studies had shown that African American patients with congestive heart failure generally respond less effectively to traditional treatments than white patients with similar conditions. After two trials, BiDil was licensed exclusively for use in African American patients. Critics have argued that this particular licensing was unwarranted, since the trials did not in fact show that the drug was more effective in African Americans than in other groups, but merely that it was more effective in African Americans than another similar drug. It was also only tested in African American and white males, but not in any other racial groups or among women. This peculiar trial and licensing procedure has prompted suggestions that the licensing was in fact used as a race based advertising scheme.

The continued use of racial categories as proxies for knowledge about genetically determined health concerns in populations has been criticized widely. Outram and Ellison have identified the most common concerns expressed in relation to this practice: most genetic variation is found within racial groups whereas very little genetic variation loosely coincides with racial groups, but without making any well-defined genetic criteria for ascription of individuals to racial groups possible. Completely genetically homogenous racial groups have never existed and therefore phenotypic traits, and variation between them, do not translate directly to similar variation in genotypic traits. The continued use of racial categories as proxies for genetic variation has a social function of cementing socially constructed racial categories as if they were natural classes, which could result in increased stereotyping and discrimination in society. In many cases, health disparities will be caused by environmental factors common to certain populations and geographic areas, such as differences in culture, diet, education, socioeconomic status, and access to health care, rather than by allele clusters. Another concern is that the way in which research emphasizes differences in health risk and health care need among racial groups can lead to the development of racial discrimination in health services.

There is general agreement that a goal of health-related genetics should be to move past the weak surrogate relationships of racial health disparity and get to the root causes of health and disease. This largely includes research which strives to define human variation with greater specificity across the world. One such emerging method is known as ethnogenetic layering, which is a non-typological alternative to depending on the racial paradigm in biomedicine. It works by focusing on geographically identified microethnic groups, which are far more nuanced and sensitive than simple race analyses.

In law enforcement

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In an attempt to provide general descriptions that may facilitate the job of law enforcement officers seeking to apprehend suspects, the United States FBI employs the term "race" to summarize the general appearance (skin color, hair texture, eye shape, and other such easily noticed characteristics) of individuals whom they are attempting to apprehend. From the perspective of law enforcement officers, it is generally more important to arrive at a description that will readily suggest the general appearance of an individual than to make a scientifically valid categorization by DNA or other such means. Thus, in addition to assigning a wanted individual to a racial category, such a description will include: height, weight, eye color, scars and other distinguishing characteristics.

British Police use a classification based in the ethnic background of British society: W1 (White-British), W2 (White-Irish), W9 (Any other white background); M1 (White and black Caribbean), M2 (White and black African), M3 (White and Asian), M9 (Any other mixed background); A1 (Asian-Indian), A2 (Asian-Pakistani), A3 (Asian-Bangladeshi), A9 (Any other Asian background); B1 (Black Caribbean), B2 (Black African), B3 (Any other black background); O1 (Chinese), O9 (Any other). Some of the characteristics that constitute these groupings are biological and some are learned (cultural, linguistic, etc.) traits that are easy to notice.

In many countries, such as France, the state is legally banned from maintaining data based on race, which often makes the police issue wanted notices to the public that include labels like "dark skin complexion", etc. .

In the United States, the practice of racial profiling has been ruled to be both unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights. There is active debate regarding the cause of a marked correlation between the recorded crimes, punishments meted out, and the country's populations. Many consider de facto racial profiling an example of institutional racism in law enforcement. The history of misuse of racial categories to impact adversely one or more groups and/or to offer protection and advantage to another has a clear impact on debate of the legitimate use of known phenotypical or genotypical characteristics tied to the presumed race of both victims and perpetrators by the government.

More recent work in racial taxonomy based on DNA cluster analysis (see Lewontin's Fallacy) has led law enforcement to narrow their search for individuals based on a range of phenotypical characteristics found consistent with DNA evidence.

While controversial, DNA analysis has been successful in helping police identify both victims and perpetrators by indicating what phenotypical characteristics to look for and what community the individual may have lived in. For example, in one case phenotypical characteristics suggested that the friends and family of an unidentified victim would be found among the Asian community, but the DNA evidence directed official attention to missing Native Americans, where her true identity was eventually confirmed. In an attempt to avoid potentially misleading associations suggested by the word "race," this classification is called "biogeographical ancestry" (BGA), but the terms for the BGA categories are similar to those used as for race.

The difference is that ancestry-informative DNA markers identify continent-of-ancestry admixture, not ethnic self-identity, and provide a wide range of phenotypical characteristics such that some people in a biogeographical category will not match the stereotypical image of an individual belonging to the corresponding race. To facilitate the work of officials trying to find individuals based on the evidence of their DNA traces, firms providing the genetic analyses also provide photographs showing a full range of phenotypical characteristics of people in each biogeographical group. Of special interest to officials trying to find individuals on the basis of DNA samples that indicate a diverse genetic background is what range of phenotypical characteristics people with that general mixture of genotypical characteristics may display.

Forensic anthropology

Similarly, forensic anthropologists draw on highly heritable morphological features of human remains (e.g. cranial measurements) to aid in the identification of the body, including in terms of race. In a recent article anthropologist Norman Sauer asked, "if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?" Sauer observed that the use of 19th century racial categories is widespread among forensic anthropologists:

• "In many cases there is little doubt that an individual belonged to the Negro, Caucasian, or Mongoloid racial stock."
• "Thus the forensic anthropologist uses the term race in the very broad sense to differentiate what are commonly known as white, black and yellow racial stocks."
• "In estimating race forensically, we prefer to determine if the skeleton is Negroid, or Non-Negroid. If findings favor Non-Negroid, then further study is necessary to rule out Mongoloid."

According to Sauer, "The assessment of these categories is based upon copious amounts of research on the relationship between biological characteristics of the living and their skeletons." Nevertheless, he says he agrees with other anthropologists that race is not a valid biological taxonomic category, and that races are socially constructed. He argued there is nevertheless a strong relationship between the phenotypic features forensic anthropologists base their identifications on, and popular racial categories. Thus, he argued, forensic anthropologists apply a racial label to human remains because their analysis of physical morphology enables them to predict that when the person was alive, a particular racial label would have been applied to them.

See also

Footnotes

1. "race". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
2. Montagu, Ashley (2008 ). "The Concept of Race". American Ethnography Quasimonthly. Retrieved 26 January 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. So, for example, a person who in the United States would be called "Hispanic" or "African American" might be called "Branca" (white) in the racial categorization system commonly used in Brazil.
4. Bamshad, Michael and Steve E. Olson. "Does Race Exist?", Scientific American Magazine (10 November 2003).
5. See:
   • John Lie Modern Peoplehood (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004)
   • Thompson, William (2005). Society in Focus. Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-41365-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
   • Gordon, Milton Myron (1964). Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-500896-8.
   • "American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"". Aaanet.org. 1998-05-17. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
   • Palmié, Stephan (2007). "Genomics, divination, 'racecraft'". American Ethnologist. 34: 205–22. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.205. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
   • Mevorach, Katya Gibel (2007). "Race, racism, and academic complicity". American Ethnologist. 34: 238. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.238.
   • Segal, Daniel A (1991). "'The European'_ Allegories of Racial Purity". Anthropology Today. 7 (5). Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: 7–9. doi:10.2307/3032780.
   • Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006.
6. See:
   • Gill G. "Does Race Exist? A proponent's perspective". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
   • Armelagos, George; Smay, Diana (2000). "[Galileo wept: A critical assessment of the use of race in forensic anthropolopy" (PDF). Transforming Anthropology. 9: 19–29. doi:10.1525/tran.2000.9.2.19.
   • Risch, Neil; Burchard, Esteban; Ziv, Elad; Tang, Hua (2002). "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease". Genome Biology.
   • Bloche, Gregg M. Race-Based Therapeutics. New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 351:2035-2037, November 11, 2004.
7. ^ Keita, S O Y; Kittles, R A; Royal, C D M; Bonney, G E; Furbert-Harris, P; Dunston, G M; Rotimi, C N (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11 Suppl): S17. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998.
8. AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race American Association of Physical Anthropologists "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."
9. Lee, Sandra S. J.; Mountain, Joanna; Koenig, Barbara; Altman, Russ; Brown, Melissa; Camarillo, Albert; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca; Cho, Mildred; Eberhardt, Jennifer (2008). "The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics". Genome Biology. 9 (7): 404. doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404. PMC 2530857. PMID 18638359. Retrieved 2 July 2010. We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores {{cite journal}}: More than one of |at= and |pages= specified (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
10. For example, the following statement expresses the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association at their web page: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."
11. ^ Smedley, A. "The History of the Idea of Race... and Why It Matters", presented at the conference “Race, Human Variation and Disease: Consensus and Frontiers,” sponsored by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and funded by the Ford Foundation. The conference, an activity of AAA’s public education project RACE funded by the Ford Foundation and the National Science Foundation, was held March 14–17, 2007 in Warrenton, Virginia. The views expressed are the author's.
12. Marco Polo, in the 13th century, writes of the North Persians: "The people are of the Mahometan religion. They are in general a handsome race, especially the women, who, in my opinion, are the most beautiful in the world." Travels of Marco Polo, Chapter 21.
13. Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved 11-Aug-2010
14. The Oxford Etymologist Looks at Race, Class and Sex (but not Gender), or, Beating a Willing Horse, retrieved 09-Aug-2010, by Anatoly Liberman, citing an article published in 1959 by Gianfranco Contini; weekly column on word etymology. Liberman is author of multiple works on etymology.
15. Smedley, A. Smedley, B. Race as Biology Is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem Is Real, January, 2005, American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No. 1, 16-26; Smedley cites Brace, Cartmill, Cavalli-Sforza, Graves, Harrison, Lweontin, Littlefield et al., Marks, Shanklin, herself, and Templeton as sources.
16. ^ Owens, K.; et al. "Genomic Views of Human History". Science. 286 (451): 1999. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)
18. Kahn, J. "Beyond BiDil: the Expanding Embrace of Race in Biomedical Research and Product Development", St. Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, Vol. 3, pp. 61-92, 2009; In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration licensed a drug, BiDil, targeted specifically for the treatment of heart disease in African Americans. The recommendation of the drug for "blacks" is criticized because clinical trials were limited only to self-identified African Americans. It has been conceded by the trial investigators that there is no basis to claim the drug works differently in any other population. However, being approved and marketed to African Americans only, that specificity alone has been used in turn to claim genetic differences.
19. Gates, H. Loose Canons, Notes on the Culture Wars. Oxford University Press. 1992.
20. Graves, J. The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium. Rutgers University Press, 2001
21. ^ Lieberman, Leonard; Jackson, Fatimah Linda C. (1995). "Race and Three Models of Human Origin". American Anthropologist. 97: 231. doi:10.1525/aa.1995.97.2.02a00030.
22. ^ Pleijel F, Rouse GW (2000). "Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology". Proceedings. Biological Sciences. 267 (1443): 627–30. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1048. PMC 1690571. PMID 10787169. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
23. Haig SM, Beever EA, Chambers SM; et al. (2006). "Taxonomic considerations in listing subspecies under the U.S. Endangered Species Act". Conservation Biology. 20 (6): 1584–94. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00530.x. PMID 17181793. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
24. ^ Keita et al. 2004
25. ^ Templeton, 1998
26. Long and Kittles, 2003
27. O'brien SJ, Mayr E (1991). "Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies". Science. 251 (4998): 1187–1188. doi:10.1126/science.251.4998.1187. PMID 17799277. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
28. AMADON, D. 1949. The seventy-five percent rule for subspecies. Condor 51:250-258.
29. MAYR, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
30. Patten MA & Unitt P. (2002). Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. Auk. vol 119, no 1. p. 26-35.
31. Wright, S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4, Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. p. 438
32. Human Genome Project Information: Minorities, Race, and Genomics
33. ^ Joseph L. Graves, (2006) What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race from Race and Genomics
34. ^ Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group (2005). "The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research". American Journal of Human Genetics. 77 (4): 519–32. doi:10.1086/491747. PMC 1275602. PMID 16175499. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
35. Bamshad M, Wooding S, Salisbury BA, Stephens JC (2004). "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews. Genetics. 5 (8): 598–609. doi:10.1038/nrg1401. PMID 15266342. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
36. Tishkoff, Sarah A; Kidd, Kenneth K (2004). "Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine". Nature Genetics. 36 (11 Suppl): S21. doi:10.1038/ng1438. PMID 15507999.
37. Jorde, Lynn B; Wooding, Stephen P (2004). "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'". Nature Genetics. 36 (11 Suppl): S28. doi:10.1038/ng1435. PMID 15508000.
38. "Project MUSE - Human Biology - Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races" (PDF). Muse.jhu.edu. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
39. http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode=an accessed June 2007
40. Currell, Susan (2006). Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and American Mass Culture in The 1930s. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. p. 203. ISBN 082141691X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
41. Baum, Bruce David (2006). The rise and fall of the Caucasian race: a political history of racial identity. NYU Press. p. 218. ISBN 9780814798928.
42. Angier, Natalie (22 August 2000). "Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
43. Amundson, Ron (2005). "Disability, Ideology, and Quality of Life: A Bias in Biomedical Ethics". In David T. Wasserman, Robert Samuel Wachbroit, Jerome Edmund Bickenbach (ed.). Quality of life and human difference: genetic testing, health care, and disability. Cambridge University Press. pp. 101–24. ISBN 9780521832014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
44. Reardon, Jenny (2005). "Post World-War II Expert Discourses on Race". Race to the finish: identity and governance in an age of genomics. Princeton UP. pp. 17ff. ISBN 9780691118574.
45. Smedley, Audrey (2002). "Science and the Idea of Race: A Brief History". In Jefferson M. Fish (ed.). Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 172. ISBN 0805837574.
46. Marks, Jonathan (2002). "Folk Heredity". In Jefferson M. Fish (ed.). Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 98. ISBN 0805837574.
47. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. "Comment". Current Anthropology. 3 (3): 279–280.
48. Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For Light Skin, The Washington Post, December 16, 2005
49. Ossorio, Pilar; Duster, Troy (2005). "Race and Genetics: Controversies in Biomedical, Behavioral, and Forensic Sciences". American Psychologist. 60 (1): 115. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.115. PMID 15641926.
50. Your Family May Once Have Been A Different Color by Robert Krulwich. Morning Edition, National Public Radio. 2 Feb 2009.
51. ^ Waples, Robin S.; Gaggiotti, Oscar (2006). "What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity". Molecular Ecology. 15 (6): 1419. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x. PMID 16629801.
52. Koertvelyessy, TA and MT Nettleship 1996 Ethnicity and mating structure in Southwestern Hungary. Rivista di Antropologia (Roma) 74:45-53
53. Koertvelyessy, T 1995 Etnicity, isonymic relationships, and biological distance in Northeastern Hungary. Homo 46/1:1-9.
54. Pettener D (1990). "Temporal trends in marital structure and isonymy in S. Paolo Albanese, Italy". Human Biology. 62 (6): 837–51. PMID 2262206. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
55. Biondi G, Raspe P, Perrotti E, Lasker GW, Mascie-Taylor CG (1990). "Relationships estimated by isonymy among the Italo-Greco villages of southern Italy". Human Biology. 62 (5): 649–63. PMID 2227910. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
56. Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 4, Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. Chicago, II: Univ. Chicago Press
57. ^ Witherspoon DJ, Wooding S, Rogers AR; et al. (2007). "Genetic similarities within and between human populations". Genetics. 176 (1): 351–9. doi:10.1534/genetics.106.067355. PMC 1893020. PMID 17339205. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
58. Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, "Perishing Paradigm: Race—1931-99," American Anthropologist 105, no. 1 (2003): 110-13. A following article in the same issue, by Mat Cartmill and Kaye Brown, questions the precise rate of decline, but from their opposing perspective agrees that the Negroid/Caucasoid/Mongoloid paradigm has fallen into near-total disfavor.
59. "American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"". Aaanet.org. 1998-05-17. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
60. (Wilson et al. 2001), (Cooper et al. 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad et al. 2004 p.599)
61. (Schwartz 2001), (Stephens 2003) (given in summary by Bamshad et al. 2004 p.599)
62. (Smedley and Smedley 2005), (Helms et al. 2005), . Lewontin, for example argues that there is no biological basis for race on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than among them (Lewontin 1972).
63. (Risch et al. 2002), (Bamshad 2005). Neil Risch argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system... In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome between genetic structure versus self-description, 99.9% concordance... So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not perfectly correspond to his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"(Gitschier 2005).
64. (Harpending and Rogers 2000), (Bamshad et al. 2003), (Edwards 2003), (Bamshad et al. 2004), (Tang et al. 2005), (Rosenberg et al. 2005): "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe".
65. (Mountain and Risch 2004)
66. Frederick P. Rivara and Laurence Finberg, "Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity," Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 155, no. 2 (2001): 119. For similar author's guidelines, see Robert S. Schwartz, "Racial Profiling in Medical Research," The New England Journal of Medicine, 344 (no, 18, May 3, 2001); M.T. Fullilove, "Abandoning 'Race' as a Variable in Public Health Research: An Idea Whose Time has Come," American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1998), 1297-1298; and R. Bhopal and L. Donaldson, "White, European, Western, Caucasian, or What? Inappropriate Labeling in Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Health." American Journal of Public Health, 88 (1998), 1303-1307.
67. See program announcement and requests for grant applications at the NIH website, at nih.gov.
68. Bindon, Jim. University of Alabama. "Post World War II". 2005. August 28, 2006.
69. ssc.uwo.ca
70. American Anthropological Association (1998). Statement on 'race'.
71. Kaszycka, Katarzyna A.; Strziko, Jan (2003). "'Race' Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings". American Anthropologist. 105: 116–24. doi:10.1525/aa.2003.105.1.116.
72. Marks, Jonathan (2007). "Grand anthropological themes". American Ethnologist. 34: 233–5. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.233., cf. Marks, Jonathan (1995). Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN 0-585-39559-4.
73. Gordon, Milton Myron (1964). Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-500896-8.
74. "New Ideas, New Fuels: Craig Venter at the Oxonian". FORA.tv. 2008-11-03. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
75. Palmié, Stephan (2007). "Genomics, divination, 'racecraft'". American Ethnologist. 34: 205–22. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.205. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
76. Mevorach, Katya Gibel (2007). "Race, racism, and academic complicity". American Ethnologist. 34: 238. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.238.
77. ^ Shriver et al. 2003
78. "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity". Office of Management and Budget. 1997-10-30. Retrieved 2009-03-19. Also: U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data and B03002. HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE; 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
79. Shriver MD, Kittles RA (2004). "Genetic ancestry and the search for personalized genetic histories". Nature Reviews. Genetics. 5 (8): 611–8. doi:10.1038/nrg1405. PMID 15266343. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
80. Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET; et al. (2000). "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97 (12): 6769–74. doi:10.1073/pnas.100115997. PMC 18733. PMID 10801975. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
81. Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Ben-Ami H, Parfitt T, Bradman N, Goldstein DB (1998). "Origins of Old Testament priests". Nature. 394 (6689): 138–40. doi:10.1038/28083. PMID 9671297. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
82. El-Haj, Nadia ABU (2007). "Rethinking genetic genealogy: A response to Stephan Palmié". American Ethnologist. 34: 223. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.223.
83. "Back with a Vengeance: the Reemergence of a Biological Conceptualization of Race in Research on Race/Ethnic Disparities in Health Reanne Frank". Retrieved 2009-04-18.
84. Rotimi CN (2003). "Genetic ancestry tracing and the African identity: a double-edged sword?". Developing World Bioethics. 3 (2): 151–8. doi:10.1046/j.1471-8731.2003.00071.x. PMID 14768647. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
85. Palmié, Stephan (2007). "Rejoinder: Genomic moonlighting, Jewish cyborgs, and Peircian abduction". American Ethnologist. 34: 245. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.2.245.
86. ^ Ian Whitmarsh and David S. Jones, 2010, What's the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference, MIT press. Chapter 9.
87. Satel, Sally. "I Am a Racially Profiling Doctor". The New York Times, published May 5, 2002
88. ^ Collins, Francis S. What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era. Nature Genetics Supplement, volume 36 No. 11, November 2004.
89. Revisiting race in a genomic age. By Barbara A. Koenig, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Sarah S. Richardson. Rutgars University Press, 2008. Chapter 5.
90. Myrianthopoulos NC and Aronson SM (July 1, 1966). "Population dynamics of Tay-Sachs disease. I. Reproductive fitness and selection.". American Journal of Human Genetics 18 (4): 313–327. PMID 5945951.
91. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
92. Bloom, Miriam. Understanding Sickle Cell Disease. University Press of Mississippi, 1995. Chapter 2.
93. Cree, BA et al. Clinical characteristics of African Americans vs Caucasian Americans with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2004 Dec 14;63(11):2039-45. PMID: 15596747
94. Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. (November 2004). "Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure". The New England Journal of Medicine 351 (20): 2049–57. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042934. PMID 15533851.
95. Exner DV, Dries DL, Domanski MJ, Cohn JN (2001). "Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in blacks as compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction". N Engl J Med 344 (18): 1351–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM200105033441802. PMID 11333991.
96. Ellison, George (2006) Medicine in black and white: BiDil®: race and the limits of evidence-based medicine. Significance, Volume 3, Number 3, September 2006 , pp. 118-121(4)
97. ^ Ian Whitmarsh and David S. Jones, 2010, What's the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference, MIT press. Chapter 5.
98. Jackson, F.L.C. Ethnogenetic layering (EL): an alternative to the traditional race model in human variation and health disparity studies. Annals of Human Biology, March–April 2008; 35(2): 121–144 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080%2F03014460801941752
99. "FBI - Most Wanted - The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives".
100. Molecular eyewitness: DNA gets a human face Controversial crime-scene test smacks of racial profiling, critics say CAROLYN ABRAHAM June 25, 2005
101. DNA tests offer clues to suspect's race By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
102. "Compositions and methods for inferring ancestry". Appft1.uspto.gov. Retrieved 2009-04-18.
103. Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111.
104. El-Najjar M. Y. and McWilliams K. R. Forensic Anthropology: The Structure, Morphology and Variation of Human Bone and Dentition, p. 72. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 1978.
105. Skinner M. and Lazenby R. A. Found Human Remains: A Field Manual for the Recovery of the Recent Human Skeletons, p. 47. Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, 1983.
106. Morse D., Duncan J. and Stoutamire J. (Editors) Handbook of Forensic Archaeology. p. 89. Bill’s Book Store, Tallahassee, 1983.
107. Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Foren Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111.

Bibliography

• Abizadeh, Arash (2001). "Ethnicity, Race, and a Possible Humanity". World Order. 33 (1): 23–34.
• American Association of Physical Anthropologists (1996) AAPA statement on biological aspects of race. Am J Phys Anthropol 101:569–570
• Banton M (1977) The idea of race. Westview Press, Boulder
• Boas, Franz (1912). "Change in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants". American Anthropologist. 14: 530–562. doi:10.1525/aa.1912.14.3.02a00080.
• Brace 1964 "A Non-racial Approach Toward the Understanding of Human Diversity" in The Concept of Race, ed. Ashley Montagu
• Calafell, F (2003). "Classifying humans". Nat Genet. 33 (4): 435–436. doi:10.1038/ng0403-435. PMID 12665860.
• Cooper, RS; Kaufman, JS; Ward, R (2003). "Race and genomics". N Engl J Med. 348 (12): 1166–1170. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb022863. PMID 12646675.
• Dobzhansky, T. (1970). Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Dobzhansky, T. (2005). "Race and reification in science". Science. 307 (5712): 1050–1051. doi:10.1126/science.1110303. PMID 15718453.
• Ehrlich and Holm 1964 "A Biological View of Race" in The Concept of Race, ed. Ashley Montagu
• Frayer, David; Wolpoff, M.; Thorne, A.; Smith, F.; Pope, G. (1993). "Theories of Modern Origins: The Paleontological Test". American Anthropologist. 95 (1): 14–50. doi:10.1525/aa.1993.95.1.02a00020.
• Guthrie RD (1996) The mammoth steppe and the origin of mongoloids and their dispersal. In: Akazawa T, Szathmary E (eds) Prehistoric Mongoloid dispersals. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 172–186
• Hannaford I (1996) Race: the history of an idea in the West. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
• Harpending, H; Rogers, A (2000). "Genetic perspectives on human origins and differentiation". Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 1: 361–385. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.361. PMID 11701634.
• Harris, Marvin (1980) Patterns of Race in the Americas. Greenwood Press
• Hooton, E.A. (1926). "Methods of racial analysis". Science. 63 (1621): 75–81. doi:10.1126/science.63.1621.75. PMID 17774966.
• Jablonski, NG (2004). "The evolution of human skin and skin color". Annu Rev Anthropol. 33: 585–623. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143955.
• Keita, SOY; Kittles, RA (1997). "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence". Am Anthropol. 99: 534–544. doi:10.1525/aa.1997.99.3.534.
• Lahr MM (1996) The evolution of modern human diversity: a study of cranial variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
• Lamason, RL; Mohideen, MA; Mest, JR; Wong, AC; Norton, HL; Aros, MC; Jurynec, MJ; Mao, X; Humphreville, VR (2005). "SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans". Science. 310 (5755): 1782–6. doi:10.1126/science.1116238. PMID 16357253.
• Lewis B (1990) Race and slavery in the Middle East. Oxford University Press, New York
• Lie J. (2004). Modern Peoplehood. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Lieberman, DE; McBratney, BM; Krovitz, G (2002). "The evolution and development of cranial form in Homo sapiens". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 99 (3): 1134–1139. doi:10.1073/pnas.022440799. PMC 122156. PMID 11805284.
• Lieberman, L (2001). "How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank: from Morton to Rushton". Curr Anthropol. 42 (1): 69–95. doi:10.1086/318434. PMID 14992214.
• Leiberman, Leonard; Jackson, Fatimah Linda C. (1995). "Race and Three Models of Human Origins". American Anthropologist. 97 (2): 231–242. doi:10.1525/aa.1995.97.2.02a00030.
• Lieberman, Hampton; Littlefield, Raymond E.; Hallead, Alice; Hallead, Glen (1992). "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors". Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29: 301–321. doi:10.1002/tea.3660290308.
• Lewontin (1973). "The Apportionment of Human Diversity". Evolutionary Biology. 6: 381–397.
• Livingstone, Frank B.; Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1962). "On the Non-Existence of Human Races". Current Anthropology. 3: 279–281. doi:10.1086/200290.
• Long JC, Kittles RA (2003). "Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races". Human Biology. 75 (4): 449–71. doi:10.1353/hub.2003.0058. PMID 14655871. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Marks J (1995) Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history. Aldine de Gruyter, New York
• Mayr, E. (1969). Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Mays, VM; Ponce, NA; Washington, DL; Cochran, SD (2003). "Classification of race and ethnicity: implications for public health". Annu Rev Public Health. 24: 83–110. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140927. PMID 12668755.
• Meltzer M (1993) Slavery: a world history, rev ed. DaCapo Press, Cambridge, MA
• Montagu (1941). "The Concept of Race in Light of Genetics". Journal of Heredity. 23: 241–247.
• Montagu (1942). Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race
• Mörner M (1967) Race mixture in the history of Latin America. Little, Brown, Boston
• Morton, NE; Collins, A (1998). "Tests and estimates of allelic association in complex inheritance". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 95 (19): 11389–11393. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.19.11389. PMC 21652. PMID 9736746.
• Nobles M (2000) Shades of citizenship: race and the census in modern politics. Stanford University Press, Stanford
• Parra, EJ; Kittles, RA; Shriver, MD (2004). "Implications of correlations between skin color and genetic ancestry for biomedical research". Nat Genet. 36 (11 Suppl): S54–S60. doi:10.1038/ng1440. PMID 15508005.
• Parra, EJ; Marcini, A; Akey, J; Martinson, J; Batzer, MA; Cooper, R; Forrester, T; Allison, DB; Deka, R (1998). "Estimating African American admixture proportions by use of population-specific alleles". Am J Hum Genet. 63 (6): 1839–1851. doi:10.1086/302148. PMC 1377655. PMID 9837836.
• Parra FC, Amado RC, Lambertucci JR, Rocha J, Antunes CM, Pena SD (2003). "Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100 (1): 177–82. doi:10.1073/pnas.0126614100. PMC 140919. PMID 12509516. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Patterson, N; Hattangadi, N; Lane, B; Lohmueller, KE; Hafler, DA; Oksenberg, JR; Hauser, SL; Smith, MW; O'Brien, SJ (2004). "Methods for high-density admixture mapping of disease genes". Am J Hum Genet. 74 (5): 979–1000. doi:10.1086/420871. PMC 1181990. PMID 15088269.

-->

• Platz, EZ; Rimm, EB; Willett, WC; Kantoff, PW; Giovannucci, E (2000). "Racial variation in prostate cancer incidence and in hormonal system markers among male health professionals". J Natl Cancer Inst. 92 (24): 2009–2017. doi:10.1093/jnci/92.24.2009. PMID 11121463.
• Pritchard, JK (2001). "Are rare variants responsible for susceptibility to complex diseases?". Am J Hum Genet. 69 (1): 124–137. doi:10.1086/321272. PMC 1226027. PMID 11404818.
• Pritchard, JK; Cox, NJ (2002). "The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant...or not?". Hum Mol Genet. 11 (20): 2417–2423. doi:10.1093/hmg/11.20.2417. PMID 12351577.
• Rees, JL (2003). "Genetics of hair and skin color". Annu Rev Genet. 37: 67–90. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143233. PMID 14616056.
• Relethford, JH (2002). "Apportionment of global human genetic diversity based on craniometrics and skin color". Am J Phys Anthropol. 118 (4): 393–398. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10079. PMID 12124919.
• Risch, N (2000). "Searching for the genetic determinants in a new millennium". Nature. 405 (6788): 847–856. doi:10.1038/35015718. PMID 10866211.
• Roseman, CC (2004). "Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101 (35): 12824–12829. doi:10.1073/pnas.0402637101. PMC 516480. PMID 15326305.
• Rosenberg, NA; Pritchard, JK; Weber, JL; Cann, HM; Kidd, KK; Zhivotovsky, LA; Feldman, MW (2002). "Genetic structure of human populations". Science. 298 (5602): 2381–2385. doi:10.1126/science.1078311. PMID 12493913.
• Rotimi CN (2004) Are medical and nonmedical uses of large-scale genomic markers conflating genetics and "race"? Nat Genet 36:S43–S47
• Serre, D; Langaney, A; Chech, M; Teschler-Nicola, M; Paunovic, M; Mennecier, P; Hofreiter, M; Possnert, G G (2004). "No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans". PLoS Biol. 2: 313–317.
• Shriver MD, Parra EJ, Dios S; et al. (2003). "Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping". Human Genetics. 112 (4): 387–99. doi:10.1007/s00439-002-0896-y. PMID 12579416. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Sider, Gerald 1993 Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States
• Smedley A (1999) Race in North America: origin and evolution of a worldview, 2nd ed. Westview Press, Boulder
• Smith, DJ; Lusis, AJ (2002). "The allelic structure of common disease". Hum Mol Genet. 11 (20): 2455–2461. doi:10.1093/hmg/11.20.2455. PMID 12351581.
• Smith, Fred (1982). "Upper Pleistocene Hominid Evolution in South-Central Europe: A Review of the Evidence and Analysis of Trends". Current Anthropology. 23: 667–686. doi:10.1086/202920.
• Smith, MW; Patterson, N; Lautenberger, JA; Truelove, AL; McDonald, GJ; Waliszewska, A; Kessing, BD; Malasky, MJ; Scafe, C; et al. (2004). "A high-density admixture map for disease gene discovery in African Americans". Am J Hum Genet. 74 (5): 1001–1013. doi:10.1086/420856. PMC 1181963. PMID 15088270. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first7= (help)
• Snowden FM (1983) Before color prejudice: the ancient view of blacks. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
• Spickard PR (1992) The illogic of American racial categories. In: Root MPP (ed) Racially mixed people in America. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 12–23
• Stanton W (1960) The leopard's spots: scientific attitudes toward race in America, 1815–1859. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
• Stringer, C (2002). "Modern human origins: progress and prospects". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357 (1420): 563–579. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.1057. PMC 1692961. PMID 12028792.
• Sturm, RA; Teasdale, RD; Box, NF (2001). "Human pigmentation genes: identification, structure and consequences of polymorphic variation". Gene. 277 (1–2): 49–62. doi:10.1016/S0378-1119(01)00694-1. PMID 11602344.
• Takaki R (1993) A different mirror: a history of multicultural America. Little, Brown, Boston
• Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B; et al. (2005). "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies". American Journal of Human Genetics. 76 (2): 268–75. doi:10.1086/427888. PMC 1196372. PMID 15625622. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Templeton, AR (1998). "Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective". Am Anthropol. 100: 632–650. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.632.
• Templeton, AR (2002). "Out of Africa again and again". Nature. 416 (6876): 45–51. doi:10.1038/416045a. PMID 11882887.
• Thomas DC, Witte JS (2002) Point: population stratification: a problem for case-control studies of candidate-gene associations? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11:505–512
• Thorne and Wolpoff 1992 "The Multiregional Evolution of Humans" in Scientific American (April) 76-83
• Todorov T (1993) On human diversity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
• Wallace, R; Wallace, D; Wallace, RG (2004). "Coronary heart disease, chronic inflammation, and pathogenic social hierarchy: a biological limit to possible reductions in morbidity and mortality". J Natl Med Assoc. 96 (5): 609–619. PMC 2640658. PMID 15160975.
• Wilson, JF; Weale, ME; Smith, AC; Gratrix, F; Fletcher, B; Thomas, MG; Bradman, N; Goldstein, DB (2001). "Population genetic structure of variable drug response". Nat Genet. 29 (3): 265–269. doi:10.1038/ng761. PMID 11685208.
• Wilson; Brown, W. L. (1953). "The Subspecies Concept and Its Taxonomic Application". Systematic Zoology. 2 (3): 97–110. doi:10.2307/2411818. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)
• Wolpoff, Milford 1993 "Multiregional Evolution: The Fossil Alternative to Eden" in The Human Evolution Sourcebook Russell Ciochon and John Fleagle, eds.
• Wolpoff, M; Hawks, J; Frayer, DW; Hunley, K (2001). "Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory". Science. 291 (5502): 293–297. doi:10.1126/science.291.5502.293. PMID 11209077.
• Yu, N; Chen, FC; Ota, S; Jorde, LB; Pamilo, P; Patthy, L; Ramsay, M; Jenkins, T; Shyue, SK (2002). "Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians". Genetics. 161 (1): 269–274. PMC 1462113. PMID 12019240.

External links

Official statements and standards

• "The Race Question", UNESCO, 1950
• US Census Bureau: Definition of Race
• American Association of Physical Anthropologists' Statement on Biological Aspects of Race
• "Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity", Federal Register 1997
• American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race and RACE: Are we so different? a public education program developed by the American Anthropological Association.

Popular press

• The Myth of Race On the lack of scientific basis for the concept of human races (Medicine Magazine, 2007).
• Race - The power of an illusion Online companion to California Newsreel's documentary about race in society, science, and history
• Steven and Hilary Rose, The Guardian, "Why we should give up on race", 9 April 2005
• Times Online, "Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin", 27 October 2004.
• Michael J. Bamshad, Steve E. Olson "Does Race Exist?", Scientific American, December 2003
• "Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations, Linking Them to Geography", Nicholas Wade, NYTimes, December 2002. Covering
• Scientific American Magazine (December 2003 Issue) Does race exists ?.
• DNA Study published by United Press International showing how 30% of White Americans have at least one Black ancestor
• Yehudi O. Webster Twenty-one Arguments for Abolishing Racial Classification, The Abolitionist Examiner, June 2000
• The Tex(t)-Mex Galleryblog, An updated, online supplement to the University of Texas Press book (2007), Tex(t)-Mex
• Times of India - Article about Asian racism
• South China Morning Post - Going beyond ‘sorry’
• Is Race "Real"? forum organized by the Social Science Research Council, includes 2005 op-ed article by A.M. Leroi from the New York Times advocating biological conceptions of race and responses from scholars in various fields More from Leori with responses
• Richard Dawkins: Race and creation (extract from The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life) - On race, its usage and a theory of how it evolved. (Prospect Magazine October 2004)

Others

• Race: the Power of an Illusion a three part documentary from California Newsreel.
• James, Michael (2008) Race, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Race by California Newsreel.
• American Anthropological Association's educational website on race with links for primary school educators and researchers
• Boas's remarks on race to a general audience
• Catchpenny mysteries of ancient Egypt, "What race were the ancient Egyptians?", Larry Orcutt.
• Judy Skatssoon, "New twist on out-of-Africa theory", ABC Science Online, Wednesday, 14 July 2004.
• Racial & Ethnic Distribution of ABO Blood Types - bloodbook.com
• Are White Athletes an Endangered Species? And Why is it Taboo to Talk About It? Discussion of racial differences in athletics
• "Does Race Exist? A proponent's perspective" - Author argues that the evidence from forensic anthropology supports the idea of race.
• "Does Race Exist? An antagonist's perspective" - The author argues that clinal variation undermines the idea of race.
• American Ethnography - The concept of race Ashley Montagu's 1962 article in American Anthropology
• American Ethnography - The genetical theory of race, and anthropological method Ashley Montagu's 1942 American Anthropology article

v t e Sex differences in humans
Biology	Sexual differentiation Disorders In research Physiology Dimorphism Scientific measures
Medicine and Health	Autoimmunity Life expectancy Mental disorders Autism Depression Schizophrenia Substance abuse Suicide Stroke care
Neuroscience and Psychology	Cognition Coping Emotional expression Aggression Emotional intelligence Empathy Gender empathy gap Intelligence Memory Narcissism Neurosexism Sexuality Age disparity in relationships Attraction Desire Fantasy Jealousy
Sociology	Crime Education in the U.S. Gender inequality Leadership Religion Social capital Social support Sociolinguistics Equality paradox

• Articles that may be too long from May 2009
• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from September 2010
• Kinship and descent
• Race
• Social inequality