The proposal of American geneticists to abandon the term “race” in scientific publications is being discussed by Russian scientists.

Are races not needed in modern genetics?

Women of the Ethiopian Hamar tribe. (Photo by Anders Ryman/Corbis.)

The Han people are the largest ethnic group in China and on Earth. (Photo by foto_morgana / https://www.flickr.com/photos/devriese/8738528711.)

Indian from Mexico. (Photo by Darran Rees/Corbis.)

Recently in the magazine Science An article was published on the scientific concept of the human race. Authors of the article, Michael Udell ( Michael Yudell) from Drexel University in Philadelphia and his colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania and the Museum of Natural History believe that the term "race" does not have a precise meaning in modern genetics. And if you consider what problems have arisen and are arising around races, is it not better to abandon them altogether?

Historically, the concept of “race” was introduced to designate and describe the phenotypic differences of different people (skin color and other characteristics). Nowadays, some biologists continue to consider races as an adequate tool for characterizing the genetic diversity of human populations. In addition, racial disparities must be taken into account in clinical research and in the practice of medicine. But Michael Yudell and his colleagues are convinced that at the current level of development of molecular genetics, the term “race” cannot accurately reflect genetic diversity. In their opinion, this is how we artificially divide humanity into hierarchically organized groups. Race is not a clear biological marker, since races are heterogeneous, and there are no pronounced barriers between them.

The authors of the article also object to the use of this term in medicine, since any groups of patients united by race are genetically heterogeneous due to mixing and miscegenation. To support this, some examples from medical genetics are given. Thus, hemoglobinopathies (diseases caused by deformation and dysfunction of red blood cells) are often misdiagnosed due to the fact that they are considered black diseases.

Cystic fibrosis, on the other hand, has “unluck” in African populations, as it is considered a disease of whites. Thalassemia also sometimes escapes the attention of doctors, who are accustomed to seeing it only in the Mediterranean type. On the other hand, misunderstandings of the term “race” fuel racist sentiments that scientists have to respond to. Thus, in 2014, a group of population geneticists on the pages New York Times came out with a refutation of the fact that social differences between races are associated with genes.

To avoid all these problems, instead of using the term “race,” we could use “ancestry” and “population” to describe groups formed by genetic characteristics. Many people seem to agree with the authors of the article - in particular, an organization called The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is planning to organize a meeting of experts in biology, social sciences and humanities, in order to find new ways to describe the diversity of humanity instead of “races”, suitable also for laboratory and clinical research.

Opinions of Russian scientists

Article in Science prompted both anthropologists and geneticists to speak out. Thus, anthropologist Leonid Yablonsky believes that the “anti-racial campaign” does great harm to science and is reminiscent of the times of Lysenkoism in the USSR. By the end of the 20th century, a situation had developed in the United States that any anthropologist who spoke about the existence of races was ostracized and accused of racism. Mentioning race is considered rude in the scientific community.

However, according to Yablonsky, by denying race, we not only fall into scientific error, but at the same time give way to purely racist fabrications. As for the authors of the article in Science, then they are apparently simply incompetent in the subject they are writing about. (There may be some truth to this, since only one of the paper's co-authors, Sarah Tishkoff ( Sarah Tishkoff), is a specialist in population genetics.)

The same objections can be heard from anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky, who emphasizes that the authors do not mention a single specialist in racial studies and do not provide a clear definition of race. Most importantly, they do not understand that, since the 20th century, race has been defined exclusively for the population, and not for the individual.

However, there are other opinions. For example, anthropologist Varvara Bakholdina says she largely agrees with this point of view, as she is also concerned about the indiscriminate use of the term “race” in scientific literature. In her opinion, today this term is not adequate to the current situation in science, and therefore I would like the anthropological classification to be based not on traditional racial diagnostic characteristics, but on a genetic database.

But it is genetics that tells us that races really exist. They, in particular, can be seen on genogeographic maps used to study the genetic variability of populations, as Oleg Balanovsky writes about in his recently published book “The Gene Pool of Europe”. Using such maps to study the fate of ancestral genetic components, we see that people are first divided into three large races - Negroids, Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and with increasing resolution the Americanoid and Australoid races appear.

“It is amazing and sad that with such complete confirmation of traditional racial classifications by the latest genetic data, there is still a widespread belief that genetics has ‘proved’ the absence of races,” concludes O.P. Balanovsky. Population geneticist Elena Balanovskaya wrote about this back in 2002: “The widespread belief that genetics (and especially molecular genetics) has provided important counterarguments against racial classifications is nothing more than a myth.”

Race is a biological concept, not a social one.

Anthropologist and paleontologist Evgeniy Mashchenko also largely disagrees with the authors of the “anti-racial” article, and above all with the fact that historically the concept of “race” was introduced to designate and describe phenotypic differences between different people. Mashchenko recalls that the term “race” was introduced into scientific circulation by Francois Bernier in 1684 to designate groups of people living in different regions of the Earth: a single biological species Homo sapiens breaks up into local groups with a certain geographical distribution, called races (from the Latin razza- tribe).

In the animal world, human races correspond to subspecies. Racial characteristics are inherited, although they are quickly eroded during the direct mixing (message) of races with each other. The main subject of debate among experts was the connection of certain characteristics with the specific geographical area of ​​​​each race/population. In the 21st century, this connection is manifested quite weakly, but 300-500 years ago it was very clearly visible.

In Russian anthropology, traditionally since the end of the 19th century, the concept of race was based primarily on its BIOLOGICAL understanding. Homo sapiens is a single species that, in the course of its history, has adapted to different environmental conditions. Racial characteristics are considered as adaptive changes that occur in groups that have been under the influence of various external factors for a long time.

Differences between different human populations began to appear no earlier than the end of the Paleolithic era (50-40 thousand years ago), when people actively settled in new territories, and such differences arose in response to specific living conditions in modern-type geographic zones. (Before, that is, until the end of the Paleolithic, people did not have such population differences, or we cannot say anything reliable about them.) Human populations had to adapt to different amounts of sunlight, different proportions of microelements in food, to different diets that differed from region to region, etc. Characteristic features of races/populations, such as skin color or “invisible” biochemical characteristics, were finally established in the historical era, with the advent of developed social societies and the transition to a productive economic system.

For races to form, human populations had to be socially or geographically isolated from each other. But races can change, and their changes are especially noticeable in the modern era. Over time, the development of technology and the spread of cultural traditions common to huge groups of people made geographic and social isolation almost impossible.

It should also be taken into account that the majority of humanity, thanks to scientific and technological progress, no longer experiences such a strong influence of environmental factors, so that racial differences due to their influence are gradually blurred. This is quite rightly noted by the authors of the article in Science. However, their further reasoning cannot be considered correct, since they do not at all consider a large amount of information about adaptive biochemical and physiological differences that persist in different groups of the Earth's population today.

These differences are well known even to those not involved in science. For example, everyone knows that part of the population of Northeast and East Asia has increased activity of alcohol dehydrogenase, an enzyme necessary for the utilization of alcohol; and that in the adult population of southern and central China (as well as in a number of other groups of people), the enzyme that breaks down the main milk sugar, lactose, does not work.

Let us repeat once again that the concept of race is biological, not social, that it explains the reasons for the differences between different groups of people in the past. The racism that frightens everyone has nothing to do with the scientific content of the concept of “race,” and it is not clear why science should suffer due to social or political ambiguous uncertainties.

All modern humanity belongs to a single polymorphic species - Homo sapiens- a reasonable person. The divisions of this species are races - biological groups distinguished by small morphological characteristics (hair type and color; skin color, eyes; shape of the nose, lips and face; proportions of the body and limbs). These characteristics are hereditary; they arose in the distant past under the direct influence of the environment. Each race has a single origin, area of ​​origin and formation.

Currently, there are three “large” races within humanity: Australo-Negroid (Negroid), Caucasoid and Mongoloid, within which there are more than thirty “small” races (Fig. 6.31).

Representatives Australo-Negroid race (Fig. 6.32) dark skin color, curly or wavy hair, a wide and slightly protruding nose, thick lips and dark eyes. Before the era of European colonization, this race was distributed only in Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands.

For Caucasian (Fig. 6.33) are characterized by light or dark skin, straight or wavy soft hair, good development of facial hair in men (beard and mustache), a narrow protruding nose, thin lips. The habitat of this race is Europe, North Africa, Western Asia and Northern India.

Representatives Mongoloid race (Fig. 6.34) are characterized by yellowish skin, straight, often coarse hair, a flattened wide face with strongly prominent cheekbones, average width of the nose and lips, noticeable development of the epicanthus (skin fold above the upper eyelid in the inner corner of the eye). Initially, the Mongoloid race inhabited Southeast, East, North and Central Asia, North and South America.

Although some human races differ markedly from each other in a set of external characteristics, they are interconnected by a number of intermediate types, imperceptibly passing into one another.

Formation of human races. A study of the found remains showed that Cro-Magnons had a number of traits characteristic of different modern races. For tens of thousands of years, their descendants occupied a wide variety of habitats (Fig. 6.35). Long-term exposure to external factors characteristic of a specific area under conditions of isolation gradually led to the consolidation of a certain set of morphological characteristics characteristic of the local race.

Differences between human races are the result of geographic variability that had adaptive significance in the distant past. For example, skin pigmentation is more intense in residents of the humid tropics. Dark skin is less damaged by the sun's rays, since a large amount of melanin prevents ultraviolet rays from penetrating deep into the skin and protects it from burns. The curly hair on the head of a black man creates a kind of hat that protects his head from the scorching rays of the sun. A wide nose and thick, swollen lips with a large surface area of ​​mucous membranes promote evaporation with high heat transfer. The narrow palpebral fissure and epicanthus in Mongoloids are an adaptation to frequent dust storms. The narrow protruding nose of Caucasians helps warm the inhaled air, etc.

Unity of the human races. The biological unity of human races is evidenced by the absence of genetic isolation between them, i.e. the possibility of fertile marriages between representatives of different races. Additional evidence of the unity of humanity is the localization of skin patterns such as arcs on the second and third fingers (in apes - on the fifth) in all representatives of races, the same pattern of hair arrangement on the head, etc.

The differences between the races concern only secondary characteristics, usually associated with particular adaptations to the conditions of existence. However, many traits arose in different human populations in parallel and cannot be evidence of close relatedness between populations. Melanesians and Negroids, Bushmen and Mongoloids independently acquired some similar external features; the sign of short stature (dwarfism), characteristic of many tribes that fell under the canopy of the tropical forest (the Pygmies of Africa and New Guinea), independently arose in different places.

Racism and social Darwinism. Almost immediately after the spread of the ideas of Darwinism, attempts were made to transfer the patterns discovered by Charles Darwin in living nature to human society. Some scientists began to admit that in human society the struggle for existence is the driving force of development, and social conflicts are explained by the action of natural laws of nature. These views are called social Darwinism

Social Darwinists believe that there is a selection of biologically more valuable people, and social inequality in society is a consequence of the biological inequality of people, which is controlled by natural selection. Thus, social Darwinism uses the terms of evolutionary theory to interpret social phenomena and in its essence is an anti-scientific doctrine, since it is impossible to transfer the laws that operate at one level of the organization of matter to other levels characterized by other laws.

The direct product of the most reactionary variety of social Darwinism is racism. Racists regard racial differences as species-specific and do not recognize the unity of origin of races. Proponents of racial theories argue that there are differences between races in the ability to master language and culture. By dividing races into “higher” and “lower” the founders of the doctrine justified social injustice, for example, the brutal colonization of the peoples of Africa and Asia, the destruction of representatives of other races by the “higher” Nordic race of Nazi Germany.

The inconsistency of racism has been proven by the science of race - racial studies, which studies racial characteristics and the history of the formation of human races.

Features of human evolution at the present stage. As already noted, with the emergence of man, the biological factors of evolution gradually weaken their effect, and social factors acquire leading importance in the development of mankind.

Having mastered the culture of making and using tools, food production, and housing construction, man protected himself so much from unfavorable climatic factors that there was no longer a need for his further evolution along the path of transformation into another, biologically more advanced species. However, within the established species, evolution continues. Consequently, the biological factors of evolution (mutation process, waves of numbers, isolation, natural selection) still have a certain significance.

Mutations in the cells of the human body arise mainly with the same frequency that was characteristic of it in the past. Thus, approximately one person in 40,000 carries the new mutation of albinism. Hemophilia mutations, etc. have a similar frequency. Newly emerging mutations constantly change the genotypic composition of individual human populations, enriching them with new traits.

In recent decades, the rate of mutation in some areas of the planet may increase slightly due to local pollution of the environment with chemicals and radioactive elements.

Waves of numbers Until relatively recently, they played a significant role in the development of mankind. For example, imported in the 16th century. In Europe, the plague killed about a quarter of its population. Outbreaks of other infectious diseases led to similar consequences. Currently, the population is not subject to such sharp fluctuations. Therefore, the influence of waves of numbers as an evolutionary factor can be felt in very limited local conditions (for example, natural disasters leading to the death of hundreds and thousands of people in certain areas of the planet).

Role isolation as a factor in evolution in the past was enormous, as evidenced by the emergence of races. The development of means of transportation led to the constant migration of people, their crossbreeding, as a result of which there were almost no genetically isolated population groups left on the planet.

Natural selection. The physical appearance of man, which was formed about 40 thousand years ago, has remained almost unchanged to the present day thanks to the action stabilizing selection.

Selection occurs at all stages of modern human ontogenesis. It manifests itself especially clearly in the early stages. An example of the action of stabilizing selection in human populations is the significantly greater

survival rate of children whose weight is close to the average. However, thanks to medical advances in recent decades, there has been a decrease in the mortality rate of low birth weight newborns - the stabilizing effect of selection becomes less effective. The influence of selection is manifested to a greater extent with gross deviations from the norm. Already during the formation of germ cells, some of the gametes that are formed with a violation of the process of meiosis die. The result of selection is the early death of zygotes (about 25% of all conceptions), fetuses, and stillbirth.

Along with the stabilizing effect, it also acts driving selection, which is inevitably associated with changes in characteristics and properties. According to J.B. Haldane (1935), over the past 5 thousand years, the main direction of natural selection in human populations can be considered the preservation of genotypes resistant to various infectious diseases, which turned out to be a factor significantly reducing the size of populations. We are talking about innate immunity.

In ancient times and the Middle Ages, human populations were repeatedly subjected to epidemics of various infectious diseases, which significantly reduced their numbers. However, under the influence of natural selection on a genotypic basis, the frequency of immune forms that are resistant to certain pathogens increased. Thus, in some countries, mortality from tuberculosis decreased even before medicine learned to fight this disease.

The development of medicine and the improvement of hygiene significantly reduces the risk of infectious diseases. At the same time, the direction of natural selection changes and the frequency of genes that determine immunity to these diseases inevitably decreases.

So, of the elementary biological evolutionary factors in modern society, only the action of the mutation process has remained unchanged. Isolation has practically lost its meaning in human evolution at the present stage. The pressure of natural selection and especially waves of numbers has decreased significantly. However, selection occurs, therefore, evolution continues.

All modern humanity belongs to a single polymorphic species, the divisions of which are races - biological groups distinguished by small morphological characteristics that are insignificant for work activity. These characteristics are hereditary; they arose in the distant past under the direct influence of the environment. Currently, humanity is divided into three “large” races: Austral-Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid, within which there are more than thirty “small” races.

At the present stage of human evolution, of the elementary biological factors, only the action of the mutation process has remained unchanged. Isolation has practically lost its importance, the pressure of natural selection and especially waves of numbers has decreased significantly

Countries and peoples. Questions and answers Kukanova Yu. V.

What science studies race?

What science studies race?

Anthropology studies the origins of man, his existence and development. The name of this science comes from the words “anthropos” and “logos”, which can be translated as “man” and “science”, respectively.

Many centuries ago, people began to pay attention to the differences in the lifestyle and customs of other peoples, which they were able to see and learn. The ancient sages and philosophers learned a lot of such information from travelers, merchants and sailors.

Which planet in the solar system is closest to the star and which is the most distant? Of the planets in the solar system, Mercury is located closest to the luminary. The average radius of this planet's orbit is 57.9 million kilometers, and at perihelion it is only 100,000 miles away from the Sun.