Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by formerly_proven 2149 days ago
Because "genetic causes" will be abused (and arguably is pretty much just a dogwhistle) for racial stereotyping and Untermensch classifications, so you better be damn sure about the accuracy and impact magnitude before talking about it.
3 comments
at_a_remove 2149 days ago
Yes. We live in a kind of reflexive terror of a regime that has been dead for the better part of a century and we must not look at certain parts of reality, lest they be true, because those people did something terrible related to that field of inquiry. There comes a time when crouching in silence waiting for a dogwhistle to be blown that nobody else can hear becomes paranoia.

It would be more reasonable and compassionate to identify genetic risk factors so that the people in question could make more informed choices in their lives, but instead we must keep them (and ourselves) ignorant lest, somewhere in the dark, a reel of Triumph of the Will begins spinning all on its own.

link
splintercell 2149 days ago
That is hardly a good explanation to avoid scientific research.

One of the eras of extreme racial stereotyping happened when there was very little knowledge about the genetic science.

If there is a genetic component to opioid addiction then it would be extremely helpful to treat it with that knowledge.

link
formerly_proven 2149 days ago
> That is hardly a good explanation to avoid scientific research.

I agree it's not, because it's not about research, but rather about science and "science" reporting as well as what ends up in the "news" ("researchers find the addiction gene"). That's why I said it is important to consider the magnitude before talking about it, not before researching it, because obviously you don't know the impact before the research is done.

link
hderms 2149 days ago
Yeah it's very tricky given that being able to identify genetic causes could make it easier to identify and help people who may have a higher probability of suffering from some specific issue, such as opt-in screening for Tay-Sachs for people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage.

I think the line to draw is that for it to be positive it should always be private, voluntary, independent from public policy and strictly for the purposes of improving medical outcomes.

link