[MontyCarloHall]

>Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of race.

Sorry, do you have any examples? His views that I've read [0, 1] are scientifically rigorous and terminologically precise, deftly navigating the politics that some consider extremely controversial. To wit, one of my favorite passages from [1], which deals specifically with terminology:

   But “ancestry” is not a euphemism, nor is it synonymous with “race.” Instead, the term is born of an urgent need to come up with a precise language to discuss genetic differences among people at a time when scientific developments have finally provided the tools to detect them. It is now undeniable that there are nontrivial average genetic differences across populations in multiple traits, and the race vocabulary is too ill-defined and too loaded with historical baggage to be helpful. If we continue to use it we will not be able to escape the current debate, which is mired in an argument between two indefensible positions. On the one side there are beliefs about the nature of the differences that are grounded in bigotry and have little basis in reality. On the other side there is the idea that any biological differences among populations are so modest that as a matter of social policy they can be ignored and papered over. It is time to move on from this paralyzing false dichotomy and to figure out what the genome is actually telling us.

This particular passage is on p. 253 of [1], but everything in Chapter 11 ("The Genomics of Race and Identity," pp. 247-273) is well worth the read.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-r...

[1] https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf

[AlotOfReading]

It's unfortunate that the URL happens to be buzzfeed, but there was an open letter to Reich by other academics about his terminology in the book you're quoting [0]. The short of it is that social categorizations we believe in like race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way. Reich is a world-class expert in genetics. He simply commits the same error as many other other experts in discounting the complexity of subjects he's adjacent to, but not directly an expert in.

I get that this is a high standard to hold him to (and I sure as heck don't meet it myself), but he should do better given his visibility in public discourse.

[0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics...

[MontyCarloHall]

The crux of that letter is the "need to recognize that meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation exist in our species that are not racial." This is true. However, this does not mean that there aren't also meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation that do stratify according to ancestry (not race!). The letter tries to handwave this away, claiming that "[f]or several decades billions of dollars have been spent trying to find such differences. The result has been a preponderance of negative findings despite intrepid efforts to collect DNA data on millions of individuals in the hope of finding even the tiniest signals of difference." This is simply not true, as studies like the subject of this discussion demonstrate.

The letter also states that "[t]he public should not cede the power to define race to scientists who themselves are not trained to understand the social contexts that shape the formation of this fraught category." Also true! This is exactly why Reich explicitly avoids discussing "races" but rather populations and ancestries, which are rigorously defined strictly in terms of genetics. With respect to population structures and ancestry, Reich is indeed an expert.

I'll add that very few of the signatories of that letter have any experience, let alone expertise in genetics. Here are the first few:

  Jonathan Kahn, James E. Kelley Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School of Law

  Alondra Nelson, Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies, Columbia University; President, Social Science Research Council

  Joseph L. Graves Jr., Associate Dean for Research & Professor of Biological Sciences, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section G: Biological Sciences, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, North Carolina A&T State University, UNC Greensboro

  Sarah Abel, Postdoc, Department of Anthropology, University of Iceland

  Ruha Benjamin, Associate Professor, Department of African American Studies, Princeton University

  Sarah Blacker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin

  Catherine Bliss, Associate Professor, Social and Behavioral Sciences, UC San Francisco

Out of the 67 signatories, I counted approximately 5 who might have sufficient genetics expertise to offer a meaningful scientific counterpoint to Reich's work (this is being charitable, as I included titles like "Professor of Biological Sciences," which is no guarantee.) The rest were in fields like anthropology, sociology, law, and history.

[AlotOfReading]

     This is simply not true.

Yes, because it's not an argument the letter is making. Everyone can name a meaningful genetic patterns of genetic variation that follow ancestry like lactase persistence. The argument is in the second paragraph:

    But his skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups.

It's not an argument that Reich gets the science wrong, so other geneticists being on the list is neither here nor there. When he says things like:

    But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

in NYT opinion pieces, it's that he's not understanding how terminology interacts with public discourse. The next paragraph goes on to use the unclear term "west african", not exactly a great example of careful language either.

The list is mainly people in fields that deal with these things, as you'd expect.

[MontyCarloHall]

>Yes, because it's not an argument the letter is making.

It literally is though. The full quote from the Buzzfeed piece is:

  Reich’s claim that we need to prepare for genetic evidence of racial differences in behavior or health ignores the trajectory of modern genetics. For several decades billions of dollars have been spent trying to find such differences. The result has been a preponderance of negative findings despite intrepid efforts to collect DNA data on millions of individuals in the hope of finding even the tiniest signals of difference.

>The argument is in the second paragraph:

  But his skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups.

Reich never purports to make cultural or political arguments, just biological ones.

>When he says things like: But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

Note that he put "races" in quotes. The point he was making here is that sometimes genetic ancestries can intersect quite well with traditional notions of "race" [0]. But often times they do not, especially in the case of admixed populations [1].

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32325-w/figures/1

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-019-2680-1/...

[AlotOfReading]

    Note that he put "races" in quotes.

I know, but we both see how a random member of the public could easily read it. My argument, after all, is that the way he communicates is sloppier than it should be for the subject matter and prone to public misunderstandings.

[vintermann]

> "need to recognize that meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation exist in our species that are not racial." This is true.

There's an implicit assertion in that statement, that we're currently not recognizing that meaningful patterns and variation exists. But that's nonsense. We are all perfectly aware that some groups digest lactose better, some are less vulnerable to skin cancer, some drop like flies to common tropical diseases, some completely dominate long distance running competition etc.

So there's got to be some particular differences he's referring to that he thinks are papered over. He should spell out which.

[GorbachevyChase]

Fortunately, there are many wise laymen such as yourself in the internet to correct him.

[dmitrygr]

> race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way

Please explain the complications. Use scientific terms only.

[tsimionescu]

The biggest complication is that the current notion of human race is largely based on skin color (with a few adjacent physical traits), which has very little to do with population genetics. In particular, black skin color is a dominant genetic trait, meaning that you can easily have individuals and even entire subpopulations that are black skinned, but have much more genetic similarity to traditionally white skinned populations (being descendents of a few black skinned individuals who married into a larger white skinned population) - while they would still be categorized as "black" in terms of race. Conversely, genetically isolated black skinned populations are also often lumped together as "the black race".

Another major complexity is that some races are defined more by genealogic ancestry than by genetic ancestry or easily identifiable physical characteristics. For example, people are normally considered Jewish if they have a Jewish mother. This leads to many genetically disparate subpopulations being lumped together as a Jewish race.

[timmg]

Not the person you were replying to, but: did you read that letter?

It is horribly argued. It's mostly poor analogies and non-sequiturs. It's no wonder Buzzfeed was the only place they could get to publish it.

[dmitrygr]

> but he should do better given his visibility in public discourse.

Why? He presented real verified science. Anyone who is offended or does not like it ... well, too bad... the world does not care. Facts are facts. He does not owe you or anyone else comfort. He presents cold hard truth, and sometimes truth hurts. Tough.

[jltsiren]

I haven't read much from Reich, so I don't know his position. But I've understood that the current best practice in human genetics is to explicitly justify the population descriptors chosen for each study, rather than using any fixed set of descriptors given from the outside.

There are two main types of genetic descriptors: those based on genetic similarity and those based on ancestry groups. Genetic similarity is quantitative, and individual samples often have multiple labels attached to them. Ancestry groups are discrete categories based on quantitative measures. If it's appropriate to use descriptors based on genetic ancestry groups in a study, it's usually also appropriate to drop samples that don't fit neatly in any single group.

Sometimes it's more appropriate to use descriptors based on environmental factors, such as ethnicity or geography. Environmental descriptors tend to be correlated with genetic descriptors, but they are not the same.