[tt] [technoliberation] Biocons don't like skin color research

Thu May 24 15:52:14 UTC 2007

----- Forwarded message from "Hughes, James J." <James.Hughes at trincoll.edu> -----

From: "Hughes, James J." <James.Hughes at trincoll.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:40:00 -0400
To: technoliberation at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [technoliberation] Biocons don't like skin color research
Reply-To: technoliberation at yahoogroups.com

http://www.bioethicsforum.org/SLC24A5-skin-color-genetics-race.asp

Friday, May 18, 2007

Racial Alchemy: Bioethics and the Skin Tone Gene

BY OSAGIE K. OBASOGIE

Since the 2005 discovery that the SLC24A5 gene variant plays a sizable
role in human skin pigmentation, scientists have become increasingly
intrigued by the possibility of genetically manipulating skin color.
Curiously, however, this research is going on with little mention of the
dreaded "R" word: race.

A recent New Scientist article, for example, expends almost 3,000 words
on the ins and outs of skin color's genetic basis and apparent
malleability without once mentioning race. The author eagerly notes,
however, that "our skin color might one day become almost as easy to
change as hair color is today, freeing us from the constraints of our
genes [and] mak[ing] life far harder for those who still insist on
judging people on the basis of a handful of gene variants." Nina
Jablonski's 2006 book Skin: A Natural History devotes nearly 300 pages
to understanding skin's social, cultural, and biological significance
without seriously engaging race's long and tortured history; only two
references to race appear in its index.

It is not uncommon for scientists to underestimate race's relevance to
their work. Stanford geneticist Gregory Barsh, for example, told Science
that recent studies involving the SLC24A5 gene variant "indicate how the
genetics of skin color variation is quite different from, and should not
be confused with, the concept of race." Jablonski apparently agrees:
"skin color" she told Science, "does not equal race, period."

>From a geneticist's perspective, this effort at separating skin color
from race may be technically accurate; in any other context, however,
it's a bit counterintuitive. History, contemporary race relations, and
common sense suggest that race and skin color will continue to be tied
tightly together to shape social outcomes, public policy, clinical
evaluations, and even legal thought. For example, economist Joni Hersch
recently published findings showing that light-skinned American
immigrants - controlling for all other factors, such as language
proficiency, country of origin, and occupation - earn 8 to 15 percent
more than those with dark skin. Similarly, economists Arthur Goldsmith,
Derrick Hamilton, and William A. Darity Jr. have shown that medium and
dark-skinned blacks suffer a wage penalty of 10 to 15 percent relative
to whites. These studies suggest that American society, in effect,
imposes a progressive "dark tax": social stigma and financial penalties
compound as melanin increases.

The concern here is that colorstruck yet raceblind approaches to
"decoding" skin color's genetic underpinnings might fail to seriously
engage with the extent to which skin tone shapes basic social
relationships - both between whites and racial minorities and within
minority groups themselves. Within virtually every culture of color and
among racial groups, dark skin tends to signify unattractiveness and
incompetence. Colorism - a subset of racism - isn't simply an antiquated
system divvying up "house Negroes" from field workers. Rather, it is a
social structure that continues to shape people's everyday lives,
individual psyches, and social outcomes. Thus skin tone doesn't just
have economic impacts. It also affects dignity and identity.

If the empirical evidence suggests that skin tone continues to be
significant in predicting social outcomes, what does the supposed
distinction between race and skin tone mean for genetic research? And
what would it mean for bioethics to engage these conversations?  Mark
Shriver, a member of the team that discovered the SLC24A5 gene, has been
instrumental in turning population genetics techniques into marketable
(and ostensibly profitable) ancestry tests. Much ink has also been
spilled over the so-called "gay gene" and the prospect of services for
either screening out "gay embryos" or somehow altering their gene
expression to ensure their heterosexuality. Could skin tone alterations
be the next viable market for consumer biotechnologies? And what would
this mean for society, given that racial inequality based largely on
skin hue persists?  What can bioethics say about these developments
other than repeat traditional concerns about clinical safety and
individual autonomy?

What's happening with genetic research into skin color is as much an
ethical development as a scientific one. It highlights some researchers'
diminished sense of responsibility for their work's public impact.
Distinguishing skin color and race may give some enough ethical cover to
dabble in racial alchemy without being held accountable for their
research's consequences. We only stick our heads in the sand if we view
research on the SLC24A5 gene variant as a biotech discovery hermetically
sealed within the confines of research labs, with little social impact.
We should try instead to anticipate the ethical and social challenges
raised by this work and think sensibly about a key question that should
be at the center of more bioethical debates: what does it mean for human
biotechnology to develop in the public interest?

Osagie K. Obasogie directs the project on Bioethics, Law, and Society at
the Center for Genetics and Society. He is also a regular contributor to
the blog Biopolitical Times.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoliberation/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoliberation/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:technoliberation-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:technoliberation-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    technoliberation-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE