Reading in the NY Times about James Watson's genome I stumbled on to this:
Professor Church predicted that as the science of genetics advanced, fuzzy categories like race would become less important because genetic characteristics would point to factors like disease at an individual level.
Meanwhile, he said: "There are still a lot of bigots in the world. Maybe showing these things are more nuanced than they'd like it to be makes them think about it."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Just for fun. A repost of something that floated to the top several months ago. October 17th 2007 to be exact. There is a reason I'm reposting this. For now, I'll let you guess.
It is now time to kick James Watson's ass.
The man is a terrible embarrassment to us all. ("Us" being scientists…
Dan MacArthur has started a big discussion on whether or not the relationship between IQ and race should be studied. Inspired by a pair of essays for and against the idea it has created a pretty healthy debate among the sciencebloggers including Razib with whom I will likely never agree on this…
Let's go through the basics again. Cracking the genetic code refers to figuring out how DNA encodes the information to make proteins -- that was done decades ago. Sequencing a genome does not mean that you have decoded the genome; presumably, decoding a genome would mean you've figured out the…
The other day, the NY Times ran a story called "Picture Emerging on Genetic Risks of IVF. It reported on a new Centers for Disease Control study that found that children conceived through the most common infertility treatments had a slightly increased risk of several birth defects, including…
...right...right...gotcha. 'cause bigotry is so rooted in careful consideration of facts, especially nuanced ones.