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
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…
I want my genome sequenced, too!
Apparently, it's become a popular thing to get your genome sequenced. Craig Venter was the first. Jim Watson's genome (of Project Jim) was ceremonially released this morning (courtesy of 454), and now George Chuch, Larry King, cosmologist Stephen Hawking, Google…
Is the case for open access truly "open and shut"?
Will open access impede science by limiting genetic studies with families?
tags: genetics, genetic privacy, bioethics, open access
Microsoft's brave new world
The April ALPSP conference began with songs for the open access choir. Microsoft's Lee…
A survey of doctors specializing in the infectious diseases of children attending a conference showed over half weren't very worried about a bird flu pandemic. I guess they know something I don't. Or maybe I've been reading the wrong things. Things like this:
The H5N1 bird flu virus in Indonesia…
...right...right...gotcha. 'cause bigotry is so rooted in careful consideration of facts, especially nuanced ones.