From: Alfred Croucher 6/05/99 14:22:45 Subject: DNA & Bioanthropology post id: 9958 DNA analysis offers science a new means of determining where we all came from and particularly the origins of the various races and the way people have moved around the world. It is particularly controversial and some smaller groups, particularly aboriginal or native groups object to such studies on the basis that it may undermine their traditional myths about their origins and make up. Israeli scientists appear to have used the technique to identify the origins of self-immolating bombers and are able to identify which village they came from. It would be useful to have a regular update on this rapidly developing area of science and if anyone knows of a website which tracks development of this new area it would be a useful post. From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) 6/05/99 20:46:32 Subject: re: DNA & Bioanthropology post id: 10044 It is particularly controversial and some smaller groups, particularly aboriginal or native groups object to such studies on the basis that it may undermine their traditional myths about their origins and make up. I think you'll find that their objection to being unilaterally railroaded by anthropologists (bio or otherwise) goes somewhat further than simply a fear of "white man" undermining their myths. It's more to do with who's in charge of their cultural tradition, history, and identity. It's interesting you mention myths. Myths are largely about narrative, largely about story telling. And indeed, if you take a more critical eye to a discipline such as anthropology, and hold it up to the sort of rigors of evidence and proof that the sciences have to hold up to, I think you'll find much more often than not, that it really isn't very much more than story telling. The fact that they often use data gathering techniques that are derived from the sciences does not follow, a priori, that they are therefore doing hard science. In terms of approach to the scientific method, the notion of "race" is a particularly poignant example. When doing science the generally accepted practice is to start with a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis against data and experiment to see if it is valid. In contrast, since the discovery of the laws of heredity, the majority of athropologists interested in the study of "race", have largely got this practice somewhat muddled. Until quite recently the way the study of "race" was usually conducted was thus. One would start from the point that the concept of the division of humanity into distinct races was valid. One would then propose a certain model for how many races there were, and how they were divided. One would therefore proceed to collect all the data, and only the data, that supported the model to thus show that it was valid. Now, this is an interesting and potentially useful means to explore ideas in a field where there is little if any hard data, particularly if you have many different researchers postulating many different models. However, at the end of the day, all you end up with is little more than a collection of good stories. Furthermore, almost no-one actually thought to question where the whole sub-discipline was starting from, i.e. from the statement "the concept of the division of humanity into distinct races is valid." Even more worrying was the idealogical basis from which this belief by a majority of anthropologists (and indeed scientists alike before the atrocities of WWII) originated - that not only were the races distinct, but that they were rankable, i.e. that Northern Europeans were biologically the most superior, that either the Southern Africans or the Australian Aborigines were the least superior, and that all other races lay somewhere in between. We now know, since the discovery of DNA, that the whole idea of "race" (the belief that human can be scientifically categorised into x different races) from a genetic/biological point of view is a completely invalid concept with no basis whatsoever in fact. I'm not saying that anthropology is not a worthwhile intellectual pursuit or trying to defend some scientific elite from being infiltrated by other disciplines. Nor am I saying that the anthropology of human groups and human biodiversity around the planet is not somthing that we should know or study. Indeed, the eventually destruction of the biological notion of race resulted from data collected from many such studies. What I am saying is that anthropologists particularly (bio or otherwise) must proceed with a conscious awareness that what they are doing is profoundly influenced by their cultural presumptions which, as in the case of the notion of race, are often no more than MYTHS (a myth firmly entrenched in the Judeo-Christian tradition). Furthermore, they much accept that RECENT HISTORY shows that the populations they wish to study have GOOD REASON TO BE WARY, so that their very cultural identity is not once again "subjugated by the white man" even if it is in the name of "science". Yes, it is controversial, that doesn't mean everything to come out of it is valid, or that at least some of it isn't little more than newly forged myth. Soupie twist, Ed G. This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.