From this week's Economist:
The blocks of DNA studied by the HapMap and similar projects are swapped between neighbouring chromosomes during the process of egg and sperm formation. Dr Sabeti realised that a gene which is being favoured by selection will drag its neighbours along for the ride, meaning that the block it is in will be longer than the statistics of random mixing would predict.
Using this and one or two similar statistical tools, Dr Sabeti has identified 200 places in the human genome that have been subject to recent selective “sweeps”—and she often has a good idea of the genes that have been doing the sweeping.
Some are not surprising. Genes that regulate skin pigment and hair morphology, both well-known markers of geographical origin, have undergone significant selection. So have genes regulating metabolism, probably in response to the shift from hunting and gathering to farming as mankind’s principal way of life.
Intriguingly, though, several genes connected with sensory perception—hearing and balance, in particular—have altered. In this case, the changes are most noticeable in some of the Asian branches of humanity. Genes involved in the development of the sound-detecting hair cells of the ears seem especially affected. Whether that means Asians hear things differently from other people has yet to be established, but it might.
...
If you choose to wade in, I invite you to read the entire article (linked above) first.
This isn't a political issue, but it could be. I've always suspected that the "we're all alike under the skin" trope had more to do with political and social expediency than actual science. Due to our collective history of finding reasons to dehumanize and, thus, exterminate "the other" (welcome to the club, Kyrgystan), one could make a case that it is not in humanity's greater interest to pursue this line of inquiry particularly closely.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that it'll only be a matter of time before "we'll" be able to say "they" are different, then back up that assertion with genomic evidence showing that "they" have better/worse balance, hearing, hair, toenails, etc. than "we" do.
So, I'm thinking about the implications of this knowledge. Will we embrace it as delightful evidence that we humans come in a wide variety of flavors? Will we use it as an excuse to deligitimize, demonize, or marginalize The Other? What will the middle ground look like?
Whatever the future holds, there's no doubt that it's a fascinating time to be alive.
The blocks of DNA studied by the HapMap and similar projects are swapped between neighbouring chromosomes during the process of egg and sperm formation. Dr Sabeti realised that a gene which is being favoured by selection will drag its neighbours along for the ride, meaning that the block it is in will be longer than the statistics of random mixing would predict.
Using this and one or two similar statistical tools, Dr Sabeti has identified 200 places in the human genome that have been subject to recent selective “sweeps”—and she often has a good idea of the genes that have been doing the sweeping.
Some are not surprising. Genes that regulate skin pigment and hair morphology, both well-known markers of geographical origin, have undergone significant selection. So have genes regulating metabolism, probably in response to the shift from hunting and gathering to farming as mankind’s principal way of life.
Intriguingly, though, several genes connected with sensory perception—hearing and balance, in particular—have altered. In this case, the changes are most noticeable in some of the Asian branches of humanity. Genes involved in the development of the sound-detecting hair cells of the ears seem especially affected. Whether that means Asians hear things differently from other people has yet to be established, but it might.
...
If you choose to wade in, I invite you to read the entire article (linked above) first.
This isn't a political issue, but it could be. I've always suspected that the "we're all alike under the skin" trope had more to do with political and social expediency than actual science. Due to our collective history of finding reasons to dehumanize and, thus, exterminate "the other" (welcome to the club, Kyrgystan), one could make a case that it is not in humanity's greater interest to pursue this line of inquiry particularly closely.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that it'll only be a matter of time before "we'll" be able to say "they" are different, then back up that assertion with genomic evidence showing that "they" have better/worse balance, hearing, hair, toenails, etc. than "we" do.
So, I'm thinking about the implications of this knowledge. Will we embrace it as delightful evidence that we humans come in a wide variety of flavors? Will we use it as an excuse to deligitimize, demonize, or marginalize The Other? What will the middle ground look like?
Whatever the future holds, there's no doubt that it's a fascinating time to be alive.
