1

Critical Analysis: Race and Reification in Science

This paper will offer a critical analysis of Dusters findings. It will offer findings of
alternative studies to interrogate Dusters findings. It will base its counter-arguments on the
relationship between race and the prevalence of a particular set of medical conditions using a
Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group study on the relationship between human genetics
and groups of people (race). It will offer an examination into Dusters findings on human genetic
diversity using Caulfield, et al., study of the relationship between race, ancestry and biomedical
research. This paper will offer critical analysis of Dusters arguments on SNP Patterns and
Searches for a Biological Basis for Criminal Behavior (1 p. 1051) using a Race Bibliography
study on the relationship between criminology and genetics.
Duster argues that we should not assume racial-based phenomena could not change
across social and environmental factors. He observes that reification the assumption of
correctness, without concrete evidence is a bane of medical research. He argues against racial
based reification in three considerations: hypertension and heart disease, human genetic diversity
(1 p. 1050) and biological basis for criminal behavior (1 p. 1051).
Duster observes there is a trend of research findings leaning towards the association of
influences of environmental and genetic factors with racial designations like medical
conditions of hypertension and heart disease (1). He particularly cites a study, which found the
use of a drug BiDil, effective in 1050 African American research subjects, while the study
could not replicate the same results in other racial groups.
Duster observes that if the Food and Drug Administration agency approves BiDil, it will
have endorsed the first racial drug. The Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group confirm
2

Dusters concerns. They introduce their study by stating that although the human genetics
discipline has achieved unprecedented milestones, it also has the potential to generate great
controversy. They observe that this is a point of contention because medical research that
borrows form racial connotations has previously been a source of justification for racial and
ethnic discrimination, both by geneticists and by individuals outside the field (2 p. 519).
Therefore, borrowing from Duster and The Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group, it is
important to note that the issue of presenting medical research findings with undertones of racial
exclusivity has the potential to inform an undesirable social debate that may reincarnate racial
based large-scale crimes.
While Duster argues about the implication of attributing hypertension and heart disease to
African Americans, it is also important to note that the results Duster criticizes were the findings
of studies that employed modern statistical techniques of sampling, monitoring and results
analysis. Duster might have come across less focused on a certain angle if offered an alternative
interpretation of those findings. However, Duster provides an argument against the reification of
race in medical research when he quotes a geneticist David Goldstein, who observed, Race for
prescription is only an interim solution to carry us through a period of ignorance until we find the
underlying causes (1).
When interrogating how researchers carry out studies of human genetic diversity, Duster
contends that maybe these researchers are asking the wrong questions. He states, [the] first
principle of knowledge construction is, [and] therefore, which question gets asked in the research
enterprise (1). Caulfield, et al., suggest that with recent technological advancements in the fields
of genetics and medicine, it is possible for researchers to eliminate the likely biases. They cite
the development of sophisticated databases like the Human Genome Project, the International
3

Haplotype Map Project, and the recently proposed 1000 Genomes Project (3 p. 1) as some of
the deliberate steps that the scientific community is taking to avoid inaccurate research on human
genetic diversity. Therefore, while Duster illustrates a genuine concern for the accuracy of
medical research, he fails to appreciate the fact that researchers are also instituting deliberate
initiatives to mitigate racial discrimination and bias in their findings.
Another point of contention in Dusters article is the fact that security agencies have
developed databases that profile offenders against records of racial groups that are most likely to
commit particular types of crime. He argues, The FBIs DNA database is primarily composed
of those who have been touched by the criminal justice system and that system has engaged in
practices that routinely select more from one group, there will be an obvious skew or bias toward
this group in this database (1 p. 1051). Race Bibliography offers support to Dusters concerns. It
argues that FBIs use of racial-based DNA databases is inaccurate because they do not
incorporate the fact that offenders have a combination of genomic profiles from a mixture of
different racial groups (4).
This paper has examined Dusters concerns in his study. It has offered observations from
other researchers who question the accuracy of generalizing certain medical conditions and
genetic features according to race. Although these arguments introduce valid queries, this paper
has not failed to observe that the scientific community is deploying measures to mitigate the
biases of their research findings that may consequently initiate social strife.

4

References
1. Race and reification in science. Duster, T. 5712, 2005, Science, Vol. 307, pp. 1050-1051.
2. The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research. Race,
Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group. 4, 2005, American Journal of Human
Genetics, Vol. 77.
3. Race and ancestry in bio medical research : exploring the challenges. Caulfield, T, et al., et
al. 1, 2009, Genome medicine , Vol. 1, pp. 1-8.
4. Race Bibliography. Brief on race and genetic determinism. Council for Responsible Genetics.
[Online] 2014. [Cited: April 25, 2014.]
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=72.