www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
Parents
Former Member
Trying to reconcile that race has no scientific basis with the claim that race is a useful medical diagnostic tool has been generating cognitive dissonance all evening.
As Wikipedia says:
The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics.
In that sense it is easier to guess whether someone has African ancestry than to perform genetic testing to determine whether they have the gene that causes sickle cell disease.
The question that arises in my mind is whether the concept of race actually aids the diagnostic process in any way. Can you not just leap directly from having African (or Mediterranean or Middle East or Indian) ancestry to increased probability of the sickle cell trait without the intermediate step of classifying the patient as being of a "race"?
Reply
Former Member
Trying to reconcile that race has no scientific basis with the claim that race is a useful medical diagnostic tool has been generating cognitive dissonance all evening.
As Wikipedia says:
The primary impetus for considering race in biomedical research is the possibility of improving the prevention and treatment of diseases by predicting hard-to-ascertain factors on the basis of more easily ascertained characteristics.
In that sense it is easier to guess whether someone has African ancestry than to perform genetic testing to determine whether they have the gene that causes sickle cell disease.
The question that arises in my mind is whether the concept of race actually aids the diagnostic process in any way. Can you not just leap directly from having African (or Mediterranean or Middle East or Indian) ancestry to increased probability of the sickle cell trait without the intermediate step of classifying the patient as being of a "race"?
