Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine

From this morning's NY Times. Am I crazy, or are the simmering arguments regarding genetics and race weirdly out of touch with the fact of America's mixed racial heritages?

For one thing, those commenting on this issue are collapsing the distinction between the science of genetics with skin color, always a favored tactic among U.S. bigots. Although it is obvious that genetics influence appearance, it is equally the case that skin color is the least stable racial characteristic, so basing any medical approach merely on the color of a patient's (or range of patients) skin color is not particularly revealing. This is particularly true in America, where the melding of races has been occuring for quite a long time--I remember one statistic years ago that both black and white Americans who'd been in the southern US since the 19th Century shared 10% of each other's "race." (This was part of a piece on 60 Minutes about a white woman in Louisiana whose racial designation on her official papers the State changed from "white" to "black" when it was revealed she had a black ancester. Yes, the old "one drop" rule--and this was only in the last 25 or so years!) The preliminary findings of the Genographic Project are also revealing common genetic traits underlying disparate appearances. Yet the fetishization of appearance persists.

I digress.

Social anxiety about the reappearance of eugenics is a valid concern. On the other hand, the potential of genetics-based medicine to save lives should not be suppressed. The rational approach, I think, is running a standardized genetic test as a regular part of taking a patient's medical history would be more helpful. In other words, rely on the test to reveal a patient's genetic makeup, rather than possibly biased visual observations.