PDA

View Full Version : high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews + persecuted past - a link?


theapportioner
Jun 14th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Thoughts? I haven't had a chance to read the original paper. But if true, it could really shake things up...

-----

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4032638

Draft of the original manuscript: http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/Documents/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

Natural genius?
Jun 2nd 2005
From The Economist print edition

The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past

THE idea that some ethnic groups may, on average, be more intelligent than others is one of those hypotheses that dare not speak its name. But Gregory Cochran, a noted scientific iconoclast, is prepared to say it anyway. He is that rare bird, a scientist who works independently of any institution. He helped popularise the idea that some diseases not previously thought to have a bacterial cause were actually infections, which ruffled many scientific feathers when it was first suggested. And more controversially still, he has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection.

Even he, however, might tremble at the thought of what he is about to do. Together with Jason Hardy and Henry Harpending, of the University of Utah, he is publishing, in a forthcoming edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, a paper which not only suggests that one group of humanity is more intelligent than the others, but explains the process that has brought this about. The group in question are Ashkenazi Jews. The process is natural selection.

Ashkenazim generally do well in IQ tests, scoring 12-15 points above the mean value of 100, and have contributed disproportionately to the intellectual and cultural life of the West, as the careers of Freud, Einstein and Mahler, pictured above, affirm. They also suffer more often than most people from a number of nasty genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs and breast cancer. These facts, however, have previously been thought unrelated. The former has been put down to social effects, such as a strong tradition of valuing education. The latter was seen as a consequence of genetic isolation. Even now, Ashkenazim tend to marry among themselves. In the past they did so almost exclusively.

Dr Cochran, however, suspects that the intelligence and the diseases are intimately linked. His argument is that the unusual history of the Ashkenazim has subjected them to unique evolutionary pressures that have resulted in this paradoxical state of affairs.

Ashkenazi history begins with the Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in the first century AD. When this was crushed, Jewish refugees fled in all directions. The descendants of those who fled to Europe became known as Ashkenazim.

In the Middle Ages, European Jews were subjected to legal discrimination, one effect of which was to drive them into money-related professions such as banking and tax farming which were often disdained by, or forbidden to, Christians. This, along with the low level of intermarriage with their gentile neighbours (which modern genetic analysis confirms was the case), is Dr Cochran's starting point.

He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations. Several studies have shown that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly correlated with income in jobs such as banking.

What can, however, be shown from the historical records is that European Jews at the top of their professions in the Middle Ages raised more children to adulthood than those at the bottom. Of course, that was true of successful gentiles as well. But in the Middle Ages, success in Christian society tended to be violently aristocratic (warfare and land), rather than peacefully meritocratic (banking and trade).

Put these two things together—a correlation of intelligence and success, and a correlation of success and fecundity—and you have circumstances that favour the spread of genes that enhance intelligence. The questions are, do such genes exist, and what are they if they do? Dr Cochran thinks they do exist, and that they are exactly the genes that cause the inherited diseases which afflict Ashkenazi society.

That small, reproductively isolated groups of people are susceptible to genetic disease is well known. Constant mating with even distant relatives reduces genetic diversity, and some disease genes will thus, randomly, become more common. But the very randomness of this process means there should be no discernible pattern about which disease genes increase in frequency. In the case of Ashkenazim, Dr Cochran argues, this is not the case. Most of the dozen or so disease genes that are common in them belong to one of two types: they are involved either in the storage in nerve cells of special fats called sphingolipids, which form part of the insulating outer sheaths that allow nerve cells to transmit electrical signals, or in DNA repair. The former genes cause neurological diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick. The latter cause cancer.

That does not look random. And what is even less random is that in several cases the genes for particular diseases come in different varieties, each the result of an independent original mutation. This really does suggest the mutated genes are being preserved by natural selection. But it does not answer the question of how evolution can favour genetic diseases. However, in certain circumstances, evolution can.

West Africans, and people of West African descent, are susceptible to a disease called sickle-cell anaemia that is virtually unknown elsewhere. The anaemia develops in those whose red blood cells contain a particular type of haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen. But the disease occurs only in those who have two copies of the gene for the disease-causing haemoglobin (one copy from each parent). Those who have only one copy have no symptoms. They are, however, protected against malaria, one of the biggest killers in that part of the world. Thus, the theory goes, the pressure to keep the sickle-cell gene in the population because of its malaria-protective effects balances the pressure to drive it out because of its anaemia-causing effects. It therefore persists without becoming ubiquitous.

Dr Cochran argues that something similar happened to the Ashkenazim. Genes that promote intelligence in an individual when present as a single copy create disease when present as a double copy. His thesis is not as strong as the sickle-cell/malaria theory, because he has not proved that any of his disease genes do actually affect intelligence. But the area of operation of some of them suggests that they might.

The sphingolipid-storage diseases, Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's and Niemann-Pick, all involve extra growth and branching of the protuberances that connect nerve cells together. Too much of this (as caused in those with double copies) is clearly pathological. But it may be that those with single copies experience a more limited, but still enhanced, protuberance growth. That would yield better linkage between brain cells, and might thus lead to increased intelligence. Indeed, in the case of Gaucher's disease, the only one of the three in which people routinely live to adulthood, there is evidence that those with full symptoms are more intelligent than the average. An Israeli clinic devoted to treating people with Gaucher's has vastly more engineers, scientists, accountants and lawyers on its books than would be expected by chance.

Why a failure of the DNA-repair system should boost intelligence is unclear—and is, perhaps, the weakest part of the thesis, although evidence is emerging that one of the genes in question is involved in regulating the early growth of the brain. But the thesis also has a strong point: it makes a clear and testable prediction. This is that people with a single copy of the gene for Tay-Sachs, or that for Gaucher's, or that for Niemann-Pick should be more intelligent than average. Dr Cochran and his colleagues predict they will be so by about five IQ points. If that turns out to be the case, it will strengthen the idea that, albeit unwillingly, Ashkenazi Jews have been part of an accidental experiment in eugenics. It has brought them some advantages. But, like the deliberate eugenics experiments of the 20th century, it has also exacted a terrible price.

mburbank
Jun 14th, 2005, 09:13 PM
Theories of ethnic superiority or inferiority are always wrong. Except this one. Actually, I'm not that big a fan of a lot of other Ashkenasi Jews I've met over the years. I think this theory just explains me.

Helm
Jun 14th, 2005, 09:47 PM
oh and is "IQ" Intelligence now?

ziggytrix
Jun 14th, 2005, 09:49 PM
http://www.answers.com/iq&r=67

Helm
Jun 15th, 2005, 12:16 AM
[...]now widely considered to be neither accurate nor fair.

Jeanette X
Jun 15th, 2005, 01:55 AM
Are the diseases mentioned here also found in non-Ashkenaz Jews? (Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc.)

And is this Dr. Cochran Jewish? :blah

ziggytrix
Jun 15th, 2005, 01:51 PM
[...]now widely considered to be neither accurate nor fair.

which means it's debatable. but i didn't feel like debating so i posted a link. :)

theapportioner
Jun 15th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Are the diseases mentioned here also found in non-Ashkenaz Jews? (Sephardim, Mizrahim, etc.)


Yes, presumably, as with the rest of the human population. However, the recessive alleles are especially prevalent in Ashkenazi Jews, because of significant founder effect.

theapportioner
Jun 15th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Well, I think most people would agree that the IQ measures -something-, despite the various flaws. Someone with an IQ of 125 is quite different from someone with an IQ of 75. Hard to argue that. I think most of the controversy has been around the role genes and/or environment plays in all this.

ziggytrix
Jun 15th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Well, I think most people would agree that the IQ measures -something-

It measures test taking ability. :rolleyes

Abcdxxxx
Jun 16th, 2005, 01:14 AM
It's just like every other survival of the fittest theorist who thinks they're inventing the wheel. it's also a bit too close to the whole "that's why Black people are so good at sports!" argument. It's also a sublte way to try and seperate the Jewish diaspora.

JewSupremacisy
Jun 16th, 2005, 03:36 AM
This is why we should combine into one race--so we can all have these genes.

ziggytrix
Jun 16th, 2005, 09:28 AM
Hey numbnuts, homo sapiens sapiens IS one race.

JewSupremacisy
Jun 16th, 2005, 09:34 AM
Hey numbnuts, homo sapiens sapiens IS one race.

Homo sapiens are divided into different sub-races.

ziggytrix
Jun 16th, 2005, 11:23 AM
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]

USAGE NOTE The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

Helm
Jun 16th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Well, I think most people would agree that the IQ measures -something-

well then if this thread is about this race having more of -something- then no big deal.

ziggytrix
Jun 16th, 2005, 03:36 PM
No way. Leet test-taking skillz provide an amazing advantage in academia!

Abcdxxxx
Jun 23rd, 2005, 11:18 PM
So h'bout this race specific drug that got released?!

theapportioner
Jun 24th, 2005, 06:07 PM
A theory out there tries to explain the higher rates of hypertension etc. among American blacks as a legacy of selection pressures from the slaveships. Those who were saltier, survived the trip better.

Abcdxxxx
Jun 24th, 2005, 09:05 PM
That's funny. That would mean sailors, people who lived on houseboats, beach side communities, etc. would all be susceptable to it too.

I can't see how persecution has anything to do with why Jews get Crohn's disease and it's derivatives.

Anyway, it's kind of hard to say there's no scientific proof that race exists now.

Big Papa Goat
Jun 25th, 2005, 04:14 AM
It wouldn't be exactly right to compare sailors to the African slaves regarding selection for hypertension, since sailors aren't really a population in the same way the slaves would have been. A sailor that has hypertension or whatever to survive at sea would live longer than another sailor, but that sailor will just go and have offspring that may inherit his hypertension genes but will not neccesarily be sailors dig? What I mean is that the next generation of sailors won't neccesarily be the offspring of the last generation of sailors who possessed genes for survivng at sea.
Basically the point is that for natural selection to work on a group, it has to be a biological populaiton, meaning an essentially reproductively isolated group. Since sailors aren't reproductively isolated, they can't evolve common characteristics.

Slaves with genes for survivng at sea would have had greater survival rates on the way to America, and this would have caused something of a founder effect. The population of slaves that arrived in America would have had a greater proportion of individuals with the genes that aided in surviving the trip over, and this could have theoretically lasted, since slaves in America were essentially reproductively isolated group for at least a couple generations.

There may not be 'races' of the human species, and indeed, there are no significant differences between different populations of humans, but that doesn't mean that certain traits can't be selected for in human populations given the right selection pressures. An entire population being transported across the Atlantic in such a brutal fashion could certainly have put the kind of pressure on a population to significantly select for a paticular trait.
Epidemics of diseases are a good example of pressures that rapidly cause selection for paticular traits. Within the space of a few generations, a population that was once almost completly vulnerable to a disease like smallpox or the plague can become almost entirely resistant to it.
Again though, such rapid selection pressures are limited to a few circumstances, and only cause paticular genes to be selected for. The "races" of the world may have had different selection pressures for a few things since they seperated, but human populations haven't really been seperated for long enough to diverge in any really significant ways.

ziggytrix
Jun 25th, 2005, 10:06 PM
And we're less seperated now than ever. We could certainly do worse as a species than to discard this outdated notion of race and move on.

I really really hope I'm right and the children of multicultural families will have a genetic advantage from being less inbred than "racially homogenous" children. Then people in the South can quit hatin black folk and focus on hatin Northerners.

Emu
Jun 25th, 2005, 10:08 PM
I think the Southern logic goes that if you have two copies of the same gene, it must work twice as well, right?!

Abcdxxxx
Jun 29th, 2005, 03:08 AM
I think I'm still missing the legtimacy of that sea salt theory. Slave trade Africans didn't spend entire generations on ships, to my knowledge. The idea that the only ones who had the genetics to survive such conditions can be relegated to one race, rather then the circumstances is a little suspect and fixated on race in it's own way. In order to use this theory to prove race doesn't exist, you still have to seperate the Black Africans somehow.... if not by race, then by some other reason. What reason? Time at sea exposed to salt air, with little nourishment, and brutal conditions? That aspect of the story isn't unique at all to history.

Wouldn't this mean the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock would have this exact gene? Who else traveled by boat? Maybe it's not the salt air after all...maybe it's a gene procurred through survivors of extreme conditions when shackles are involved? Ahh! Don't make me get out my Viking novels!

Zhukov
Jun 29th, 2005, 11:55 AM
Australians are good at sports... like negroes!

They both got shipped around in boats!!

theapportioner
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:37 AM
I guess I should've written more clearly - what I meant to say is that according to the hypothesis, Africans who were better able to retain salt - and thus water - had a better chance of surviving the journey across the Atlantic. I made a flippant comment about "saltier" Africans, and it didn't occur to me that the "salt" in this case could be misconstrued as sea salt. My bad.

theapportioner
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:58 AM
It's a bit odd that so many people are so willing to denounce any and every theory that dares to propose a link between biology (usually but not always taken to mean genes) and race, or intelligence. I guess people are afraid of eugenics, slippery slopes and all that, but let's test the theories first.

Helm
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:19 AM
Personally not afraid at all. Just that I don't think 'intelligence' as as easily quantifiable as is say, stamina or physical strength.

Big Papa Goat
Jul 4th, 2005, 09:00 PM
I think I'm still missing the legtimacy of that sea salt theory. Slave trade Africans didn't spend entire generations on ships, to my knowledge. The idea that the only ones who had the genetics to survive such conditions can be relegated to one race, rather then the circumstances is a little suspect and fixated on race in it's own way. In order to use this theory to prove race doesn't exist, you still have to seperate the Black Africans somehow.... if not by race, then by some other reason. What reason? Time at sea exposed to salt air, with little nourishment, and brutal conditions? That aspect of the story isn't unique at all to history.

Wouldn't this mean the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock would have this exact gene? Who else traveled by boat? Maybe it's not the salt air after all...maybe it's a gene procurred through survivors of extreme conditions when shackles are involved? Ahh! Don't make me get out my Viking novels!

All's I'm saying is that it's a plausible explanation for a genetic tendency in african americans to retain salt, if such gene is indeed prevalent. It's really only incidentally a racial thing though, since the selection would have happened to African slaves, which may not have had a paticular prevalence of salty genes. And they wouldn't have needed to have spent several generations on the ships, since several generations of African Americans would have been descended directly from slaves who were on the slave ships. The slaves that came off the ships could plausibly have experienced very heavy selection pressures for certain genes. I'm not sure how many Africans died on the slave ships, but unless I'm mistaken, it was a very significant portion, and genes that facilitate survival on a sea journey would be selected for in an exaggerated way.
Let's say that 5 out of 100 slaves possessed some gene for saltiness or whatever else that would aid in survival on a long sea journey. And lets say that on the average trip, 30 out of 100 slaves died at sea, but only 1 of the slaves posessing that given gene. A situation like that would cause the prevalence of that gene in the population to go from 5/100 to 4/70. Let's say that on average, this kind of ratio of survival happens on all the slave ships over the 200 years or whatever of the slave trade. The entire population of Africans in America would have this 4/70 ratio for salty genes in this case, since all the Africans in that population would have experienced the same selection pressure, and they would be a largely isolated population (unless I'm mistaken) for at least several generations. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened, all I'm saying is that it isn't entirely implausible. And again, it's only incidentally a 'racial' thing, since native Africans would have had the same salty gene frequency as any other population. All I'm really saying here is that it's plausible. As for the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock, it's certainly possible that they also experienced similar selection, perhaps if you looked into it you'd see slightly higher levels of salty genes in their population, or any other population of seaborn immigrants. The African situation would probably be exaggerated however, given the higher death rate on the journey.

Abcdxxxx
Jul 5th, 2005, 06:23 PM
uh. well.

the greater point here is that it's incorrect to go around and claim there is no scientific proof of race existing at all, which has been a popular rebutal. what was an open and shut case to many people needs to be argued or at least discussed further. i do think people mix up their understanding of tribes, and races.

i still think it's troubling to discredit the possibility that blacks are distinct by using their time spent in shackles as a unifying trait. that's a bit sick really. Like I said, you're explaining away race by using a racial stereotype. Not all of black american was brought over in extreme conditions. All we know is that Blacks are susceptable of this disease, and nothing specific has proved that only ancestry of African slaves can acquire it. the rest is wishfull thinking.

Sethomas
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:10 AM
The problem with that mode of thinking is that it defeats the purpose of statistics by purporting that anomaly rules. Not all blacks came in shackles, but exactly how many of them do you think flew over here in the Concorde in the twentieth century? You contradict yourself in that you accuse the use of race as a factor when you argue against a point that reflects specifically genetic bloodlines, not race. The difference is that the case of blacks in shackles would be no different than had whites or asians or whatever been brought over under the same conditions and for some reason retained homogeneous breeding. It's slightly different in that blacks (as a millennia-old bloodline, NOT a race) have adaptations against malaria that result in sickle-cell anemia, which could alter in some way their development in the New World.

Big Papa Goat
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:29 PM
I don't really think that 'races' exist if that's what you're wondering abcdxxx. Nothing I said really had anything to do with that question anyway. If everyone on the slave ships were different 'races' or were taken from different populations (which they may well have been) and were subsequently reproductively isolated to a relatively large degree, the same kind of gene frequency changes would have occured.
Basically, what sethomas said.

Abcdxxxx
Jul 7th, 2005, 07:23 AM
You contradict yourself in that you accuse the use of race as a factor when you argue against a point that reflects specifically genetic bloodlines, not race.

When we reference slavery, we're speaking of "race", not genetic bloodlines. There is no genetic bloodline that evolved as a result of Slavery, just like there's no genetic bloodline that evolved from life in Auschwitz. What you're inadvertantly saying is that slavery created a race of people with genetic ties where they had never been previously. That's a little scary sounding coming from white bread America. Even so, if race is merely a construct that alters itself genetically based on experience, then at what point do we consider this constructed race a legitemate race? 500 years?

Anyway, I'm not qualified to argue genetic biology, and I'll be the first to admit it.... but I got trapped at a dinner party about a year ago with someone who was researching these race specific drugs for a trade publication, and I played devils advocate with her for a while.... contrary to what you're saying, there is a scientific field opening up of scientists who are exploring race specific medicine, specifically because they do not believe race is a construct. I'm not equipped to defend the merit of these studies, but when I did try and pose various questions about these genes developing as a result of persecution, climate, location, diet, lifestyle, etc. there were strong deductive reasonings for why these had been ruled out.

Sethomas
Jul 7th, 2005, 07:51 AM
I'm not qualified to argue genetic biology

I noticed.

First of all, it seems like you have a backwards understanding of what we mean by "bloodlines" and "race". A bloodline simply refers to a population that for whatever reason has for the most part had isolated reproduction, id est, its members tend to breed only amongst themselves. A bloodline could be established within a few decades, or through what is known as a "genetic bottleneck", it could be established in a single generation.

In biological terms "race" refers to the level of genetic diversity among members of the same species who can all produce viable, fertile offspring with any of the others. There is a huge amount of diversity in human phenotypes, sure, but at the genetic level we're all almost exactly the same. When biologists took a serious look at race in comparison to all other organisms, it became quite apparent that humans are quite surprisingly homogeneous. Sure, a Bantu looks a hell of a lot different than an Inuit, but the difference is insignificant than say comparing an irish wolfhound to a chihuahua. Humans simply lack the genetic diversity of other organisms that leads to a cogent understanding of "race".

Bloodlines, however, do exist. Chemical underpinnings of human populations varies extremely from region to region. They also vary greatly by what common convention holds erroneously to be "race", such as from Black to Hebrew to Korean to Aryan. This can reflect regional evolutionary factors, such as malanin distribution or sickle-cells in blacks, or increased lung capacity in the Inca, or short body stature in the Inuits, et cetera blah blah. At dinner tonight my sister was talking about how when she was studying the liver in med school, she was tought that Asians produce a certain enzyme in lesser quantities than the world norm and consequently have a lower alcohol threshold. I don't see any immediate evolutionary benefit to that, but hey, it seems to be true.

So you can't ask how long it takes for a "race" to be established, because humans have only been around for 100,000 or so years, and have only moved out of Africa for about the past 40 millennia. There is no genetic race because we genetic bloodlines have had neither the time nor the impetus to diversify away from the norm. For example, there's a common belief that the more chromosomes a species has, the more "evolved" it is. Humans have only a few dozen, coming from mammals who evolved less than 100 million years ago. Ferns, I believe, have several hundred chromosomes, reflecting the fact that they have been around since probably before the Triassic.

So, yeah. No race, just bloodlines.

Abcdxxxx
Jul 8th, 2005, 08:35 AM
Or in colloquial terms : race.

theapportioner
Jul 8th, 2005, 01:26 PM
Here's an article about the debate on BiDil, and race-based pharm generally.

http://www.nyu.edu/nyutoday/archives/18/11R/Stories/faculty-debate.html

ziggytrix
Jul 8th, 2005, 02:41 PM
The point: “Race is an approximation,” Greene says. “The eventual goal is to have individually designed drugs.”

theapportioner
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:11 PM
Even so, that's a significant concession from "race is genetically irrelevant" - in certain cases it is clinically relevant, w.r.t. tendencies for certain diseases and pharmacological responsiveness, and so on.

ziggytrix
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Even so, that's a significant concession from "race is genetically irrelevant"

Well, that's just a semantics arguement anyway. We're bickering over misuse of the words race, species, bloodline, whatnot. I'm sure whatever genetic sequence that makes certain blacks prone to sickle-cell actually has nothing to do with the sequence that makes them dark-skinned.

What I'm driving at, is that when they make a black man's drug, it's not actually going to target people with dark skin, but rather people predisposed to sickle cell anemia, or some such genetic condition.

theapportioner
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:45 PM
You're not appreciating the realities of how medicine is practiced. A patient comes in to the doctor's office for the first time, complaining of whatever, and the doctor only has 15 minutes to devote to an interview. You may have to take into account the person's race, along with all other details of the patient's history, in order to prescribe the right drug, at the right dosages. In effect, the doctor has stereotype the patient along the lines of race.

ziggytrix
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:50 AM
Perhaps, but even the specific drug mentioned in your article was tailored to 'nitric-oxide deficiency' not 'blackness.' I'm curious just how much more prevalent this nitric-oxide deficiency is in black heart-failure patients.


What researchers are looking for in such studies are certain genes that tend to mutate more than others. Some of these so-called polymorphisms -- such as the one related to prostate cancer risk in Tobagoan men -- arguably have an effect on health and how people respond to medications.

But Graves said biomedical researchers need to take greater care in analyzing this data. In his book, he questions whether the prostate cancer polymorphism is truly the indicator that some researchers have suggested. That particular polymorphism can vary in length -- men with long versions are thought to be at increased risk for the cancer. The definition of long and short is arbitrary. Depending on what cutoff is used, he said, the frequency of the long form isn't necessarily much greater in black Americans than it is in whites.

On the other hand, Graves is persuaded that differences in the frequency of another mutation -- the CCR5 gene -- might help explain why there are more people of European as compared to African descent who are resistant to the AIDS virus.

The CCR5 mutation increases the resistance to infection by the human immunodeficiency virus and is much more common in people of European descent.

At the same time, non-genetic factors -- principally the lack of male circumcision and an associated greater prevalence of chanchroid sores -- play important roles in the spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, he added.

Differences in the frequencies of certain polymorphisms also can affect how people respond to medications, said Dr. Bruce Pollock, chief of geriatrics and neuropsychiatry in the Pitt psychiatry department.

For instance, African Americans seem to have a higher frequency of one mutation that reduces the liver's ability to break down certain tricyclic antidepressant drugs, so they are more likely than their white counterparts to suffer side effects. Blacks also have a higher frequency of a mutation that increases the speed at which a newer class of antidepressants, such as Prozac, take effect.

But none of these mutations are specific to one race and it is only their frequency that varies, Pollock emphasized.

"Nobody would make clinical decisions based on a racial profile," he said. "Race is a very crude predictor of any sort of differential response to medication."

About 8 percent of whites carry a mutation that would cause trouble with warfarin, a blood-thinning drug, compared to 2 or 3 percent of blacks. It's a difference that might be noticeable across populations, but isn't of much use in treating an individual. "I don't think you'd be less vigilant [for side effects] in this case," he added.

Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that African Americans with heart failure were less likely than whites to benefit from a type of drug known as an ACE inhibitor.

And a Massachusetts company has developed a drug called BiDil -- actually a combination of existing medications -- which it says is designed specifically for black heart patients.

But Dr. Alastair J.J. Wood, a pharmacologist at Vanderbilt University, said the variation between members of a race makes it impossible to use race as the basis for tailoring drug therapies.

"If Chinese people were, on average, smaller than Caucasians, that doesn't help you in selecting a shirt size for a Chinese man," he observed.


http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20020507hgene0507p3.asp