Outram Simon M, Ellison George T H
St George's, University of London, UK.
J Biosoc Sci. 2006 Jan;38(1):83-102. doi: 10.1017/S0021932005000921. Epub 2005 Nov 3.
Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore genetic contributions to disparities in health were developed using in-depth qualitative interviews with editorial staff from nineteen genetics journals, focusing on the methodological and conceptual mechanisms required to make race/ethnicity a genetic variable. As such, these analyses explore how and why race/ethnicity comes to be used in the context of genetic research, set against the background of continuing critiques from anthropology and related human sciences that focus on the social construction, structural correlates and limited genetic validity of racial/ethnic categories. The analyses demonstrate how these critiques have failed to engage geneticists, and how geneticists use a range of essentially cultural devices to protect and separate their use of race/ethnicity as a genetic construct from its use as a societal and social science resource. Given its multidisciplinary, biosocial nature and the cultural gaze of its ethnographic methodologies, anthropology is well placed to explore the cultural separation of science and society, and of natural and social science disciplines. Anthropological insights into the use of race/ethnicity to explore disparities in health suggest that moving beyond genetic explanations of innate difference might benefit from a more even-handed critique of how both the natural and social sciences tend to essentialize selective elements of race/ethnicity. Drawing on the example of HIV/AIDS, this paper demonstrates how public health has been undermined by the use of race/ethnicity as an analytical variable, both as a cipher for innate genetic differences in susceptibility and response to treatment, and in its use to identify 'core groups' at greater risk of becoming infected and infecting others. Clearly, a tendency for biological reductionism can place many biomedical issues beyond the scope of public health interventions, while socio-cultural essentialization has tended to stigmatize 'unhealthy behaviours' and the communities where these are more prevalent.
通过对19种遗传学杂志的编辑人员进行深入的定性访谈,得出了关于利用种族/族裔来探究健康差异的遗传因素的人类学见解,重点关注使种族/族裔成为遗传变量所需的方法和概念机制。因此,这些分析探讨了在遗传学研究背景下种族/族裔如何以及为何被使用,其背景是人类学和相关人文科学持续的批评,这些批评聚焦于种族/族裔类别的社会建构、结构关联以及有限的遗传有效性。分析表明这些批评未能引起遗传学家的关注,以及遗传学家如何使用一系列本质上属于文化手段来保护和区分他们将种族/族裔用作遗传结构与用作社会及社会科学资源的不同用途。鉴于其多学科、生物社会性质以及人种志方法的文化视角,人类学非常适合探索科学与社会、自然科学与社会科学学科之间的文化分离。关于利用种族/族裔来探究健康差异的人类学见解表明,超越对先天差异的遗传学解释可能受益于对自然科学和社会科学如何倾向于将种族/族裔的某些选择性元素本质化进行更公正的批评。以艾滋病毒/艾滋病为例,本文展示了将种族/族裔用作分析变量如何损害了公共卫生,这既体现在将其作为易感性和治疗反应中先天遗传差异的密码,也体现在用其来识别更易感染和传播给他人的“核心群体”。显然,生物还原论的倾向可能使许多生物医学问题超出公共卫生干预的范围,而社会文化本质化则往往使“不健康行为”以及这些行为更为普遍的社区受到污名化。