Genetic Shadows

Genetic Shadows
Stacy Shang

Peering into the intersection between science and societal studies, the long shadows cast by historical biases distort our understanding of genetic research in humans and canines alike. Carl Zimmer, in his article “Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research,” discusses a pivotal moment when the National Academies of Science challenged the longstanding usage of racial categories in genetic research, even going as far as to directly advise against this practice. This shift within the scientific community echoes a broader reevaluation of how genetics shapes our understanding of diversity and behavior, a discourse that parallels the contentious debates surrounding dog breeds, particularly those labeled inherently “aggressive.”

Historically, the use of racial categorization in genetics has oscillated between providing insights into human diversity and perpetuating racial stereotypes. Zimmer's exploration into the nuances of genetic studies sheds light on the complexity behind these categories, emphasizing that "racial categories were poor proxies for genetic diversity" and that "social and environmental factors, like poverty and injustice, were often overlooked." This critique mirrors the challenges faced in canine genetics, where specific dog breeds, notably pit bulls, are burdened with stereotypes of inherent aggression. Megan Ekkert's thesis from Western Michigan University in 2017, backed by the WMU Department of Sociology, delves into "breed discrimination" within criminology. She discusses the societal biases against certain dog breeds based on misunderstood genetic attributes. Gökçen Güvenç Bayram, a veterinary faculty member from Dokuz Eylul University in Turkey, discusses a similar concept in her 2023 article, "Understanding canine aggression: Neurobiological insights for a complex behavior." She argues that aggression cannot be solely attributed to genetics, stating, "canine aggression can arise from various medical and non-medical factors," thereby challenging the stigma attached to breeds like pit bulls. This parallels Zimmer's call for a more holistic approach in human genetics, as external factors can be significantly more deterministic in genetic changes than racial or breed differences. 

Zimmer's article and Malcolm Gladwell's discussion in “Troublemakers,” a New Yorker article published in 2006 about the stigmatization of pit bulls, converge on a crucial point: the ethical pitfalls of making genetic assumptions. Both authors critique the oversimplification inherent in attributing behavioral traits to genetics, whether referring to human populations or dog breeds. Gladwell highlights the miscategorization of "pit bulls," a term that blankets multiple related breeds and fails to account for the individuality of mixed-breed dogs. This generalization, as Zimmer would argue, overlooks the complex interplay of genetics, environment, and behavior in shaping traits. Similarly, Güvenç Bayram's research into canine aggression underscores that behaviors often attributed to breed-specific "aggressiveness" are more accurately the result of various factors including upbringing and socialization. These perspectives collectively warn against the dangers of genetic determinism, emphasizing a nuanced understanding that respects the complexities of genetics.

There is an obvious parallel that can be drawn between the profiling of human races and dog breeds. Zimmer mentioned the “hierarchy of scientific racism, with white people at the top.” Notably, it was the “visible traits” that distinguished the “intelligence and morality” of a person, similar to how the pit bull-like traits determined their aggression. This parallel between the historical misuse of genetic studies can be seen in the findings of the American Temperament Test Society, as cited by Gladwell. Just as geneticists in the early 1900s failed to find a uniform genetic identity that could define a human race–instead discovering the rich genetic diversity within African populations–canine behaviorists and temperament testers found a similar diversity within pit bull breeds. Additionally, when put to temperament tests, pit bulls showed an 84% pass rate, demonstrating good temperaments in reaction to stimuli like threatening approaching people, the sound of gunshots, and opening umbrellas. This ranks higher than traditionally loved breeds like beagles and collies, challenging the stereotype poking holes into flawed genetic assumptions. 

Between the crossroads of science and societal perceptions, the insights from Zimmer and reflections on canine genetics guide us toward a future with significantly lessened bias within the genetic space. Joseph Graves, an evolutionary geneticist, notes the potential of recent policies that may free us from these biases: “The strengths are really to help researchers disentangle the social definitions from the biological definitions,” yet he cautions, “The report can work, but it requires people to get behind it.” This statement underlines the necessity for both the scientific community and the public to actively engage in dismantling outdated notions. Stepping past historical biases can allow us to embrace a nuanced understanding of genetics. This requires a commitment to pursuing scientific inquiry with empathy and to no longer give into the reductive narratives that have overshadowed genetic research. 

Works Cited

Ekkert, Megan. “Dog Breed Discrimination in Criminology and Public Knowledge.” Honors Theses, 20 Apr.

    2017, https://doi.org/https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses/2838.

Gladwell, Malcolm. “Troublemakers.” The New Yorker, 29 Jan. 2006. 

Güvenç Bayram, Gökçen, and Zeynep Semen. “Understanding canine aggression: Neurobiological insights for a

    complex behavior.” Journal of Istanbul Veterinary Sciences, vol. 7, no. 2, 31 Aug. 2023, pp. 68–79,

    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.1272983. 

Zimmer, Carl. “Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research.” The New York Times, 14 Mar.

    2023.