On the Genetics of Jewishness

Guest-blogging over at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman asks for reactions to the AEI-sponsored book forum on Jon Entine's new book, Abraham's Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People:

The gist of it is that Jews are a distinct race with distinct DNA developed over 5768 years of culturally urged inbreeding. And that unique DNA is linked to Jewish intelligence--Entine cites statistics that the average IQ for Ashkenazi Jews is 107-115, and 122 for verbal IQ, while the human average is 100.

I thought I'd re-post here my comments:

Because eugenics is a dirty word, people often forget that Galton's usage of the term was entirely positive, such that the notion of a eugenic characteristic redounding to a race could be profoundly positive.

However, as many scholars have noted, the genetic and biological reification of race is deeply problematic. Even though "race" is a scientifically incoherent concept (because in-group variation is greater than between-group variation), much of the biomedical literature and discussion focuses on concepts of genetic linkage, which at least some scholars find troubling (see, e.g., Braun, 2002; Roberts, 2003; Kahn, 2005).

The minute we start Othering persons by virtue of their genes, we set the stage for significant mischief. The history of disability policy in the 20th century alone easily shows this, and the linkage of Jewish identity to genes should be enough to give any serious student of the history of science and research ethics the horribles, frankly. (Which doesn't mean per se that it is inaccurate -- though I absolutely think it is -- but does mean that one ought to think very, very carefully, in an ethically and historically informed manner, about the implications of constructing a notion of identity based on genes).

Not to mention which, the entire concept of "genetic causation" is deeply flawed in public discourse, by scientists and laymen alike, as scholars like Keller and Lewontin in particular have demonstrated time and again. Genes don't cause anything per se; rather, their expression is the product of the behavior of a nonlinear dynamical system, with an untold number of variables and causal factors all interacting in iterative, interrelated fashion. This is in part why the study of epigenetics is a much more interesting field of inquiry than the study of genetics -- the genetic information itself doesn't really matter, because the expression of that information virtually never (with rare monogenic conditions like Huntington's chorea being exceptions) proceeds in a linear, self-determining manner. Kind of Wittgensteinian -- the rule never by itself determines correct applications.

Much more interesting, as Keller notes, is gene action -- how do genes act? And there are a great many social factors implicated in genetic causation that often go completely unmentioned in thinking about notions of genes and identity.

Moreover, what does it mean to be "genetically superior?" Surely not more intelligent, because Cosma Shalizi's excellent post of a few weeks back shows just how weak the argument for g is at this point. The notion that some heretofore mythical g, if found, could be used as a basis to differentiate a "race" is scientifically flawed, and ignores the important notion that race is a socially constructed yet nevertheless "real" category. If Jews were to be more intelligent, the notion of that being "caused" by genes simply does not make any sense, and relies on a linear, reductionist, deeply flawed model of genetic causation. A plethora of environmental and social determinants are a sine qua non for any kind of expressed intelligence.

The fact that Ashkenazi Jews "carry" genetic differences does not imply that we can identify Ashkenazi Jews by virtue of the Tay-Sachs or BRCA mutations, because plenty of Ashkenazi Jews carry neither, and plenty of non-Ashkenazi Jews carry either (the Japanese feature higher rates of Tay-Sachs carriers, for example).

My overarching feeling, then, is that the entire terms of the discussion relied on a notion of genetic causation that is likely to confuse, at the very least. In addition, I think stakeholders would be well advised to weigh carefully the ethical and historical implications of constructing group identity -- particularly Jewish identity -- on the basis of so-called "genetic" differences.

Comments

[Jon Entine]

I'm the author of the book that Daniel Goldberg comments upon. It's always startling to read someone's critique when he/she has NOT read what they are critiquing!

I'm not challenging the points Daniel made about the feedback loop involving genes and the environment. What I find disturbing is his belief that Abraham's Children is reductionist--that it's a polemical argument for reducing identity to genes, Jewish or otherwise.

AC very carefully covers/discusses/debates the issues and concerns that Daniel raises--the nuances of population genetics.

The main thrust of the book -- which does not come through from his post -- focuses on DNA as time machine, to revist the arc of Jewish history to help us understand how ancestry has played a role, along with faith and the concept of a homeland, in shaping the identity of the Israelites and subsequently Jews.

The subtext of the book is a discussion of human biodiversity. We've moved passed the 'kum-ba-ya' stage and into the era of the HapMap--the study of the chunks of DNA, which often vary from population to population, and help us identify diseases and behavioral differences.

This is not reductionist. It would be helpful if we could constructively talk about biodiversity, and its serious public policy and social consequences, without resorting to back of the hand put downs.

Thanks,

Jon Entine
http://www.abrahamschildren.net

[Daniel Goldberg]

Jon,

First off, thanks for commenting. Second, I'd like to make clear that my post was not in any way, shape, or form a review of your book. My book reviews are all collected under the category of "Medical Humanities Bookworm." Rather, this post was a response to Howard Wasserman's characterization of the AEI forum on your book.

I would not review a book I had not read, and since I did not read yours, I am not offering any views on the book per se, but rather on the account of the discussion that went on at the AEI Forum.

Third, I disagree that we've moved beyond the "kum-ba-ya" stage of genetics. Every genetic linkage is breathlessly reported on by the media, and buried down 4 or 5 paragraphs is the almost grudging concession that the linkage is insufficient by itself to establish much of anything, and that therapeutic application -- as with most linkages genetic in nature -- are a long way away.

Fourth, I have no idea whether your book takes a reductionist tack or not. I do maintain that a great deal of the discourse on genes and gene science is premised on a badly confused and reductionist, linear notion of "what genes do," and/or genetic causation. I am hardly the only person to notice this, as social and cultural critics of scientific practice and scientists themselves (most notably Lewontin) have drawn similar conclusions.

Fifth, I have no idea if this is reflected in your book or not, but I absolutely believe that the idea of constructing Jewish identity on the basis of genes is, even if accurate -- which I doubt -- extremely perilous from an ethical and historical perspective.

Finally, I apologize if you felt this post was a "behind-the-back" put-down, though I respectfully disagree since it was not aimed at your book at all, but the perception of genetic causation reflected in Howard Wasserman's account.

[Jon Entine]

Daniel, thanks for your comments and clarifications.

Your key sentence, I believe is this: "I absolutely believe that the idea of constructing Jewish identity on the basis of genes is, even if accurate -- which I doubt -- extremely perilous from an ethical and historical perspective."

In fact, your comment is one of the central themes of the book. To appropriate genes in this fashion is absurd. That said, unlike other major religions, such as Christianity and Islam, Judaism is tribal in origins. It has multiple threads, including faith; the biblical concept of a nation, which is more akin to the modern concept of people; literal land; and blood ancestry. Abraham's Children attempts to examine this rich tapestry.

Jon Entine