DNA...verifies humans are not all equal?

New DNA research has raised a controversy.

It all started when scientists identified small changes in DNA that account for pale skin in Europeans, a tendency for Asians to sweat less, and a West African ability to resist disease.

DNA can also reveal what percentage of genes are from Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Because of established theories on tendencies towards afflictions based on genes, a heart drug (BiDil) was marketed for Afro-Americans who appeared to be predisposed to specific ailments of the organ.

Likewise, Jews were offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

The studies worry some!

Social critics fear racial prejudices may arise as a result.

The idea that humans are no different from each other - except by skin tone - appears to be evaporating.

So, some say the idea of equality may disintegrate as well.

"We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology and have to be careful," noted - Henry Louis Gates Jr. - the Director of W.E.B. at Du Bois Institute for African and American Research at Harvard University.

There is a fine line between using the data constructively and abusing it, according to Gates.

Non-scientists investigating the issues speculate explosive conclusions are bound to follow on the heels of the historically charged subject of race and intelligence determined from the biological data.

One study, for instance, linked bits of DNA to High IQ.

And, to the disappointment of some, the traces were determined to reside in Europeans and Asians specifically.

However, scientists may be jumping the gun.

The researcher at Half Sigma Blog - who put forth the theories at an early stage of the game - has been accused of "rushing to an egalitarian stance that all races are equal is false."

No matter, in my estimation, co-factors - such as environment, child rearing and nurturing (or the lack thereof) - are important influences to consider as well.

Though a few bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet to be tied to physical or behaviour traits, scientists allege that roughly ten percent of them are more common in certain continental groups and can be used to distinguish people of different races.

Studying the data is not only important, they say, but crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.

Hold on, now!

Many geneticists, concerned about possible discrimination, are worried that openly discussing race could endanger support for their research.

Understandably, those individuals are afraid to discuss the social implications of the findings.

It's a delicate subject, many some scientists warn.

"There are clear differences between people of continental ancestries," said Marcus W. Feldman (Professor of Biological sciences at Standford University).

"It's not there yet for things like IQ, but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining the findings better," he added firmly.

For some, the path to take is obvious.

Renata McGriff - a fifty-two year old health care consultant who previously had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists - has changed her stance lately.

Until its clear that the science is not going to be used to validate prejudices, she is going to opt out of genetic research.

"I don't want the children in my family to be born thinking they are less than someone else based on their DNA," added Ms. McGriff.

So, do we hide our heads in the sand?

Speaking of sand, Dr. Clark (a retired neonatologist in Kansas) went on record about the issue.

"When was the last time a non-black sprinter won the Olympic 100 meters? To say that such differences aren't real," Dr. Clark noted in an interview, "is to stick your head in the sand and go blah blah blah until the band marches by."

His point?

Maybe it's time we wore our genes with pride - stone-washed, tie-dyed - whatever!