Finally! I get to positively review a book! This one was great. This is the "Human Story Retold Through Our Genes," and the author knows his stuff. Adam Rutherford has a PhD in genetics from the University College, London, and is a television and BBC radio personality. This book talks about human history looked at through the lens of genetics and is accessible, slyly-humorous (as if you couldn't tell from the title), smart, no-nonsense, and unforgiving of charlatanry.
Starting with our development from earlier hominids, the first section goes into some detail about our relationship to other species and subspecies of humans from early history, covers diseases through the perspective of families in the past including some unfortunately inbred royal families, discusses genetic diseases, influences, and how badly these can sometimes be covered not only in the popular press, but also even by science magazines, and it even ventures into the question of 'are humans still evolving?'.
Part one, called 'How we came to be' is split into four sections: Horny and Mobile, the First European Union, These American lands, and When We Were Kings. Part two 'Who We Are Now' is similarly divided into The End of Race, the Most Wondrous Map Ever Produced by Humankind, Fate, A Short introduction to the Future of Humankind. I have to say I disagree with his comments on race.
The popular scientific positions seems to be that the genome is blind to race, but clearly this isn't true, nor should it be because there are health issues tied to genetics and these affect some ethnicities more than others. On top of that, race, as perceived or self described relaly has a lot to do with how we look, and it's the genome decides this: from the color of our eyes and skin, to the type of hair we have, to the shape of our bodies and faces. It therefore can't be blind to race since racial traits are integral to the genome. That does not of course mean the genome can be used for racist purposes. It cannot and it should not, and I do take the author's point when he makes the case, for example, that something like sickle-cell anemia isn't a purely African problem.
I think the real issue is that the author fails to distinguish between race, and ancestry or ethnicity. Race is misleading and can be used as a barrier when there is no justification for using it that way (or any other way). Ancestry is less problematic. You can't put a genome in front of a geneticist and have them say, "This guy was born in Africa" or "This guy is from Scandinavia," because the genome of everyone is so mixed and diverse these days. You can get a good idea of what a person's ancestry is. This is in fact how those genetic genealogy businesses work - but as the author points out, don't ignore that fact that their assertions can be highly misleading.
To pretend that what are considered racial traits somehow are not represented in our genome in any shape or form is also misleading and problematical if we wish to understand disease. African American women for example, tend toward greater bone density than women from other ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean all of them do and so therefore they never need a bone density scan. Genetic detective work in tracking down who is susceptible to certain traits and possible associated health problems is a form of contact tracing when you get right down to it, and we ought to know by now how important that is in preventing illness.
If you're Asian, for example, you have a 1 in 20 chance of having Alpha-Thalassemia. If you're Ashkenazi Jewish, European, French Canadian, or Cajun, you have a 1 in 25 chance of Cystic Fibrosis, but if you're Asian, your chances improve to 1 in 94 for this problem. Sickle Cell isn't exclusive to those of African ethnicity, but at a rate of 1 in 11, it is notably high. These things are not trivial; they're a matter of health and even life or death. It's not something that can be ignored. Neither is it something that should be used for discriminatory purposes. It's just a fact of life.
I do see Rutherford's point though, and In some ways I understand and applaud it, but methinks his attempt to simplify and even erase it were a little misguided. Besides, living in hopes that everyone will see that the genome is supposedly blind to race, and this will curtail racial issues in society is delusional. Sadly, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than genetics to fix that, and fix it we must. But knowing that ancestry is represented in the genome can be of real value, health-wise.
That quibble aside, I did thoroughly enjoy this book, I liked how accessible it was, loved the humor, and appreciated the non-nonsense approach. I fully commend this as a worthy and educational read.
