Dr. James Watson, the age of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist posing here with the original DNA model at the Science Museum in London, once told the Sunday Times newspaper that:      "He was inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who helped discover the molecular structure of DNA in 1953 and who launched the Human Genome Project in 1990, made another breakthrough Thursday, this time as the subject of research. James Watson, 79, became the first person to receive his own personal genome map, a breakdown of his DNA that could show illnesses he's predisposed to contracting...... And we all wonder what and how Dr. Watson must be feeling about his above noted statement about Africans when his personal genome map showed  that Dr. Watson has 16 times the number of “African” genes than the average white European...... And after receiving his own genome map Dr. Watson says: "I think we'll have a healthier and more compassionate world 50 years from now because of the technological advances we are celebrating today." Dr. Watson in around 1953 vED OF HUMAN GENETICS SCINECE  RESEARCH...is it going to be another nuclear bomb to have potential to destroy humanity rather than help.. as Einstein first thought about nuclear science to his dismay when USA dropped first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima-Nagasaki.....  The Human Genome Project has been, the international, publicly financed effort to first identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA. The project, seen as one of history's great scientific milestones, cost $3 billion and was completed in 2003, after 13 years..... St. Paul said to his audience after the crucifying of Jesus: " God made all the different tribes of humans and gave them different languages and different lands to live on....." vED which is the complete corpus of  SCIENCES OF CREATION AND LIFE left for humanity in every vEDik time era of cyclic creation, sustenance and re-creation states that all creations are always created with  their  specific names and forms ... And each name and form has specialized role to play in every specific birth-death journey in a specific time era in a specific domain of existence and with a specific purpose.... And each name and form is also thus given specific powers of Nature to play that specific purpose role..... but is also given free-will to play or not to play the specific purpose role.... And the specific purpose kARm (actions) are to be conducted in the universal operating system called DHARm....for a harmonious and inter-supporting existence of all creation.  This detailed vEDik science knowledge of all of the above facts is also being lost in the present vEDik time era we currently live in called kli-yug....But at the same time the current humanity is desperately trying to re-learn this vEDik knowledge through the current scientific research of all Natural phenomenon on earth and extending beyond earth in the cosmos.... One of the prime movers forecast by vED sciences in kli-yug is the human greed to create and hoard wealth for oneself at any cost....and thus is so true when we look at all the colonization , wars and other human suffering in the name and form of racialism, cultural conflicts, religious conflicts, political-socio-economic  system conflicts....          In order to reflect with an open mind on the saying of Dr. Watson in the left hand column in light of the knowledge laid out above please continue reading on the next page by clicking on the next line....The news article you will read is expected to make you wonder how badly this humanity need to develop strategies to help ensure that the tremendous social benefits that seem likely to flow from genetic research are not tarnished by old prejudices such as that of Dr. Watson...especially for forgetting that Dr. Watson can be called the father of modern genetics science with his discovery of DNA some fifty yearly ago....

Genesis of neo-racism..... Biogenetics discoveries about race-specific idiosyncrasies have a dark side Edmonton Journal: December 22, 2007: Timothy Caufield After decades in decline, it seems the biology of “race” is big news again. In September of this year Nobel Prize winner, James Watson, made outrageous claims about the genetic inferiority of Africans. Just last week, in a wonderfully ironic spin, we learn that Dr. Watson has 16 times the number of “African” genes than the average white European. Recently published research on the speed of human evolution was quickly spun into a story about racial difference. “Race-based” therapies, such as a heart medication for “blacks,” have been generating headlines about personalized medicine. And commercially available genetic ancestry testing continues to fascinate. Given the profoundly destructive history of the notion, this upswing in the rhetoric around the genetics of race is more than a little troubling. Not only is it often scientifically inaccurate, it might lead to a legitimization of racist attitudes. The vast majority of academics who have considered the issue, be they anthropologist, sociologist or geneticist, view race as a biological fiction — if by “race” we mean those broad social categories that have been used in the Western world for centuries: Black, White and Asian. Indeed, we are a young and very genetically similar species. There is more genetic variation within “races” than between them. So, the available evidence tells us that there are no biologically defined “races.” That said, there is no doubt that there are discrete genetic differences between sub-populations. These differences may have real health and nutritional implications, impacting things like our ability to metabolize certain foods or a particular pharmaceutical. This is why there is so much current research exploring the genetics of difference. But these true differences, which could more accurately be called “genographic variations,” only roughly correspond to the visible characteristics we have come to identify with “races.” Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, has noted that “ ‘Race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are poorly defined terms that serve as flawed surrogates for multiple environmental and genetic factors in disease causation.” Given this reality, why do we see historical racial categories attached to genetics research? First, despite the conceptual problems with the term, race continues to be used in biomedical research. Sometimes this makes sense, as when the goal of the study is to explore health disparities associated with the social construct of race. Other times, however, the term is used with little precision. An interesting study out of Duke University examined 268 genetic studies involving “race” as a research variable. Of these published reports, 72 per cent did not explain their methods for assigning race as an independent variable. Nevertheless, 67 per cent of those studies reached conclusions about genetics, health outcomes and race. Second, the invisible hand of the market will inevitably nudge us toward the use of categories with the most cultural traction and that represents the biggest social groups. So, when genetic research leads to the development of a drug designed for a specific population, the marketing campaign will, naturally, be aimed at a visible racial category as opposed to the more precise sub-population. For example, marketing to “Blacks” is easier than marketing to individuals with Western African ancestry. Of course, race has long been used as a marketing tool for a myriad of products, including tobacco and alcohol. As such, there are already marketing infrastructures available to facilitate race-based marketing in the context of health care. Racial groups are viewed as an untapped market opportunity. T his past September at the first annual meeting of the Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Group there was a session on how to market to specific racial and ethnic groups. The session was titled “When the Ivory Tower goes to the Ebony Hood.” Finally, the media has a natural tendency to simplify complex scientific stories. As one researcher noted, “cebased hypothesis in biomedical research sells. Reporting the nuances underlying group difference does not.” To cite just one example, a piece in the popular magazine Men’s Health had the less-than-subtle title “Race Relations.” The article opens with a provocative claim: “Ask any epidemiologist and he’ll tell you that not all men are created equal. Your race affects your susceptibility to certain diseases.” The article includes a colour-coded chart to allow Caucasians, African Americans, Asians and Latinos to map their health risks. It is not that such stories are entirely inaccurate. But the simplified version of the relationship between race, genetics and disease may mislead the public, inadvertently implying that the traditional racial demarcations are the ones which are biologically significant. When a 2005 Washington Post headline declared “Heart supplement targets Blacks, echoing race-based drug” might there be a subtle message that there is something biologically different between Blacks and others? In fact, a study out of the University of Georgia, exploring this very question, found that “some messages linking race, genes, and health produce increases in racist attitudes in some audiences.” What should we do? As Mark Twain once said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” It will be very difficult to stop those with prejudicial attitudes from twisting the results of genetic research. But those who produce the initial public representations — researchers, marketing entities, and the media — must be encouraged to use “race” and related terms more precisely. We need to get the facts straight, thus diminishing the chance of inappropriate extrapolation. ThThe forces that contribute to a move toward a biological view of race are well entrenched. Indeed, in many ways, this natural gravitation toward biological descriptions is hardly surprising. The idea of race has been a consistent theme of Western culture for centuries. And despite efforts to minimize the biological view, it has always been in the background. r /> Nevertheless, we need to develop strategies to help ensure that the tremendous social benefits that seem likely to flow from genetic research are not tarnished by old prejudices.

There are 0 additional comments.

Send your news items to be posted to news@prajapati-samaj.ca.

If you have any questions or comments about this web site, send mail to Bhavin Mistry.    
© 1997-2003 Prajaapati Vishva Aashram Foundation.    
Site Design by Helios Logistics Inc.