The resources presented in this digital archive all pertain to how racial boundaries are defined, exploring the overall question of whether or not race has a biological or genetic foundation. In creating this digital archive, we aimed to present a wide variety of resources geared towards different age groups and demographics: third graders, adults with no science background, and Molecular Biology majors. These sources present a wide variety of information, from unpacking what race means to detailed biological studies on the genetic variance between different racial groups. These sources also provide a spectrum of opinions on this topic, including some that contend that race is biologically based and others that strongly refute this idea. Though the resources included in this digital archive differ in their mediums, scope, opinion, and target audience, they all connect to illustrate that race has no biological foundation and is socially constructed.
The Stick Figure Race Game that we designed for our presentation relies on audience participation to demonstrate a concept that is applicable to human populations. By having participants draw stick figures, we utilize the natural variations in the way people imagine a stick figure. These variations allow us to pick certain shared traits that could define a stick figure race, but the variations also show that each person has a unique artistic style. The game illustrates the greater number of differences between individuals, compared to the number of differences between groups. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations” by Witherspoon et al. also explores this concept, though the paper uses allele frequencies and statistical analysis rather than stick figures to support its claims. The paper explains how different categorizations of multilocus data sets affect the ability to classify individuals into geographic populations; however, the authors conclude that this further supports the vast genetic variation within populations. When creating our game, we wanted to communicate our topic effectively, while also making the conclusion clear enough for a young, non-scientific audience. Reading Witherspoon et al.’s paper and coming to the same conclusion was satisfying because we had managed to transform a complex, scientific idea into a game. The paper builds upon our game’s simple idea of variation between populations with raw data, genetic analysis, and scientific discussion of the results. However, at their core, both of these works conclude that race cannot be solely based upon human genetic variation by emphasizing the greater variation between individuals than between populations.
Julian Lester’s children’s book, Let’s Talk About Race, explores the concept of race through a simple narrative and vibrant images. He asks his audience about things that add to their own individual stories, stressing that no group’s story is better than one of another group and highlighting that a person's identity is much more than just their race. Brooklyn McTavish’s photo series, The Sum of Some of Us, also uses images to convey the complexity of race and culture, focusing on how one's genes can inform their identity. Both of these works rely on art to expand upon the themes they address; while Lester’s book uses creative illustrations to emphasize an individual’s unique features, McTavish’s portraits use clothing from each subject’s cultures to celebrate their heritage. The visual elements of both works are essential, but they are clearly tailored to different audiences. Let’s Talk About Race points out other traits that make up a person—family, favorite food, nationality, hobbies—and ends with the straightforward message that people are much more than their appearance. The Sum of Some of Us, as a photo series, depends on appearance, but it also asks the viewer to think beyond the images in a way that Lester’s younger target audience might not understand. McTavish incorporates DNA analysis, a more complicated concept, to build upon the themes presented in Lester's book and add quantitative importance to each individual’s set of portraits that showcase their genetic backgrounds. The unique cultural and biological compositions of each person is a deeper reflection of Lester’s message, illustrating how science can inform identity. These two artistic pieces are both intended for non-scientific audiences, yet they each have specific approaches to discussing the importance of race and build upon one another to emphasize the complexity--both scientific and non-scientific--of identity.
Connections between two scientific articles can also be drawn even if the two studies have vastly different conclusions. In 2009, Bock et al. explored the reason behind the discrepancy in prostate cancer incidence between white and Black men. This study found that the 60% increase in prostate cancer incidence between these two groups can be attributed to a location in the genome with 2.8% more African-ancestry associations than the average. Bock et al. also found that this region also contained seven independent prostate cancer risk factors. Tishkoff and Kidd, however, illustrate that this conclusion may not fully account for other factors that can influence disease incidence in a given population. Tishkoff and Kidd contend that there is an increased need to characterize other factors that can create more genetic variation within a population, highlighting the fact that extensive gene flow among African populations created highly heterogeneous populations. This obscures the argument that a single region of the genome indicating African ancestry is responsible for the increased incidence of prostate cancer. Tishkoff and Kidd also state that undetected population structure in case-control association studies can result in false positive association and explain how environmental factors can contribute to disease, factors which Bock et al. failed to address. Though Bock et al. and Tishkoff and Kidd come to different conclusions regarding the relationship between race and disease incidence, they work together to provide a more holistic image of how genetic data regarding race should be interpreted. Additionally, these two studies illustrate that other factors, including the environment, must be considered before a claim regarding a genetic basis to racial difference can be made.
The digital archive created for Defining Boundaries chronicles a wide variety of resources intended for a range of audiences: third graders, adults with no science background, and Molecular Biology majors. Despite the different audiences, connections between pieces with different target demographics and with varying degrees of scientific focus can be drawn. A stick figure game can be connected with a scientific article based on the way they illustrate the genetic variance between individuals and populations; a children’s book can be connected with an art exhibit based on the way they use visuals to represent differences; and two scientific studies can be connected through their critical examination and communication of genetic differences between races. Together, the resources compiled in our digital archive illustrate that while there may be genetic variance between populations, these differences are not sufficient to define a race.