I wonder if there's going to be more race-based medicine. For example, some ethnic groups are more prone to keloid scarring.
So you're in favor of race-based pharmaceutical development? I'm divided. On one hand, it's good to see science recognizing race. I can't stand social taboos supported with pseudoscience. On the other hand, saving more lives isn't part of my agenda. We've got more frickin humans than we could eat in 10,000 lifetimes. And for what? They're not getting any brighter, nicer, wiser or stronger. EAT AN EXCESS HUMAN TODAY
Did I say that? The subject is controversial but it generally agreed with by most geneticists that races as they are commonly classified are invalid genetically. Science does not recognize race, at least not the ones your familiar with.
If there was a chance in hell that there was some genetic consistency in the region my parents hail from (southern Italy), I would very much love to hear all about medical treatments/approaches (incl. holistic) that treat any illnesses especially prevalent in that area. Unfortunately, southern Italy has been invaded and colonized by just about every "race" throughout known history, and so my own genes are a mish-mash at best. If there were more consistency in the gene pool, I think it would be awesome to target known/likely weaknesses with specific treatmetns. Anywho, why the f*ck am I going on about myself... My point is, race-specific medicine -- why the HELL not, if it's based on valid assumptions/theories, if it'll help even one person?
why not genetic aliment specific medicine? It is far more accurate. Take your case for example (I’m half Italian by the way) why try to figure out your ancestry and make very rough guesses of your genetic conditions when we could just test you to see what precisely you have going wrong?
That will be the preferred option when we figure out exactly which alleles are making us more or less susceptible to the effects of each particular drug. Until then, dividing people into groups that are statistically more or less likely to benefit from a given drug is an improvement over assigning the drug randomly, don't you think?
hypatia, It still very limited in what can be guess, only rough statistical likely hoods can be surmised, unless we can define you to a much smaller group then just black or white.
otheadp: Americans are insane... they're going to politicize THAT? a life saving medicine? ************* M*W: otheadp, I don't see it as "politicizing" at all. It's a well-known fact in the medical field that medications were created for white men. Even the study of cardiopathy in women has only been recently addressed. Different sexes often require different medications because, for example, due to the hormonal influences. More recently bioscientists have singled out the Hispanic population to study hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. In Blacks, they have been singled out because of sickle cell anemia, and studies have been directed at that population. They are also at higher risk than Caucasians and Hispanics for heart disease and stroke. It's truly not "politicizing" health care -- it's reaching out to the under-studied populations. For example, prostate cancer is almost never found in Japanese men, and that's attributed to their rice diets. Heart disease in high Italian populations have lower incidence of heart disease because of the olive oil (Mediterranean diet). Native Americans have their own specific problems as do other groups. I believe they are advertising these differences because they want to get the word out to the high-risk populations, and that's a good thing.
ElectricFetus: But all of medicine is based on statistical likelihoods. While the current trend for 'evidence-based medicine' is recent, throughout its history medicine has been making educated guesses on the basis of what's been seen before. It's not just about race. When your doctor prescribes a therapy for you, he will have in mind your age, gender, weight, occupation, and lifestyle, all of which will affect your likelihood of responding well or poorly to a particular therapy. But let's take a race-based example anyway. Asians are far more likely than Caucasians to have the low-activity alleles of Phase I liver metabolic enzymes. For example, the frequency of a low-functioning allele of CYP2C19 is around 2% in Caucasian populations, but 61% among Polynesians. That means that if you just give everyone the recommended Caucasian dose of a drug that is metabolized by CYP2C19, six out of every ten people of Polynesian descent you treat will get an OD. Now, obviously it makes the most sense to just test everyone. But labs often take days to come back. Suppose you have a patient who is in refractory status epilepticus, and you want to give him phenobarbital (a conventional therapy for RSE whose metabolism is controlled by CYP2C19) to stop his seizures. You have to do this *now*; you don't have three days to wait and see if he has a PM allele of CYP2C19. Don't you think it makes sense to skip the phenobarb and try something else first if he happens to be Polynesian? Or should we ignore the information we have because it is 'only statistically' relevant?
Please address the following: New research casts doubt on the widely accepted belief that humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical. That statement has been used to argue that race isn't real. http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/040908_race.htm
android, The races such a black and white do not exist genetically what exists genetically is a far more complex and convoluted mapping of humans. I have mentioned this before, I’m not disagreeing that people can be classified by genetic enactory into groups, I’m arguing the common classifications of race are outdated and inaccurate system. Nor am I arguing against guessing the likelihood of conditions based on ethnic ancestry, I simply saying that there are more accurate systems.
Besides, "race" is not a biologically significant taxon as "species" is. However it is very likely to subcategorize according to certain allels, but the significance is doubtful for a general classification. One can for instance catagorize into "lactose tolerant", "sickle cell positive" or something similar, but it would only be signifcant in certain contexts. Usually it is probably mor precise to use the term "population" than "race" as the latter often implies more than wanted.
Depends on the definition of race used. Every argument against it I've seen is a strawman: make up a definition that's arbitrarily strict and argue against it. I'll keep having pride in my heritage, thanks! :m:
I think the point is this: 1) I would be wonderful to give everybody drugs based on what their specific genetic makup calls for. 2) We don't know or have enough to do this. 3) The next best option is playing the odds.If group A has a significant chance of developing B, then treat them for B. Best solution, no... but it may statistically be better than nothing.
And in some cases the error could be lethal. If you assume A and in many cases it was B, then many people got medication that was not helping them. I could go with guessing a treatment based on ethnicity, but not with just assuming it is working because of that ethnicity.
