The Human Genome Diversity
Project
Good for If
Not Good as Anthropology?
By Jonathan Marks (Yale University)
In the
wake of the success achieved by
medical geneticists
in generating interest
and support for the
Human Genome Pro-
ject, population
geneticists have begun to
rouse interest in
an offshoot project of con-
siderable significance
to anthropology.
The original
Human Genome Project, as
it happens, was rooted
in an archaic, Platon-
ic view of our species
-- one by which a sin-
glc DNA sequence
can be represented as
human normality and
against which disease
alleles can be contrasted.
This has long
been known to be
a misleading approach to
human genetics-for
what blood group can
be considered normal,
when normal
humans can have A,
B and O? What genes
for noses are normal,
when humans may
have broad or narrow,
long or flat, straight
or curved, pointed
or bulbous ones?
The Human
Genome Diversity Project
(HGDP), by contrast,
seeks to understand
the genetic variation
of the human species
by sampling the DNA
of human popula-
tions, preserving
their cell lines and allow-
ing future generations
of geneticists to
study them.
Genetically trained anthropolo-
gists have been retrieving
blood samples
from the field for
generations, of course
(since Carleton Coon
first drew blood from
the Rif in Morocco
in the 1920s), but there
has never been a
large-scale, publicly visi-
ble, highly funded
"Project" permitting
them -- indeed bidding
them -- to do so.
With
an extraordinary publicity machine
behind it (4 write-ups
in Science to date, for
example), the Project
geared up to load its
syringes with the
blood of their targets, the
exotic peoples of
the world. But it ran into
problems almost immediately.
The HGDP,
as it turned out,
had been conceived,
designed and organized
by molecular popu-
lation geneticists
with largely a folk knowl-
edge of anthropology.
It was the equivalent
of teenagers trying
to build a cyclotron in
their backyard.
The goal
of establishing a repository of
aboriginal human
genetic samples sounds
reasonable enough.
What rational objec-
tions could anyone
have?
Persons or Specimens?
The initial
major challenge was posed by
spokesmen and activists
on behalf of cer-
tain aboriginal populations.
The proposals
for the HGDP indeed
articulated a concern
for the indigenes
(Genomics 1 1:490-49 1),
but representatives
were neither invited to
the initial planning
sessions or consulted.
This struck observers
as possibly indicative
of a lack of sincere
interest in the communi-
ties donating blood,
as if they were fruit-
flies or nematode
worms-specimens,
rather than persons.
The alternative
would be to purchase
blood samples from
the organisms them-
selves. But
somewhat more savvy than in
the days when Peter
Minuit could cop Man-
hattan Island for
just $24, the organisms
perceived a classically
exploitative colonial
relationship behind
the Project. One of the
HGDP's frustrated
geneticists was recently
quoted by Discover
magazine: "We're sci-
entists, not politicians"
(Nov 1994.75) -- as
if opening the veins
of the indigenous peo-
ples of the world
might not constitute a sig-
nificantly political
act.
Straddling
the boundary between the sci-
ences and humanities,
anthropology is self-
consciously responsible
to both intellectual
traditions and to
its objects of study. How-
ever intellectually
schismatic the field of
anthropology is today,
the HGDP presents
ideological concerns
to all contemporary
practitioners.
Can the HGDP afford to
undertake colonial
science in a postcolonial
world? Can
anthropology afford to be rep-
resented by the HGDP
if it does? If not,
how can the Project
be decolonialized? Can
the objects of this
study be de-objectified?
Genetic Purity
Other
methodological and basic scientific
issues have been
raised. For example, as
Science dutifully
reported: Led by the
Khoisan, "What these
populations have in
common is that each
has been isolated and
has only rarely --
if ever -- intermixed with
its neighbors" (252-.11614).
This was a faith-
ful representation
of the proposal, which
called for targeting
populations "that have
been isolated for
some time, are likely to be
linguistically and
culturally distinct."
But genetic isolation is a dubious
assumption in anthropology.
This very
point, interestingly,
had been criticized by
anthropologists nearly
half a century earli-
er. Clyde Kluckhohn
could readily docu-
ment extensive intermarriage
between the
Ramah Navajo and
other groups ethnohis-
torically, but geneticists
insisted the group
was genetically pure
(Cold Spring Harb
Sympos Quant Biol
15:401-408).
The insistence on false genetic purity is a
corollary of the
Project's stated primary
goal: To discern
the ultimate microphyloge-
ny of human populations
before population
contact, which they
take to have begun with
Columbus, The
HGDP has a greater interest
in piecing together
the genetic structure of
the world as they
imagine it to have been in
the 1490s, rather
than as it is in the 1990s.
A number of well-known epistemologi-
cal problems, however,
loom large before
this goal – even
for scientists interested in
studying the human
population as it is in
the 1990s.
It is unclear which genetic data
or clustering algorithms
are most appropri-
are for the task:
the same dataset can often
yield very different
trees. Further, the
branching sequence
of the tree reflects
other population
variables than simply
recency of common
ancestry-it reflects as
well patterns of
gene flow and population
structure. The pretense
of genetic purity is a
way of simply defining
one confounding
variable -- gene
flow -- out of existence.
But of course, one doesn't require genet-
ics at all to decide
that the Danes are more
closely related to
the Dutch than to the Iro-
quois. And
the finer details of human bio-
history are far more
difficult to discern
when people are being
sampled according
to culturally constructed
designations. Are
the Thais, for example,
more closely related
to the Cambodians
or to the Laotians?
Given that the forces
that shaped the gene
pool of Southeast
Asia are far older and
more fluid than the
sociopolitical boun-
aries that presently
exist, there may be no
biological answer
to such a biological
sounding question.
it may in fact have no
more of a biological
answer than does the
question of whether
the genes of anthropol-
ogists cluster with
those of a sample of
lawyers or accountants.
Politics of Bodily Fluids
After the first call to action, the HGDP
enlisted some anthropologists
to promote
their cause, and
set out to deemphasize
microphylogeny as
the Project's goal (Evol
Anth 1:80-82).
The new stated goals include
the study of disease
and adaptation.
The problem here is quite simple: The
HGDP does not have
any plans to collect
phenotypes or life-history
data to accompa-
ny the genetic material
they plan to ware-
house. Without
a knowledge of what dis-
case the occupants
of a particular Petri dish
actually contracted,
it seems unlikely that
disease could be
effectively studied by the
HGDP. Indeed,
when the genetics of nasal
form or height is
actually approachable, a
whole new Project
will have to be undertaken
-- for there will
be no phenotypes for
posterity to associate
with the cells this Pro-
ject will have collected.
Further, an issue that has not been much
discussed is informed
consent. What consti-
rules "informed consent"
to those who do
not share our views
of heredity, of the
workings of the body
and of the nature of
blood? Carleton
Coon wrote in 1954 that
"[b]lood-letting
for blood-group analysis
falls into the class
of blood-letting in gener-
al, and evokes the
whole ideology of blood-
brotherhood. the
fear of injury by conta-
gious magic, and
that of ritual condemna-
tion based on the
analogy of menstruation"
(The Story of
Man: 186). Coon, not remem-
bered as being among
the most "politically
correct" anthropologists
of his generation,
knew that it was
no straightforward affair to
coax people out of
their bodily fluids. And
that was when the
difference between con-
sent and coercion
was blurry, and when it
didn't really matter
whether the participants
in a scientific project
understood what was
going on.
Given the daily difficulties of conveying
our scientific ideas
to elite first-world stu-
dents, to take informed
consent seriously
the HGDP will presumably
require exten-
sive input from students
of the "anthropolo-
gy of the body."
They do not seem to have
given it much. thought
up to this point.
The consequences of failing to address
these issues could
conceivably be a "repa-
triation" scenario
a few years hence, in
which laboratories
might be asked to return
their cell repositories
to aboriginal peoples
following the model
presently threatening
to decimate osteological
collections in
American museums.
And in blood cell
lines, the ties to
life and ancestry can be far
stronger than the
(often nebulous, but still
binding) claims laid
on skeletal collections.
And probably most important, for people
whose lifeways and
whose very existence
are jeopardized by
insensitive exploitation,
the preservation
of their cells bespeaks an
almost cynical hereditarianism.
The geneti-
cists seemed to expect
to look people in the
eye and tell them
that their DNA means
more than their customs,
their land, their
traditions and their
lives. And then they
professed surprise
when those people failed
to share those priorities.
Molecular Band-Aid for the Field
One of the strongest arguments in sup-
port of the HGDP
is that it could represent a
pot of "free money"
for anthropologists. On
the other hand, so
might the Pioneer Fund.
The relevant question
is whether in estab-
lishing the HGDP,
the field will be
advanced or intellectually
degraded;
whether it will be
used to support scientific
research programs
of the 19th century or of
the 21st century.
A Human Genome Diversity Project --
the establishment
of a gene research muse-
um -- could be a
signally important resource
for the study of
our species at the genetic
level, and it is
not my intention necessarily
to stop it, not even
to slow it down. but
simply to ensure
that it reflects well upon
the knowledge and
concerns of the contem-
porary discipline
of
anthropology. If it does
not, then it will
represent a major triumph
for anti-intellectualism
and pseudo-science.
An especially noteworthy appeal was
recently made in
an article in the American
Anthropologist
(96:4) where John Moore
attempted to drum
up interest in the HGDP
with the clarion
call that it "ha[s] the poten-
tial to bring the
fields of anthropology back
together again, just
as Boas might have
wanted" (p 941),
This seems, however, to
get it a bit backwards.
Boas was exceeding-
ly skeptical of anthropological
issues being
addressed through
interpretations of genetic
data, as indeed was
Earnest Hooton. For
Boas, geneticists
did not discriminate
between knowledge
and pseudo-knowl-
edge, and applied
both recklessly to issues
of human welfare-as
in the eugenic solu-
tion to social problems
by involuntary ster-
ilization and restricting
immigration, out of
concerns for "germ
plasm." For Hooton,
who supported eugenics,
the geneticists still
made asinine pronouncements,
such as
declaring that Poles
and Chinese were
members of the same
race because they bad
the same ABO blood
group frequencies.
Anthropology Before Genetics
Interestingly, shortly after Moore's arti-
cle invoking Boas
was published, Time
magazine published
an article featuring the
HGDP and its leading
spokesman, geneti-
cist Luca Cavalli-Sforza
(Jan 16, 1995:54-
55). Time reported
in passing that "All
Europeans are thought
to be a hybrid popu-
latiort, with 65%
Asian and 35% African
genes.
For those
who care to view scientific
statements as texts,
there's one for the
books. It is
not even false; it is simply
ridiculous as articulated
-- as if Asians and
Africans were opposites,
homogeneous and
pure, and Europeans
were less so. It repre-
sents classic folk
anthropology and pseudo-
biohistory.
Such public pronouncements do
not provide a compelling
basis for under-
taking the HGDP,
as it is presently consti-
tuted.
it seems
to me that the best way to con-
ceive of the Human
Genome Diversity Pro-
ject is to appreciate
that it will require four
fields of anthropological
knowledge before
it even gets off
the ground.
Remember,
it started with none.
This
endeavor has gradually grown to
include part of one,
(molecular) physical
anthropology.
But the HGDP needs to
reformulate itself
at the most basic levels
before it has the
potential to be much more
than an international
scientific embarrass-
ment as an anthropology
project. Hopefully
its representatives
within the anthropology
community will take
note.
[Marks
is associate professor of anthro-
pology at Yale University,
and is the author
of Human Biodiversity:
Genes, Race and
History (Aldine de
Gruyter, 1995).]