A symposium called "Genetics and
 the Human Genome Project: Where
 Scientific and Public Cultures Meet"
 was organized by Joan H Fujimura and
 held at Stanford U on November 3 and
 4. The first day was devoted principally
 to the Human Genome Diversity Proj-
 ect, and the second to the Human
 Genome Project and its attendant
 issues.
   Speaking on behalf of the HGDP
 were lawyer Hank Greely (Stanford),
 geneticist Kenneth Kidd (Yale), and
 anthropologist John Moore (Florida).
 Of these, Moore's talk was the most
 unfamiliar to followers of HGDP pub-
 licity.  Moore emphasized the ephemer-
 ality and cultural basis of ethnic classi-
 fications, in defiance of the overall
 sampling strategy of the project, but
 nevertheless concluded that the HGDP
 would be able to solve significant ques-
 tions of human biological history.
 Moore's criticism was cast in bold
 relief when the next speaker, geneticist
 Frank Dukepoo (Northern Arizona),
 was introduced as "a full-blooded
 Hopi" -- and Dukepoo proceeded to
 explain that his mother is Laguna, and
 that his genetic ancestry is actually
 considerably more motley than a sim-
 ple cultural designation would lead one
 to believe.
    No one, interestingly enough, raised
 the recent Nature editorial (377:183,
 1995), which had made a startling rec-
 ommendation.  "With physical anthro-
 pology under a cloud for its habit of
 using measurable skeletal indices as
 proxies for less tangible attributes (cra-
 nial capacity as a measure of intelli-
 gence, for example), it would be better
 to invest what goodwill there is in
 some quite different field. The Human
 Genome Diversity Project is already
 battling to win the consent of distinc-
 tive racial groups to schemes for col-
 lecting and analysing DNA."  When the
 leading science journal in the world
 recommends the reinvestment of good-
 will from physical anthropology to the
 HGDP, it should be taken as a very
 ominous portent, especially since the
 same arguments for the reinvestment of
 "goodwill" will hold for the reinvest-
 ment of "federal funding" and anything
 else.
    Nature was obliged to modify its
 position the following week (377:372,
 1995), when the HGDP was roundly
 rebuffed by UNESCO's ethics board
 (377:373, 1995).  A subsequent letter
 (from your humble correspondent) also
 noted that Nature's characterization of
 physical anthropology does not seem to
 have been influenced by any develop-
 ments since the last world war
 (377:570, 1995).
     At any rate, at the Stanford meeting,
 I spoke generally about the implica-
 tions of the history of American genet-
 ics. and more specifically about genet-
 ics providing scientific justifications
 for "folk" views of social issues.  The
 HGDP fits nicely into this mold,
 reflecting the conceptions of anthropol-
 ogy as seen by molecular population
 geneticists.  Anthropologists were
 added only as an afterthought, with the
 promise of a ride on the gravy train --
 and the field has not been able to influ-
 ence the fundamental policies of the
 HGDP substantially.  This obviously
 bodes poorly for the intellectual
 integrity of the project, and for the
 advancement of anthropology thereby.
   Hank Greely agreed that the
 HGDP's problems have been largely
 their own fault, but objected that the
 quotations I was displaying and criti-
 cizing from their published corpus
 were outdated, some going as far back
 as 1990-91.  Apparently the publica-
 tions and proclamations of the HGDP
 are not intended to have a particularly
 lengthy shelf life.
   Much of the discussion centered
 around the natural and culturally con-
 structed variation in the human
 species -- the relationship between bio-
 logical demes and social races-which
 had been raised as well by other speak-
 ers: Troy Duster (Berkeley), Eric
 Juengst (Case Western) and Renato
 Rosaldo (Stanford).
   The second day was devoted to "the
homosexuality gene" and other issues
generally relating to genetics in Ameri-
can society.  Dean Hamer (NIH) pre-
sented his work on the greater-than-
random association of homosexual
male sib-pairs with a set of genetic
markers on chromosomal region Xq28.
Neil Risch (Stanford) proceeded to
demonstrate that the association was
not significantly different from ran-
dom, being instead the result of the
greater-than-random exclusion of sib-
ships that did not fit the expectations.
Janet Halley (Stanford) also raised
political and legal issues surrounding
the potential hard wiring of sexual ori-
entation.
   David Cox (Stanford) explained the
significance of the 5% of the HGP's
budget devoted to ELSI -- ethical, legal
and social implications of the Human
Genome Project. Paul Billings (Stan-
ford) discussed inequities of health
insurance stemming from genotypic
information.  By the afternoon, the
paradigmatic example had shifted from
the "homosexuality gene' -- which may
or may not exist -- to BRCAI, a "breast
cancer susceptibility gene" which does
exist, and whose issues were detailed
by Nancy Press (Irvine)
  The final talk was also  the most
provocative, by sociologist Barbara
Katz Rothman (CUNY), who raised the
question most people have shied away
from: Why, in an era of austerity, is the
Human Genome Project virtually the
only contemporary scientific endeavor
not feeling the pinch?