The apportionment of citations: a scientometric analysis of Lewontin 1972

Increasing equity in science requires better ethics training: A course by trainees, for trainees

Despite the profound impacts of scientific research, few scientists have received the necessary training to productively discuss the ethical and societal implications of their work. To address this critical gap, we-a group of predominantly human genetics trainees-developed a course on genetics, ethics, and society. We intend for this course to serve as a template for other institutions and scientific disciplines. Our curriculum positions human genetics within its historical and societal context and encourages students to evaluate how societal norms and structures impact the conduct of scientific research. We demonstrate the utility of this course via surveys of enrolled students and provide resources and strategies for others hoping to teach a similar course. We conclude by arguing that if we are to work toward rectifying the inequities and injustices produced by our field, we must first learn to view our own research as impacting and being impacted by society.

Typological thinking in human genomics research contributes to the production and prominence of scientific racism

Public genomic datasets like the 1000 Genomes project (1KGP), Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), and the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study are valuable public resources that facilitate scientific advancements in biology and enhance the scientific and economic impact of federally funded research projects. Regrettably, these datasets have often been developed and studied in ways that propagate outdated racialized and typological thinking, leading to fallacious reasoning among some readers that social and health disparities among the so-called races are due in part to innate biological differences between them. We highlight how this framing has set the stage for the racist exploitation of these datasets in two ways: First, we discuss the use of public biomedical datasets in studies that claim support for innate genetic differences in intelligence and other social outcomes between the groups identified as races. We further highlight recent instances of this which involve unauthorized access, use, and dissemination of public datasets. Second, we discuss the memification, use of simple figures meant for quick dissemination among lay audiences, of population genetic data to argue for a biological basis for purported human racial groups. We close with recommendations for scientists, to preempt the exploitation and misuse of their data, and for funding agencies, to better enforce violations of data use agreements.

The background and legacy of Lewontin's apportionment of human genetic diversity

Lewontin's 1972 article 'The apportionment of human diversity' described a key feature of human genetic diversity that would have profound impacts on conversations regarding genetics and race: the typical genetic locus varies much less between classical human race groupings than one might infer from inspecting the features historically used to define those races, like skin pigmentation. From this, Lewontin concluded: 'Human racial classification … is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' (p. 397). Here, 50 years after the paper's publication, the goal is to understand the origins and legacy of the paper. Aided by insights from published papers and interviews with several of Lewontin's contemporaries, I review the 1972 paper, asking about the intellectual background that led to the publication of the paper, the development of its impact, the critiques of the work and the work's application and limitations today. The hope is that by gaining a clearer understanding of the origin and reasoning of the paper, we might dispel various confusions about the result and sharpen an understanding of the enduring value and insight the result provides. This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity'.

How HLA diversity is apportioned: influence of selection and relevance to transplantation

In his 1972 paper ‘The apportionment of human diversity’, Lewontin showed that, when averaged over loci, genetic diversity is predominantly attributable to differences among individuals within populations. However, selection can alter the apportionment of diversity of specific genes or genomic regions. We examine genetic diversity at the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) loci, located within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region. HLA genes code for proteins that are critical to adaptive immunity and are well-documented targets of balancing selection. The single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within HLA genes show strong signatures of balancing selection on large timescales and are broadly shared among populations, displaying low F_ST values. However, when we analyse haplotypes defined by these SNPs (which define ‘HLA alleles’), we find marked differences in frequencies between geographic regions. These differences are not reflected in the F_ST values because of the extreme polymorphism at HLA loci, illustrating challenges in interpreting F_ST. Differences in the frequency of HLA alleles among geographic regions are relevant to bone-marrow transplantation, which requires genetic identity at HLA loci between patient and donor. We discuss the case of Brazil's bone marrow registry, where a deficit of enrolled volunteers with African ancestry reduces the chance of finding donors for individuals with an MHC region of African ancestry.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity’.