Birenbaum-Carmeli D. On the prevalence of population groups in the human-genetics research literature.
Politics Life Sci 2004;
23:34-41. [PMID:
16859378 DOI:
10.2990/1471-5457(2004)23[34:otpopg]2.0.co;2]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Population-specific human-genetics research has become commonplace but remains controversial, as its results can affect public and personal perceptions of the ethnic, national, and racial groups studied. Choice of populations for study has generally seemed a function of scientific, logistical, or economic factors.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Has the identity of populations studied in the human-genetics research literature varied systematically, and, if it has, in what ways?
METHODS
I searched the PubMed database for population-genetics reports, calculating for each a population score, a genetics score, and a mutation score.
RESULTS
Some populations had been studied far more intensively than others. Many of the most frequently studied groups were ethnically defined and politically marginal in their home countries; some of these groups were involved in self-determination struggles. In the mutation-research literature, state-defined Muslim and Mediterranean populations prevailed.
CONCLUSION
Study-population selection may in some cases be explained by, or may complicate, political predicament.
Collapse