3

On April 21, 2003, the Boston Marathon took place for the 107^th time. While it was quite difficult to predict who will win this time, it would not be a stretch to guess that the winner would be from Kenya, a country from which 11 of the past 12 winners have hailed. Kenyans have dominated the Boston Marathon and distance-running in general in recent years. What is it about Kenyans that has contributed to such dominance? Many attribute their superiority in this sphere to biology.

Earlier in Spring 2003, the New York Giants of the National Football League waived veteran cornerback Jason Sehorn. Most pundits believe that if Sehorn, who is white, is to continue playing in the NFL, he will have to switch positions and become a safety. Why is this significant? Because when Sehorn started as cornerback for the first time in 1996, it marked the first time a white player had done that in 10 years and Sehorn eventfully became the first regular starting white cornerback in almost 20 years. If Sehorn does switch to safety to resume his career, the position cornerback in the NFL (approximately 150 total), will again be 100% black. Cornerback requires more speed and quickness than any other position on the football field. Do blacks have a biological edge that allows them to monopolize this position? I believe that blacks do possess some biological advantages which can be significant when comparing “world-class” athletes, but on the everyday level, the overlap in athletic ability is too great among whites and blacks to determine that blacks as a group are athletically superior to whites.

On the world stage, no sporting event is more diverse than the Olympics. People from almost every nation, representing all races, are able to compete. Yet time and again, certain sports are dominated by certain individuals. Perhaps the most surprising aspect is that people of African descent running in all forms, from sprints to marathons. More specifically, people of West African descent dominate the sprints, people of North African descent dominated middle distances, and people of East African descent dominate the longer distances. For instance, “all of the thirty-two finalist in the last four Olympic men’s 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that happening based on numbers alone . . . is 10 to the negative thirty-four percent”.

Given that, in many ways, the sport of running is the basic of all forms of competition, it is surprising to see it completely dominated by people of African descent. There are no barriers to entry. Anyone with adequate nutrition and full mobility is capable of running. Your parents don’t need to be members of a county club, you don’t need to buy expensive equipment, and you don’t need to be raised in a particular climate. In other words, success in many sports depends on other factors than just innate ability, but running should give equal access to all. However, the results of competition do not reflect this expected equality. Since 1999, when Kenyan Noah Ngeny broke Sebastian Coe’s 18-year-old 1,000-meter world record, “every men’s world record at every commonly-run track distance belongs to a runner of African descent”. On the surface, it appears that there is an advantage to certain individuals, those descended from Africa, which includes Americans and Caribbeans descended from enslaved West Africans, in running ability.

Running, however, is far from the only sport that shows a discrepancy in ability of different races. In America especially, even passing sports fans can’t help but notice the large number of black athletes. Blacks dominate most American team sports, especially basketball and football. Even sports that are overwhelmingly white, like golf and tennis, still have black superstars like Tiger Woods and the Williams sisters. While very few people would ever publicly acknowledge this fact, I think that most Americans do believe that blacks are superior athletes to whites, based on evidence before them.

Is there validity in this belief? In other words, are blacks biologically superior to whites athletically? The above scenarios certainly seem to imply that they are. First, we must ask, what does it mean for one race to be superior to another in an athletic sense? That is not so easily defined. Different sports require different skills. If we examine the sports where blacks are most dominant- running, football, and basketball-we can look for similarities in skill sets.

Right away we notice the skill sets most prominent in football and basketball- speed bursts, jumping, quickness-are most analogous to the skill set of sprinting, but not analogous to the skill set required for longer distances. People of West African descent dominate the sports requiring these particular skills. On the other hand, those who succeed in distance running have less need for bursts of speed and quickness, and more need for overall endurance.

Jon Entire cites numerous studies that make the claim again and again that biology does make a difference. Whether it’s the overall speed of West Africans or the endurance of East and North Africans, it appears that those of African descent do have an advantage. West Africans have been found to have substantially more of the “fast-twitch” muscle fibers that aid in quick, explosive movements. East Africans have been found by various measures to have greater endurance. These measurements include maximum oxygen capacity, which allows runners to maintain their level of activity while undergoing anaerobic respiration, and lower muscle fatigue as measured by lactic acid buildup (Entine 2000). These studies certainly lend support to the belief that blacks have an athelitic advantage.

There is a danger in proclaiming this fact too hastily. First, these studies were inconclusive on how much of a role environment played. While scientists have confirmed that it is not possible, for instance, to turn “slow-twitch” muscle fibers(of which whites typically have more than blacks) into “fast-twitch” muscle fibers, there is debate over how much of an effect training plays. For example, the competition to become a world-class runner in Kenya is extremely fierce; therefore, training for youngsters is intense. When comparing runners from Kenya to runners from other parts of the world, it is difficult to account for the amount of training, especially if one considers that Kenyans probably have the most rigorous distance running training program in the world.

The same is true for other sports. Here in America, competition at all levels of sport has increased dramatically over the last few decades as the salaries of professional athletes have spiraled upward. The chance to become a multimillionaire as a teenager certainly motivates many young men to spend countless hours practicing throwing, catching, hitting, and running. In a country where success is supposedly based on skills, rather than birthright, blacks are far over-represented in the world of athletics as a proportion of their population. As competition increases, only the absolute best will win out. For some, that probably does include a little help form their biology.

While biology appears to give blacks an advantage at the world-class level, its is important to remember that there is little noticeable variation on the everyday level. Let us image that the distribution of a particular characteristic follows a normal distribution-a “bell-curve.” The aforementioned studies found that while the bell curve for blacks has a higher overall mean for traits like “fast-twitch” muscle fibers, the vast majority of both whites and blacks fall into an overlapping area. IF we only focus on extremes, we do see that it is more likely that the “world-class” athlete will be black. The world-class athlete, however, makes up such a small percentage that it is not reasonable to assume that the average black male or female is faster than the average white male or female based on results from the Olympics or the Boston Marathon.

However many people do not consider this a fact-just observe how teams get picked in a game of “pick-up” basketball. When the players are of different races, the white guy will always get picked last. This occurs because the public imagines what they see in professional basketball applies to basketball at any level. But the dominance if blacks at the professional level does not indicate that all blacks are better that all whites on the court. The premise of the movie “White Men Can’t Jump” was that blacks playing ball at the neighborhood court would automatically assume that the “goofy white boy” didn’t have the skills to compete with them. This attitude is prevalent throughout American society today.

It is quite obvious form just watching any sporting event that the announcers have certain prejudices based upon the race of players. In basketball especially, players are compared to other players of the same race without regarding their skill set. A great white player entering the NBA is considered “the next Larry Bird,” while a great black player is compared to the standards of Michael Jordan. Currently, high school phenomenon LeBron James is the most likely candidate to be “the next Michael Jordan,” even though his physical characteristics, such as height and weight, and basketball abilities are much closer to Larry Bird’s style of play than Michael Jordan’s. Football also suffers form racial biases, as many black players are “supremely gifted athletes,” while white players are lauded for overcoming their lack of ability with “quick thinking” and “keeping their head in the game.”

In contrast, blacks are rarely commended for making intelligent plays. In fact, long after the integration of sports in America, black athletes still have had to deal with the stigma of being a “dumb jock.” The “intelligent” positions in team sports-quarterback and center in football, pitcher and catcher in baseball have stayed primarily white until recently. In 1999, three black quarterbacks were drafted in the first round, an amazing statistic when you consider that in all drafts prior to 1999 (going back to 1938), there were also three black quarter quarterbacks drafted in the first round. It was not uncommon, even as recently as ten years ago, for a black player who excelled at quarterback in college to discover that if he wanted to play in the NFL, he would have to change to a less intellectually demanding position.

The irony here is that for much of our history, athletes were considered to be among the most intelligent people. The Greeks believed that “physical fitness was essential to achieve a proper balance of mind and body (Entine 2000). Similar sentiments have been voiced throughout Western culture up through the 20^th century. However, as blacks first integrated and then began to dominated amateur and professional sports in America, society redefined what it meant to be an athlete. It became easier for racists to “explain away” the dominance of blacks by claiming that they were superior biologically; thus, there was nothing whites could do to compete with them, but since blacks were still inferior mentally, there were still openings for whites in the world of athletics.

This societal issue has serious consequences, especially here in America. Assuming blacks are superior athletically or biologically does not just imply that blacks are dumb. It often likens blacks to being more animal-like. There is little tolerance for anyone who makes this kind reference. Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder was fired by CBS where he had served as a football prognosticator for many years after he made the following comments: “The black is a better athlete because he’s been bred to be that way. . . During slave trading, the slave owner would breed his big woman so he would have a big black kid (Entine 2000). While his comments were somewhat crude, did they warrant getting him fired? Whether Snyder’s comments are historically accurate is subject to debate, but he did not voice an opinion that belonged solely to him. Black athletes themselves, including former Dallas Cowboy Calvin Hill and Olympian Lee Evans, have also ascribed the present day dominance of the black athlete to their being “bred” as slaves. Snyder, for his part, did give credit to the motivation and preparation of black athletes: “They practice and they play, and they practice and they play. They’re not lazy like the white athlete.” It seems these words of support for blacks went unheard, however, as the public outcry surrounding his more inflammatory comments demanded his head.

It is unfortunate that Snyder’s “other” comments have not been as publicized. Certainly those who criticize the biological explanation for black athletic dominance point to the fact that it’s a roundabout way of saying that blacks are lazy. After all, if blacks are biologically superior, why would they need to work at improving their skills? But it is rare indeed to find any athlete, black or white, in this day and age that is capable of getting by on their biological makeup alone without having to endure a rigorous training program to stay on top of their game.

One final issue that clouds the subject further is the history of blacks in America. Those individuals who consider themselves black (or considered black by the conventional “one-drop” rule) are far from being solely of West African descent. It is clear that many American athletes have varied backgrounds that include European, American Indian, and Asian ancestry. The best example of this phenomenon has to be Tiger Woods, the self-proclaimed “Cablinasian” who is currently rewriting most of golf’s record books (note: Cablinasian is a word that Woods concocted on his own to describe his racial identity which consists of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian heritage). While blacks are quick to claim his as their own hero, we must not forget that he can certainly be considered a hero to Asian Americans as well. So where does Tiger’s dominance come form? Is it biological or is it because his father taught him to play golf at age two? What about other athletes from mixed racial backgrounds?

Is seems clear that biology does play a role in the dominance of black athletes at the world class level. How much of a role biology plays is subject to debate and is unlikely to be resolved in a satisfactory way anytime soon. While biology probably does give blacks an edge, that edge cannot be exploited unless they are also willing to put their bodies thorough the demanding rigors of training required of professional athletes. Most importantly, the amount of overlap in athletic skills of an average black person versus an average white person is do great that one cannot assume the black person is athletically superior based on biology alone.

3.2 MEHB

With the migration of a population, diseases that affect the population might change and the effects of diseases may increase or decrease. Not only do some studies identify these changes, they also show the variation in development, response to treatment and outcome of a disease among various ethnic groups. Is this variation significant and are the same environmental and biological factors responsible? How does the migration of an individual or individuals affect to health? Is it safe to say that all individuals from one population will be affected the same? And finally, we must ask whether everyone with a particular disease should be treated the same or whether medical treatment should be more customized based on an individual’s genetic heritage. As an Asian American, I am especially interested in finding answers to these questions in regards to diseases affecting my own heritage. As an Asian American, I am especially interested in finding answers to these questions in regards to diseases that disproportionately affect Asians, I discovered that several types of cancers that were low in the past are now rising among Asian Americans such as colon, prostate, and breast cancer. Breast cancer is currently higher among Asian American women than in the past and is possibly due to the changes in diet and other lifestyle factors along with underlying biological factors. While the population of the United States continues to become increasingly diverse, it is critical that we learn why some ethnic minorities are more prone to cancer after migrating to the U.S. and why they are less likely to survive it.

Before diving into these variations and questions, we must first make clear that the use of the term “race” is scientifically inaccurate because as recent publications imply, “there are fundamental biological differences among population groups which in fact does not exist. Furthermore, there is a great deal of heterogeneity within “racial” groups. Asian Americans, for example, include Southeast Asians, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, and Indians, and grouping them together presents a challenge to pinpoint health problems that are particular to one or the other. Therefore, for the paper’s purpose, I will refer to ethnic backgrounds rather than race, to more accurately emphasize the fact that differences in breast cancer incidence are due to a range of cultural factors, behaviors, health attitudes, lifestyle patterns, environmental living conditions, and possible underlying biological factors.

Traditionally, Asian women have some of the lowest breast cancer rates of any group in the world, while the rates are highest in countries such as the U.S. Much of this has been linked to differences in lifestyles factors such as diet, exercise, body weight, and choosing to have children later in life or not at all. Ethnicity and national origin are among the strongest known predictors of breast cancer risk according to Dr. Li in his article “Breast cancer treatments, outcomes differ widely.” He also adds that these factors are thought to affect a women’s risk even more than those associated with menstrual periods and childbearing. But breast cancer rates have risen sharply in recent years in some Asian countries such as Japan, where women have adopted more “westernized” lifestyles. It has been said that breast cancer is expected to become the most common cancer among women in Japan according to recent research. It has also been known for some time that the risk of breast cancer is expected to become the most common cancer among women in Japan according to recent research. It has also been known for some time that the risk of breast cancer increases among generations of Asians who migrate to the United States.

I am sure we are all familiar with the term cancer, but we must fully understand what breast cancer is to get a better sense of its causes and development as well as its treatments. Breast cancer is a disease that exhibits substantial international variation in risk. Rates tend to be highest among Caucasians in the United States and Western Europe, whereas native Japanese and Chinese and other Asian populations in their homelands have among the lowest rates. Historically, there has existed a significant difference in breast cancer risk between these extremes. This remarkable variation in risk is not due to underlying genetic differences, as the rates of breast cancer in Asian Americans shift substantially towards those of the U.S. Caucasian population. In fact in Los Angeles, rates in Japanese Americans are approaching those of Caucasian Americans. According to studies done between the 1970s and 1990s, the largest increases in breast cancer incidence worldwide have occurred in Asia as rates more than doubled in Singapore and Japan. There is an overwhelming evidence that estrogen levels are a critical determinant of breast cancer risk. Women in Asia at low risk of breast cancer have been shown consistently to have urinary and blood levels of estrogens that Caucasian women at higher risk for this cancer. There is also convincing evidence that women who develop breast cancer have higher endogenous estrogen levels. Reasons for higher endogenous estrogen levels in Caucasians compared to Asians, and in women who develop breast cancer compared to those who do not remain elusive. Various dietary ( i.e. fat, soy, fiber, alcohol) and non-dietary lifestyle factors (i.e. age at menarche, parity, physical activity, body size, hormone replacement therapy) have been suggested to influence endogenous estrogen levels and risk of breast cancer. More recently, polymorphisms of select genes involved in estrogen biosynthesis and intracellular binding have been reported to influence endogenous estrogen levels and breast cancer risk.

Breast cancer rates among Asian Americans are lower than those of U.S. Caucasians but higher than rates prevailing in Asia. It is suspected that migration to the U.S. brings about a change in endocrine function among Asian women, although reasons for this change remain unclear. The high intake of soy in Asia and its reduced intake among Asian Americans has also suggested to partly explain the increase of breast cancer rates in Asian Americans. This westernized pattern of diet, with higher consumption of red meat and animal fat, is associated with increased risk for colon and prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Studies investigating diet and breast cancer are not as conclusive, but evidence suggests that diet during childhood affects breast cancer risk. Japanese-Americans women who migrated to the U.S. at early ages are at greater risk for breast cancer than those who migrated at later ages. Reproductive factors associated with a western lifestyle, such as a later age at first pregnancy and having fewer children, are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women. For example, due to the presence of various ethnic restaurants that serve foods unique to a particular group, most students are aware that dietary patterns vary across ethnic groups. What students may not know is that the American Cancer Society has found that in some populations, the low-fat, high-fiber diet results in a lower rate of colon-rectal cancer. But as Asians become more westernized in their dietary practices, rates of colon-rectal cancer increase, which is attributed to increased consumption of fat. Lack of sensitivity to dietary habits of different ethnic groups presents a problem when treatment includes dietary recommendations contrary to an ethnic group’s cultural beliefs and practices. Providing students with a series of examples of ethnic group health behaviors will begin creating an awareness of and sensitivity to the importance of ethnic differences as they affect health. Moreover, demonstrating this point through discussion allows movement away from the idea that Caucasian Americans are the norm to which all ethnic groups should be compared.

Important disparities in breast-cancer diagnosis, treatment and survival among American women of various ethnic backgrounds are documented in a new Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center study. These findings by doctors Christopher Li, Janet Doling and Kathi Malone in the Public Health Sciences Division, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, are “based on the largest, most comprehensive study of its kind to evaluated the relationship between face/ethnicity and breast-cancer stage, treatment and survival.” The study evaluated data from nearly 125,000 women representing all major racial/ethnic populations and subpopulations in the United States, the majority of whom have been tracked by national cancer registries only since the late 1980s. According to professor and researcher Dr. Li, numerous studies have evaluated the relationship between race and ethnicity and breast-cancer treatments and outcomes, but most have crudely divided the data into broad heterogeneous categories, such as Asian/Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic Caucasians. There is reason to believe that there would be differences in breast-cancer outcomes based on diverse cultural practices, dietary habits, and possibly, genetics, but socioeconomic factors are likely to play the most important role.

Li and colleagues uncovered significant differences in stages of diagnosis, treatment and outcome among women in various national/ethnic subcategories, including Japanese, Filipino, Indian/Pakistan, Mexican, and Puerto Rican. Japanese women fared the best overall. For example, Japanese women were 30 percent less likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer compared to non-Hispanic Caucasian women, while women if Filipino, Hawaiian, Indian-Pakistani, Mexican, South and Central American, and Puerto Rican descent were 20 percent to 260 percent more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast-cancer. As for treatment, while Mexican and Puerto Rican women were more likely than non-Hispanic Caucasians to receive inappropriate treatment for breast cancer, Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese women were all more likely to receive appropriate care. As for survival, Japanese and Chinese women had better survival rates after breast cancer, while Hawaiian and Mexican women had 30 percent poorer survival rates even compared to non-Hispanic Caucasians. “Japanese women may have better outcomes based on their long history of living in the Untied States,” according to LI. He adds, “They’re less likely to be recent immigrants than others within the Asian community, such as Koreans and Vietnamese. Recent immigrants have less access to care and may have more difficulty getting care due to language barriers and other acculturation issues.”

After reading many case studies and research data, I could speculate what other factors could be the basis of the difference. First, Asian women are shaped differently and physically smaller that the typical Caucasian American woman. Smaller average breast sizes could be looked into to see whether this has any relevance to the low risk of breast cancer in Asian countries and the increase in breast cancer rates when Asian women migrate to the U.S. I also believe that the diet, as studies show, is a major factor as well as lifestyle. For example, Asian American women might be more prone to eating more junk food and greasy fast food instead of soy products. The lifestyle change to higher stress levels could also be a factor as well.

The question remains whether medical treatment should be tailored to individuals based on ethnic heritage. And because of different factors, we must consider why it would not be beneficial to treat individuals win breast cancer all the same. It is noted by the Intercultural Cancer Council that a major problem in Chinese women is that approximately 22 percent often use herbal remedies when diagnosed with breast cancer. Some studies indicate that approximately 79 percent of Asian-born American women with breast cancer have a greater proportion of tumors larger than 1 cm at diagnosis. Furthermore, young Asian-American women are less likely to perform regular breast examination. Both doctors and the Asian-American women they care for need to be mindful that they may be at greater risk that they thought in the past. Recent data shoes the need for increasing awareness among Asian women and their health care providers about breast cancer as a significant health hazard. It is possible that many physicals are unaware that the well-known low breast cancer risk among these women in past decades is no longer true and that breast cancer screening in Asian Americans is as important as among Caucasian and African Americans. In addition, there should be more research done as to why Asian-born Asian American women with breast cancer have a greater proportion of large tumors. Future treatments should make note of this significance and be aware of the biological, historical, and environmental factors that are related to better understanding and treating Asian Americans with breast cancer.

Erica DeMars

The selection of gender has been a pursuit of couples for as far back as one can trace the history of man. Drawings can be found from early prehistoric times suggesting that even our earliest ancestors were exploring sex selection for their offspring. Research of later history exhibits an intense interest in sex selection by numerous ancient cultures such as the Chinese, Egyptian and the Greek. These ideas of gender control and sex determination were followed by numerous documented efforts in the 1960’s to influence the chances of achieving pregnancy by a variety of methods. Now, in the year 2003, it seems more likely than ever that the human race has achieved the technology to predetermine the gender of a child. The question that we are now faced with is not can we choose the sex of a child but should we?

It has been known for many years how the sex of a child is determined when fertilization occurs by the male individual. The sperm, which comes from the male, carries the sex chromosome that will later become implanted within the egg and determine the child’s sex. Sperm bearing an “X” chromosome, when united with the “X” chromosome from the female (females can only produce an “X”) will result in an “XX” pregnancy that produces a female offspring. If a sperm bearing a “Y” chromosome (males can have both types of sperm, either “X” or “Y”) joins together with the “X” chromosome from the female individual, and “XY” pregnancy will result that will produce a male child. Using this information scientists realized that if they were able to control the type (either “X” or “Y” sperm) that was made available to the egg; they could also control the sex of the offspring.

There are two major types of gender/sex preconception determination that are in use today to control whether or an individual will give birth to a boy or a girl. (Although the term sex is a more scientific term used when considering the biological outcome of the child, the term gender is also used to represent a preconceived idea of standards that are placed on individuals when they are born.) The first type of sex selection uses manipulation of sperm sex percentages to be injected during intrauterine insemination. Scientist have developed a way to use the flow of cyotmetry to separate out “X” and “Y” bearing sperm by the use of sensor laser beams that sort through a mixture of dyed sperm and divide the heavier (by 2.8%) “X” sperm form the remaining Y-bearing sperm. This creates the ability to develop an injection of a “sex dense sperm type” that can be introduced into the female reproductive organs during her ovulation period to create a particular sex of a child. The percentage rate of success in this type of procedure (when a pregnancy does occur) is approximately 92..8% for females and a slightly lower rate for male selection averaging around 72% (Robertson 2001).

The second technique of preconception gender selection that is used involves the highly controversial method of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Much like the aforementioned method scientist still separate out the sperm (based on the sex) that has been received from the male individual however they also remove embryos from the females’ body and perform the fertilization in vitro. The resulting embryos are than analyzed to determine their gender component and are returned back to the female. By ensuring that only certain sex embryos are placed into the uterus, success in obtaining the preferred sex is almost virtually guaranteed assuming that a pregnancy occurs. However, it would seem that a major downfall of IVF is that it is not uncommon for an individual to become pregnant with more than one child often putting the mother and unborn individuals at risk. Nevertheless since most of the fertilization process takes place in a lab, this procedure has a much higher success rate of determining the sex of an individual than the previous method stated. Results for preconception gender selection (when a pregnancy does occur) is almost 99.5% for both male and female children.

Understanding how the procedure works is only half of the picture, more importantly one should understand the types of individuals that would opt for such a procedure. Although the possibilities are endless there are three main reasons that have been commonly documented for choosing preconception sex selection. The first “type” of family that would seek gender selection is those wishing to have a gender different from that of a previous child or children. This preference can be seen most often when a family has several children all of the same sex and do not want another child unless they know that it will be of the opposite sex of the children that they already have. Some families may also fall under this category if they only have one child and desire only to have one more, and have it be of the opposite sex. This concept can be seen in wealthy Western cultures where the preference is to have only two-child family homes. The second type of family that might opt for a gender selection is those individuals who wish to predetermine the sex of their first born child. The most likely candidates here are those who have strong cultural or religious beliefs about the particular gender of the oldest child. Often this is seen in Asian cultures where they hold strong beliefs about the first child being a male. However it would seem contradicting that a culture that had such strong anti-western medical practices would result to using a procedure widely developed in the United States. Also if a family were to only have one child, it has long been a cultural and social belief that it is a male child who will carry on the family name and legacy. The third type of family that may seek a gender selection procedure might be those who value the different rearing or relationship experiences one could get from a particular sex. This is often seen in cases where a father wants a son thus he has someone in the house that he feels he can relate to. Also, certain individuals long for same sex children so they can give that child the lifestyle that they lacked while growing up. Although these are some of the popular reasons people may choose to select the sex of their child there are various other reasons that could also come into effect.

Most of the aforementioned reasons are social ideas that exist throughout various cultures and societies. However, there are also more logical medical reasons that may also determine a family’s opt for a preconception gender determination. There are some traits that are disease related that are considered “X” or “Y” linked. Some examples of this include Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy which affects only boys and “X” linked traits such as hemophilia, which affect only males that have a mother that is a carrier (Obstetrics 2003). In these rare, but important cases, most individuals will opt not to have children due to the high genetic risk of having an offspring that is affected. Preconception gender selection gives these individuals a better chance of having normal, healthy offspring without worrying about the burden of having a child that may be ill, or having to abort a child that has a life threatening condition.

Although a lot of the ideas mentioned above can be seen as advantages to being able to determine the sex of one’s child there are also many disadvantages that come from having this control. While the methods used to not harm embryos or fetuses or even intrude on a woman’s body in the same way that prenatal gender selection does there are many other issues that need to be considered. The first major concern is that having the ability to determine a preference of sex can easily be related to sexist ideas, by allowing for more males to be produced or by solely placing to much attention towards the aspect of gender itself. What kind of world do we live in where a child is not considered a gift reflecting the miracle of life but an object with options and preference? Another concern is for the child of the parents who expect their child to act in gender specific ways when the procedure succeeds (since the gender/sex has been predetermined) and then the child fails to act like a “boy”. Other concerns also include sex-ratio unevenness, and a growing step towards a general control of particular traits that an offspring has. These ideas all exhibit reasons why individuals should be cautious when trying to correct for traits that have been popularized within cultures.

The successful development of preconception gender determination brings about a new challenge for the human race in determining where we as individuals stand in relation to our own reproductive control. The non-medical use of sex determination raises important ethical, legal and social issues that must be thoroughly researched before scientists begin to implement a world-wide available program. Throughout time people have longed to control significant factors that greatly affect their lives such as the sex of a child. However, as technology advances, the human race must be careful for what they wish for, because not everything should be as simple as a predetermined preference.

When you look through any scientific research protocol on human populations in the United States today, you would find the terms Black or African American among the other racial or ethnic groupings used to categorize individuals. It is assumed that people who have dark or brown skin color and with an African ancestry are African Americans. But does the term African American accurately represent all the people that it is assumed to identify? Should people from or parts of the world like Southern American other Asia who may have very dark skin complexion be considered Black due to their complexion? Moreover, should people who are identified as whites but have African ancestry be considered African Americans? Lastly, how do we classify biracial black and white individuals or people with mixed ancestry using our current identification procedures? The increasing mixing of individuals with different ancestry in our U.S population is raising doubts about the inconsistencies of our nation’s current census or identification system. This essay explores how our society defines the African American identity while discussing the implications of such identity on scientific research.

In the past, African Americans were legally described by white Americans as Negroes or Colored. It was not until the 1980s, due for the most part to the efforts of the Civil Rights Movements, that the term Black was used as a racial or ethnic identity. Later on, African American gained greater appreciation among Blacks and thus is used mostly today interchangeably with Black to distinguish them from other racial or ethnic groups. Nevertheless, with the influx of immigrants from different parts of the world and racial mixing, it has become necessary for our nation to reconsider using Black or African American to identify individuals.

It is hard to believe that many individuals even in the “Black” communities see a difference between the terms Black and African American although some people in, or even outside, the country see both terms as synonymous. Interestingly, I find that many people from sub-Saharan Africa, especially those who have migrated to the U.S. quite recently, do not consider themselves as African Americans but as Africans or blacks. They think that African Americans are individuals with ancestors who were enslaved in the U.S. Thus, they do not feel that they fall into the African American ethnic or racial category found in many of our research or application forms. When I first came into the country from Ghana, I did not identify myself as African American although my teachers did. In fact, I saw African Americans in the same light as I did see other ethnic groups. I thought that African Americans had much more in common with Whites than with me since they were raised in the country. Thus, when filling out an application, I always checked Other rather than African American to show my belief in the difference between Africans and African Americans. At first, I thought I was the only African with this state of mind until I told my African friends about my beliefs. Shockingly, they identified with me. One of them stated, “To check African American on an application form, makes me feel like I am loosing the “whole” African part of me. I want to be known as an African, specifically a Nigerian.” In other words, my friend although would be considered African American by the U.S. census did not consider herself African American. Nevertheless, we, as Africans, identify both ourselves and African Americans as Black due to our skin complexion and hair texture.

Using this African definition of who an African American is, it imperative for us to note the incongruities in the definition. Just because someone has a black ancestor who was enslaved in the past does not necessarily make that person identify him or herself as African American. This raised a very important about self-identification in the U.S particularly in black communities. Even though the U.S Census has created five major racial categories, which are White, Black/African American, Pacific Islander, Asian, and Native American with Hispanic being an ethnic category, individuals have been allowed to determine their identity. Although self-identity seems right, it is imperative to realize that individuals, especially those with mixed ancestry, vary in how they identify themselves. People choose their identity based on the environment they are in, this is especially true for biracial people. People would choose to identify themselves in a positive light. So that for example a person with both African and European ancestry may identify him or herself as African when present in an African community and vice versa.

The growing numbers of mixed race people in the country do not fall into our rigid racial categories. Today, about 30% of African Americans have European genetic markers but very few European Americans have African genetic markers. In spite of the fact that few European Americans have African genetic markers, why are those who do have African genetic markers not called African Americans? Moreover, why are African Americans who have European ancestry not identified as white since they have similar genetic make up? Since individuals are given identities based on their physical appearances, how would a person who identifies him or herself with one race, but with mixed ancestry, possibly benefit from scientific findings on other races? In other words, if for instance a person identifies himself as an African American based solely on his physical appearance but then has a Native American and European ancestry, is it not important for this person to find out about certain diseases that he or his descendants are likely to acquire due to the passing down of genes from his Native American or European ancestry?

Today’s research on human populations treats people with similar physical appearances as a race. This form of race tends to disregard the fact a growing number of people in the U.S, as mention before, have mixed ancestry. Nevertheless many scientists have argued about the non-existence of a biological race and the fact that race is a social construct. The American Anthropological Association recommended in 1997 that the U.S government remove the term “race” on official forms because it holds no “scientific justification in human biology” (cite). In Brazil, populations are not categorized by their skin color because they realized that although a person may look black, he or she may be of Asian or European ancestry. Let us consider the ancestry of Tiger Woods for instance. Although many people identify him as Black because of his skin pigmentation, he likes to call himself “Cablinasian” to reinforce his European, Black, Asian, and Native American Indian ancestry. To him, being categorized as black is plainly erroneous. Or at least incomplete…..

Since race is seen as a social construct, why then does scientific research continue to study people based on their physical appearance although being aware that human phenotypes are often misleading of the accurate genotypes. Rather than studying people with similar physical appearances and thus, seem to be promoting the idea of biological race, scientists could focus their efforts into studying people in a specific geographical location and have a similar socioeconomic status. People who live in a certain environment would tend to have the similar factors influencing their health outcomes. For instance, if an Asian, Native American, and a black woman with the same socioeconomic status are living in the same neighborhood like the urban centers, it is more than likely that their similar environment would influence their health outcomes.

"Biological" may be inadequate to describe our field of anthropology one hundred years from now, or maybe even sooner. Surprised? You shouldn't be. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, humanity is poised to set in motion
the most earth-shattering development in the history of life on this planet - artificial evolution. The time will soon and inevitably come that we leave Mother Nature's proverbial nest and outwit the very force that brought us into creation. It won't be long before human beings take our own evolution - and the evolution of any life of our choosing - into our own hands. But I suggest that biological anthropology will need to discuss more than just the genetics we manipulate but also the technology we will certainly harness to supplement any shortcomings our genetic panaceas may show in the years to come, or even to integrate machines into our bodies simply to give us abilities we could never have without them. We, as both a species and a society, are fast approaching the day when, for the first time, the definition of biologically human will change. In order to prepare for that day, it is important to start planning now. The ramifications that these new technologies will have for humanity as a whole are too great to afford surprises. I proceed to present several of the key emerging technologies that will, before the close of the century, paint a new
portrait of the human condition through changes to our biological (and possibly cyber-biological) identities. As these are largely predictions, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Genetic Manipulation

First and certainly the least surprising, genetic manipulation is gaining momentum at break-neck speed in recent years and whose inertia is so great that slow down any time soon is unlikely. And not surprisingly, its advances in recent years have accelerated the already popular treatment in science fiction through books and film. But the science fiction may not be far off - consider a popular film, "Gattaca" (whose name is a moniker based on the letters used to represent the nitrogenous bases comprising our DNA), in which they describe a world where children are conceived with the aid of a geneticist who analyzes the sperm to choose the one which provides the most "valued" genetics. In this scenario, evolutionary selection is no longer natural. The focus of the film is the social phenomenon which results from such conditions, specifically a new caste system where people who are naturally conceived are shunned and reduced to menial existences. Biologically speaking, in such a world where genetic selection is available, to suggest that this technology won't be used is a patently false assumption. If parents have the ability to pass on only the traits they decide to be best, they will take advantage of this ability whether or not it's legal or socially accepted.

Of course, despite our advances we are still a reasonable way away from total artificial selection as "Gattaca" suggests. At first, genetic research and the tools which will inevitably make "Gattaca" possible will be developed for the purpose of "curing genetic diseases" to which few will object. As the technology progresses, the next logical step for its application will be cosmetic or utilitarian reasons. A great deal of effort will likely be expended to examine our genetics as a possible fountain of youth, for example a genetic "vaccination" which may stimulate our skin cells to replicate indefinitely, effectively eliminating the aging of our exteriors. Who needs a tanning salon when a bit of genetic manipulation can dictate your skin cells to produce exactly as much melanin as you want? Larger breasts? No problem - you can grow them the "natural" way.

Some of the so-called utilitarian purposes of genetic manipulation might be, for example, a genetic alteration which causes your body to constantly grow new teeth. Why go to the dentist and get a cavity filled when you can just have it pulled and let your body grow a new tooth to replace it? Or perhaps a new set will grow every seven years. Using examples from other species
that have certain characteristics we may desire, we could take advantages of those features and integrate them into our own genetic makeup. One important feature is the ability in several reptiles to live essentially forever; our bodies age because our cells eventually stop replicating, as dictated by our DNA. If we could flip the switch and cause our cells to replicate indefinitely may allow human beings to achieve fantastically lengthier life expectancies than we have ever known. There are few people
who wouldn't want to live longer, especially if their bodies don't age.
Ponce de Leon's fountain of youth may exist after all.

The monetary boon such

technologies could afford its developers will probably outweigh any moral objections to this kind of research. In time, enough people will take advantage of these new technologies that they will
become as commonplace as blood transfusions. Once this hurdle is jumped, total genetic manipulation, from the time of conception, won't be far ahead. The biological ramifications of this activity on humankind as a species are so enormous that they can barely be adequately predicted. The concept of
human evolution will likely fade away entirely, since we as a species will
no longer be subject to the randomness of the process that has worked so
well so far. Our bodies, our genetic composition, will be as customizable
as our automobiles or the color we paint our houses. Much of the subject matter biological anthropologists currently study will likely be obsolete; a more suitable replacement might be analyzing the long term effects of such widespread artificial genetics (although wouldn't it be nice if we knew the effects before we started playing Frankenstein with our own species?)

Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology refers to the focus of engineering on extremely small
mechanical systems. Nanotech has a lot of applications, but the one in the
spotlight is using extremely small robotic components as either temporary or
permanent implants into the human body. Researchers believe millions of
tiny robots perhaps as large only as a single autosomal cell could be
injected into the body, programmed for a specific task (such as unclogging
arteries, killing cancer cells, etc). These tiny machines might also be
able to perform surgeries on scales far too small for even the most skilled
surgeons can today. These robots may eventually be able to replace white
blood cells altogether, killing viruses and pathogenic material before they
have a chance do any real harm.

However, nanotechnology also presents a dangerous threat from a biological standpoint because, just as these tiny robots may be programmed to attack cancer cells, malicious robots could be used as a pseudo-biological weapon -just as hackers today infect e-mail with viruses, a terrorist with a batch
of robots programmed to attack vital organs could be delivered in the same
fashion that traditional biological weapons could be - an entire cloud of
these tiny robots could be sprayed in aerosol and could enter their hosts
through the lungs. Unlike viruses that modern bioterrorists would need to
use today, these malicious robots could be mass produced and programmed to
do virtually anything once they're inside a human body. Although not trivial to manufacture (evidenced by the fact that we have not made enough headway in nanotechnology for this scenario to unfold), there may come a time when nanotechnology might become both a tremendous medical tool and a tremendous medical threat.

Artificial Organs

Present day technology affords us partial artificial hearts already, their
widespread use limited by the difficulty in testing (as they are typically
used only in terminal cases with express consent of the patient for
experimental treatment). Another major problem with artificial hearts is
that they require electricity to operate, but in the future that may not be
true - companies like Panasonic have already recently developed tiny
bio-generators (under the umbrella of their general nanotechnology research)
that can actually metabolize the glucose in blood to generate small amounts
of electricity, enough perhaps to operate an artificial pumping heart.

Currently, artificial organs, like hearts, are used only in cases when the
heart fails and with limited success. However, it is feasible that we may
be able to produce an artificial heart which is more efficient and
error-prone. An artificial heart could not become infected, nor could it host certain parasites which are harbored in the heart tissue. "Heart disease" as we know could be theoretically entirely avoided with prosthetic devices, and the time may come when we elect to have our perfectly functioning hearts replaced with artificial models merely because they are superior to the natural thing. One easily feasible example where this may be a good idea would be for long-flight astronauts or perhaps lunar colonists. One of the major problems with staying in space at length is the
atrophy of unused muscles, most importantly the heart. In zero and low
gravity environments the heart does not need to work as hard to pump blood,
thus it weakens. Modern astronauts are required to spend several hours per
day exercising to force the heart to stay in shape. Installing a gravity-sensitive artificial heart could solve that problem, since it will not atrophy like unused muscles do. But we may not stop only at hearts.

Some scientists have suggested that in the future we may be able to install
artificial nerves to paralyzed patients, replacing those severed by traumatic accidents. Because nerves operate by generating signals we can detect, we may be able to translate an impulse generated from the brain along an artificial nerve to be received by the intended portion of the body, thus restoring feeling and mobility to the paralyzed victim. Some have also even suggested allowing prosthetic limbs to simulate feeling using the same mechanism. This technology is still distant, but many have great confidence its future success. However, this begs the question: if we can simulate brain-directed motion and response stimulus from prosthetic limbs, why stop at only repairing limbs lost? What would stop us from installing another pair of arms and learning to use them by generating the right signals with our brains? The possibility of not only fixing what's broken but instead adding new functionality to the human body altogether with artificial body parts - be them limbs or internal organs - will again
completely redefine how human beings look at their bodies and, again, what it means to be human.

Integrated Biocomputers

A great deal of research energy is being directed at creating systems that
understand the impulses sent from the brain - primitive systems whereby a
person can move a cursor on a computer screen merely by thinking certain thoughts have already been demonstrated and proven. In the future, as our understanding of brain impulses improves, we may be able to integrate the computer technology we currently enjoy into our bodies themselves, allowing us to control built-in computers with our minds. A rudimentary system might allow us, for example, to think about a complicated division problem which is trapped by an implanted microprocessor or one that we wear like a pair of headphones, then computed, and returned to our brains as though we had thought of the answer by ourselves. Such technology could enable such
science fiction favorites as telepathy, in addition to potentially enabling any human wearing one of these devices to constantly have access to the vast
stores of information available via the Internet.

Such technology could also be harnessed for entertainment purposes as well - we may at some point in the future be able to directly stimulate the brain into believing that the experiences projected by these devices are actually
real, like a dream written and directed by Hollywood, but instead of simply
watching a movie, you experience it through the eyes of one of the
characters. The ability to manipulate the human brain is a technology that
is, like most technologies involving or bodies, a double-edged sword. But
in almost all cases the potential benefits generally outweigh the dangers,
and our curiosity as humans tends to get the better of us anyway. If it can
be done, we're likely to do it.

Conclusions

The matter of when - not if - these technologies are adapted for widespread use is, of course, out of the scope of this or any other author's knowledge; I certainly don't intend to lay down any prophecies. However, given the speed of technological advances witnessed within the last one hundred years, we can expect some, if not all of these technologies to come to fruition
enough to elicit a social, cultural reaction. It won't be long before we're
able to take our bodies out of nature's hands and into our own. Defying
nature, however, has always been the keystone of the human species' success
throughout the ages - we craft tools, we build shelters, we grow and raise
our own food - all of these activities change our environment to suit our
biological needs. We'll soon be at the point where we can change our
biology to suit our environmental needs. It is my belief that we will not only strive to develop the technology to make this possible but also, when the time comes, we will embrace it against any contending factor.

When this happens, the concept of human biodiversity will be practically a
priori and probably not worth discussing or even possible to discuss at all.
The geno- and phenotypic variations we study across populations today will
be only a mere fraction of the incredible range of variation made possible
when our science meets up with our creativity. After a certain point it may
become impossible to use the same genetic techniques we currently do to
study populations and their histories - we may become so fickle with our
genetics that even paternity tests are inconclusive. This, of course, can
be only ascribed to musings at this point because, while theorized, we are still only infants in the world of genetic modification.

However, artificial evolution is something we should expect and prepare for.

Becoming masters of our own genetic destiny is both promising and
inevitable; so too is to become masters of our own bodies, modifying them
with biology or with machinery. In the events that these dreams become
reality, "biological" will no longer be all that we are. We may need to consider revising our field and christen it with a new name; this author suggests "biotechnical" when the time comes.

Death is one of the few events that are universally constant for people all over the world, since eventually everyone will die. It is then interesting to note that such a widespread and seemingly consistent occurrence is also one of the least-known about and most variable concepts among people of different cultures, as well as among different people within a culture. Varying attitudes towards death can have a profound effect on a group’s biodiversity; groups that fear death are perhaps more likely to make every attempt to save a dying person, while groups that are more accepting of death may prefer for it to take place naturally. Sometimes, the drastic measures taken to preserve a life may succeed, and the surviving person may even be able to still reproduce. In these instances, the evasion of death allows genes to remain in the population that may have otherwise been lost. Over time, these life-saving techniques, or lack thereof, may indirectly but considerably change a population’s biodiversity. Beliefs regarding preparation for death, whether a person has control over their death and what defines death are all widely variable among people and are shaped by both biological evidence and cultural values.

Preparation for death is the easiest step of the process to study, by virtue of the fact that the participants are often able to share their feelings or thoughts during the process. Also, due to the fact that preparation is not so much a biological step as a cultural one, the different forms of preparation are numerous and varied, even among cultures. It is also relatively new, due to the recent prevalence of long-term fatal diseases. In the past, death often came quickly from infectious disease, childbirth or war, so more emphasis was placed on treatment of the body after death rather than preparing for death. In modern years, with the dominance of long-term diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s, people have had to find new ways to prepare for death over a long period of time. The preparation for death in American culture has very recently shifted from the sterile and impersonal practice of spending one’s last days in a hospital, towards a focus on dying at home with friends and family, as was common in the past. A more holistic approach is now preferred in which doctors and caretakers go beyond the physical element of dying and include spiritual and emotional support when caring for dying patients. This approach is common in Non-Western cultures, which includes many religions that view death as less taboo and more as a part of life. In Hinduism, as well as other religions, death is not a solitary affair, but rather a religious event in which family and friends gather around the dying person to sing chants and perform rituals. As people of these cultures move to America, they bring their attitudes towards the dying along with them. This cultural influence is apparent among Americans, whose dependence on emotional support varies among different subgroups. One study examined the nature and prevalence of spiritual or existential needs among cancer patients in New York. The needs included help in overcoming fears, finding meaning in life, finding spiritual resources and finding hope, as well as someone to talk about regarding the meaning of life, death and dying, and finding peace of mind. The study found that patients expressing 5 or more needs were more likely to be of Hispanic or African American origin, recently diagnosed and unmarried. Minority status was the best indicator of high needs endorsement. These results show that even among people in the same region, methods of preparing for death can vary for numerous reasons. Perhaps the cultural values that accompanied minorities when they came to America contribute to their greater need for people to help them emotionally cope with impending death. A large number of factors impact the way in which individuals prepare for death.

A controversial topic that has very recently arisen and has a strong biocultural component is assisted suicide. People are sharply divided on whether people in a vegetative state or those with a chronic incurable disease should be able to opt out of life support or for euthanasia to end their suffering rather than wait for natural death. Advocates for both sides of the issue present biological and cultural evidence to support their stance. On the one side are people who believe that assisted suicide is wrong in any situation. Many cultures and religions believe that other people do not hold the power to judge whether or not someone lives or dies. Also, many advocates of this stance take extreme issue with the idea of detaching life supporting from people who are in vegetative states, since it is never certain how much mental capacity the person retains. People in a vegetative state are, in a way, biologically between life and death: they retain non-cognitive functions and may even spontaneously open their eyes, laugh, or cry, yet have no higher brain functions and cannot respond to commands (NINDS, 2003.) People in a vegetative state have been known to regain some cognitive functions many years later, giving strength to the argument against assisted suicide. On the other side are people who believe that if someone is suffering and likely to die soon anyway, they should be allowed to choose to end their pain. The people who choose this option feel that death is merely a release from their suffering, and a much better option than waiting for death to come naturally. Although Oregon is the only place in the United States where assisted suicide is legal, suffering patients sometimes travel to countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal. These countries tend to be more culturally liberal, whereas in countries such as Japan and Germany, although having no laws preventing assisted suicide, cultural taboos make the practice very rare.

The exact definition of death is another issue that varies both across and within cultures. Many cultures, particularly Eastern ones, consider death part of a journey rather than an end. Followers of both Buddhism and Hinduism believe that death is part of a cycle, and that the souls of the dead will be reincarnated into new bodies. Members of Judaism, Islam and Sikhism all believe that death is not a tragedy, but rather part of a divine plan; however, Judaism has strict rules regarding the stages of grieving, while Islam and Sikhism discourage excessive grieving altogether. Due to the extensiveness and variability of Christianity, the attitudes towards the death vary from perceiving it as a great tragedy to accepting death as God’s will. The prevalence of Christianity in Western cultures most likely contributes to the notion of death as a dreaded event in American society, as opposed to the to the accepted and even celebrated status it has in other cultures. Also, the increasing secularism in America emphasizes material things, and may play a part in the adoration of life and resulting fear of death. Since much of the “American dream” is focused on obtaining wealth, possessions or power, these become the objectives Americans strive for, and the emphasis is placed on a worldly successful life rather than reaching a rewarding afterlife. The emphasis in American culture tends to be on the biology of death, rather than the spiritual nature. But even the exact biological process of death is not well understood and has given rise to legal and ethical debates. This confusion was virtually absent in the path, when people relied on outward signs such as breathing or heartbeat to determine whether someone was dead. Today’s modern technology has complicated the process, as we can now read brain waves, utilize life support, or keep comatose people alive for the duration of their life. No longer is death always the seemingly simple and apparent occurrence it used to be; now there are different stages of death, including clinical death, brain death and somatic death. In clinical death, breathing, heartbeat and brain waves are gone, but the brain is still alive and the person can be resuscitated through CPR or other methods. About 3 to 7 minutes after clinical death occurs, the brain dies of lack of oxygen, at which point it can not be revived, and is therefore known as brain death. After brain death, the other organs can be artificially kept alive if respiration and circulation are maintained by a life support machine, although the person can never be revived, and therefore the body is still not totally dead. Somatic death is the point at which the body is no longer dying, but completely dead: no brain activity, no respiration and no circulation. The subtle differences between these stages of death are the source of countless debates over whether life support should be used and when life support should be disconnected. Cultural attitudes, as well as biological facts, come into play when making the decision of whether or not a person is “dead” or not. Christianity holds that while it is not against God’s will to forgo extreme treatment, it is only moral to remove life support if there is absolutely no reasonable chance for recovery. Judaism also allows a person to opt out of extraordinary life-extending methods, but once life support is begun, it is considered immoral to detach it, based on the same principle that forbids abortion, since the womb is considered a form of “life support”. Islam, like Christianity, allows the removal of life support only if there is absolutely no chance of recovery. Hinduism is against using life-support, since it interferes with the cycle of death and rebirth. Because the issue of detaching life support is a fairly recent one, many religions including Sikhism and Buddhism have no formal stance on life support, but rather leave it up to the caretakers to determine what is best for the brain-dead individual. The issue of whether or not to prolong a brain-dead state is also an individual choice that varies within cultures. Some people feel that they would prefer to “die with dignity” and forgo life support altogether, while others would rather be kept alive as long as possible. Also, in the case that the person does not specify their desire for or against life support, the issue arises as to who has the authority to determine whether life support is used and when, if at all, it should be detached. In this situation, the caretaker’s cultural beliefs and their understanding of the biology of death determine the death of the other person.

Death has fascinated and baffled people since the beginning of humankind, and the advancement of technology and scientific knowledge has arguably only brought more questions than answered. The biological handling of death often collides with cultural and religious attitudes, making death-related ideas variable and often controversial. These differing attitudes can have an effect on a group’s biodiversity as modern life-saving techniques can be attempted if desired. When these come into play, a dying person with access and the desire to use these methods may survive whereas a person in the same situation, but without the access or wish to pursue life-extending techniques, may die. The retention or loss of these individuals’ genes can have a profound impact on their population’s biodiversity in the long run. Whereas in today’s society, doctors tend to put emphasis on the biological side of death, but an anthropological perspective allows us to consider the cultural aspects of death and its impact on the population, socially and genetically. Since the nature of death effectively prevents us from studying the biology of it any further, the social and cultural parts of it are the most promising new areas to study, with plenty of unexamined knowledge to obtain. With a better understanding of these often over-looked perspectives, we can create laws and policies that better accommodate a range of different cultural and moral attitudes. A biocultural approach to death is perhaps the best way to get a holistic and informed knowledge of this complicated event.

The decision of whether to legalize same-sex marriages and other official unions is currently facing lawmakers at the state and national levels in the United States. Proponents and opponents cite different aspects of marriage, including legal rights for couples, the potential for conceiving or adopting children, implications for children of same-sex couples, and general level of commitment between partners as factors to consider. Inherent in the decision-making process is the need for an evolutionary perspective as well as a biocultural definition of marriage that includes the biological and societal facets of the institution. In this sense, a divisive political issue becomes a question of anthropological significance.

Monogamous unions have existed for millennia and currently exist in non-human species from birds to antelopes. The reasons behind monogamy are not completely understood; some scientists explain the phenomenon by its reduction of jealousy and competition within social and family units in spite of its disadvantages to natural selection. Though in higher cognitive species, such as non-human primates, monogamy serves a social purpose in defining fixed and committed families, in all species it serves, as does any other arrangement of sexual partnering, a primarily reproductive function. In fact, research has shown that only dolphins and humans engage in sexual relationships for non-reproductive purposes and additionally, ceremonies confirming unions are also markedly absent in non-humans. In general, therefore, it is reasonable to say that humans are an exception in our treatment of monogamous unions and that marriage is not solely a product of nature, but also culture. An anthropological perspective on same-sex marriages is thus obligated to examine the dual nature of the institution in humans; as a biological reproductive union and as a cultural life partnership.

Homosexuals were among the groups of citizens sent to death camps in Nazi Germany because they did not contribute to the amplification of the Aryan race. Though not biologically incapable of reproducing, Hitler despised in them what he saw as self-imposed sterility. Naturally, same-sex couples are still incapable of having children of their own. However, in modern American culture, how much does this fact matter? The best way to assess the importance of reproduction in defining a marriage is to examine its prevalence in heterosexual married couples. There are several classes into which heterosexual couples fall, regarding the extent to which they can or do conceive their own children: first, of course, there are those who conceive children through sexual intercourse; second, those who conceive by artificial insemination with their own egg and sperm; third, those who conceive by artificial insemination with a donor egg or sperm; fourth, those who adopt children; and fifth, those that choose to prevent conception by some means of birth control.

Same-sex couples cannot fall into either of the first two classes for purely biological reasons but as for the other three, it is up to the discretion of lawmakers to determine whether homosexual couples may be included. In regards to artificial insemination, individual doctors have refused to work with same-sex couples seeking in vitro fertilization but individual women seeking donation are eligible. Gay couples may seek a surrogate mother to carry a child conceived by in vitro. However, questions still arise as to the “legitimacy” of children conceived in these manners since in most cases, the individuals birthing or raising the child are not legally wed.

Adoption by same-sex couples has been a heated subject of legislative debate in the last few years. According to the Human Rights Campaign, an organization which supports the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals, 22 states and the District of Columbia have allowed gay or lesbian individuals or same-sex couples to adopt children. Although only seven states and Washington, DC guarantee the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children, only three states explicitly ban either individuals or couples from adopting . Additionally, several prominent child interest groups, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children, support the right of gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. A study released in October 2003 indicated that 60% of adoption agencies in the United States accept applications from gay and lesbian couples and that 40% had already placed children with gay or lesbian parents.

While there are certainly no laws in existence that require married couples to have children and none that prevent them from engaging in intercourse with no intent to conceive, there were, until recently, numerous state laws prohibiting sodomy. The original justification behind the laws was likely homophobia, or else Hitler-esque in an aversion to sexual acts not resulting in conception. However, since the Supreme Court, in June 2003, overturned a Texas law against sodomy, there is currently no legal prohibition against sexual relationships without intent to conceive for homosexuals, just as there has never been for heterosexual couples.

When heterosexual couples apply for a marriage license, there is no practice that is or could be in place to assess into which of the aforementioned reproductive “categories” they will fall. Couples are not required to undergo fertility testing to estimate the possibility they will require in vitro fertilization or to state their intentions to adopt children or remain childless. For same-sex couples seeking to marry, however, it is obvious that they will not be able to conceive children on their own. If marriage were simply a means to a reproductive end, all couples’ reproductive intention would be assessed prior to legal marriage and undoubtedly, many a lawsuit would ensue if they were denied the ability to marry. However, these are clearly not the circumstances under which marriage exists in the US, which implies that there is an understanding of the meaning of marriage that goes beyond biology. Furthermore, since same-sex couples’ reproductive options are identical to those of many married heterosexual couples who are either infertile or choose adoption or to be childless, there must exist a reason beyond reproductive biology for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The other dimension of marriage is a socio-cultural one. The fact that couples stay married after children have grown and that some divorce even when children are involved indicates that marriage also represents a commitment to one’s spouse. This is evidenced in traditional and contemporary marriage vows; one version of the former contains the following words:

to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.

This pledge indicates that in making the decision to marry, couples pledge life-long companionship and devotion – nowhere is there a reference to reproduction for the sake of the survival of the human species.

Human beings are complex, emotional creatures; Abraham Maslow’s famous hierarchy of need places the needs for love and companionship towards the pyramid’s bottom, indicating that they are important and basic requirements for a healthy life. Same-sex couples, regardless of marriage or civil union status, have demonstrated the ability to provide these cerebral needs to their partners. In fighting for the right to legal marriage, same-sex couples are arguing for rights granted to other couples who provide the same needs to one another. These needs can be fulfilled with or without laws but the same is not true for the medical and financial support that committed same-sex couples desire to give and receive from their partners.

In summary, the institution of marriage as it currently exists in the US, has both strong biological and cultural components. As reproductive unions, marriages help ensure the survival and quality thereof of the human species. It is true that, if every human elected to marry another of the same sex, the species would eventually go extinct. However, barring freak circumstances, there is no chance of this happening and additionally, the same outcome could theoretically occur if every human were infertile. Yet, as previously discussed, infertile couples are not prohibited from getting married. So in other words, same-sex marriages do not represent a serious threat to the survival of the human species.

With no serious biological concerns distinguishing same-sex couples from heterosexual ones, one would look to culture for a good reason to ban them from getting married. However, there are no apparent cultural or societal aspects of marriage that cannot be met by two people of the same sex who are willing to provide love and dedication to their partner. Therefore, given the standards and expectations involving both biology and culture placed on married heterosexual couples, there is no reason that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. Anthropologically speaking, same-sex couples function as another facet of the diversity of the human species and from a biocultural perspective, deserve the same rights to be legally married as their heterosexual peers.

According to Jewish tradition, after the Exodus from Egypt, the male descendents of Moses' brother Aaron were selected by G-d to serve as priests. These priests were known as the Cohanim. In Judaism today, there are still certain men who are referred to as Cohanim. Since the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, it might expected that men claiming to be Cohanim today would all share similar Y chromosomes. Furthermore, it would be expected that these Y chromosomes would show that the Cohanim today share a common ancestor from the Temple period, approximately 2000-3000 years ago. Scientific research has shown that there is a common genetic link between modern day Cohanim and Cohanim from generations in the past. This research has additionally enabled scientists to identify isolated populations around the world as possible members of the Jewish community, as well as potential Cohanim.

The Jewish people are a diverse group, culturally and genetically. It is a common misconception among Jews and non-Jews alike to associate Jews with being white, and of Eastern European decent. In fact, Jewish people live all over the world, and look phenotypically quite different from each other. I spent my freshman year of college volunteering and studying in Israel where I was not only exposed to incredible new sites and experiences every day, and wonderful friends on my program, but I met so many new people every where I went. What amazed me the most was to walk around the streets of any Israeli city and to understand that nearly all the people I was seeing were in fact Jewish, but reminded me so little of myself, a white, American, Jew. There were white Jews from European countries, black Jews from Ethiopia, Asian Jews from China, and Jews representing both Ashkenasi and Sephardi (Jewish sects that split nearly 2,000 years ago, from Eastern Europe and Germany, and Spain and Northern Africa respectively) traditions. Everyone came to Israel with their own cultural heritage, own language, tastes in food, style of dress, but with a common bond; everyone was Jewish. From first appearances I felt so different from all of them, but as we grew closer I felt like we were one in the same. The beautiful thing about Judaism, for me, is that all Jews not only share in religious affiliation, but are part of the same people hood, and share in a long communal history.

A major time period during this communal Jewish history was the era of the ancient Jewish Temples. The first Temple stood from the 964BCE through 586BCE, and the second Temple stood from 516BCE through 70CE. During this time, Cohanim were the principle men assigned to carry out all matters of divine service and they were engaged in all cultic ceremonies that occurred within the Temple. Cohanim primarily dealt with the sacrifices that were performed on the Temple altar. The Hebrew word for Temple, “Beit Ha’migdash” literally translates to “house of the god” and therefore these Cohanim acted as literal servants to G-d. The widely accepted tradition is that the right to priesthood is maintained exclusively for the family and descendants of Aaron, the first High Priest after the Jews’ Exodus from Egypt, over 3000 years ago. The Cohen (the singular of Cohanim) line is patrilineal and has been passed on from father to son without interruption for more than 100 generations.

Today, the ancient Jewish Temple no longer stands in Jerusalem, but descendants of the original Cohanim can still be found in Jewish communities around the world. Many Jewish traditions once carried out in the Temple (sacrifices, for example) are no longer practiced in modern Judaism, but the Cohanim still carry out certain ritual tasks. Among these rituals are pronouncing blessings over the congregation at a synagogue on Jewish holidays, and the Cohanim receive the weekly honor of being the first to bless the Torah when it is read each week on Shabbat. Many modern day Cohanim have surnames deriving from this title including names like Cohen, Cohn, and Kahn. It is names like these that link this portion of the Jewish population together and connect Jews to their past through such a meaningful tradition.

Tradition, however, is not the only way in which modern day Cohanim can now be linked together. Significant genetic research has been completed recently to prove that Cohanim can be linked together by means other than the simple oral tradition that Cohanim pass on to their sons. A leading medical researcher, Karl Skorecki, realized that this link could reside in DNA.

Chromosomes are mainly composed of DNA, which is essentially a genetic instruction manual written in a four letter alphabet: A (adenine), T (thymine), C (cytosine), and G (guanine). Simple combinations of these letters form the history recorded in the 60 million “words” of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome, the sex defining chromosome of males, is passed solely from father to son, exactly like Cohen status. Therefore, if all Cohanim are supposedly descendents of Aaron, then all modern day Cohanim should have a similar Y chromosome with a common origin.

While the chromosome is highly complicated, every male must possess a Y chromosome which he inherits only from his father; thus a man's Y chromosome represents a unique record of his paternal inheritance. The Y chromosome a father passes to his son is, in large measure, an unchanged copy of his own. Small changes, called polymorphisms, can occur, and the correct interpretation of these changes in the Y chromosome, when passed down from generation to generation, can shed light on our comprehension of human history. Many polymorphisms are found all over the world, and are being used by scientists to trace paternal lineages.

Polymorphisms are caused by mutations which are the genetic marker for variation within DNA. Mutations that occur within a gene (the part of the DNA that codes for proteins) usually cause harm to the individual such as a malfunction or disease. In these mutations, the individual passes this defective gene on and affects the next generation, usually causing the defective genes to be lost due to natural selection. If the mutation occurs, however, outside of the gene in a so called “non-coding region” of DNA, the change will be passed on to future generations without harm. The amalgamation of non-harmful mutations, called a haplotype, is the genetic identifier of a man’s male ancestry. Some haplotypes associated with the Y-chromosome are directly related to certain polymorphisms.

Skorecki and his colleagues from universities in the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Israel, teamed together to search for a distinct priestly Y chromosome, a unique haplotype that may be a genetic identifier for Cohanim. Their tests determined that those male Jews claiming to be Cohanim did in fact have Y chromosome features that were unique from other Jews. These tests were unable to prove that every modern day Cohen could be linked together by this unique feature, but they did offer evidence that some males claiming to be Cohanim do have a similar haplotype that dates back to the time of Aaron.

For their first study, using methods of genetic archeology and genetic anthropology, the team compiled DNA samples from 188 Jewish men from the United States, Canada and Israel. 68 of the men claimed to be Cohanim. The researchers focused on a few different genetic markers within the participants’ DNA, the most important being data that came Alu element. The Alu element is a short DNA sequence that can copy itself and reinsert the copy into a different location within the same or different chromosome. One Alu element, YAP, formed so recently in human history that only a small portion of the human population has it. Thus, if a specific population of humans is YAP-positive, scientists can map out its historical migrations and relationships.

What was of interest, however, was that many non-Cohen Jews did have the Alu element, suggesting that Cohanim were genetically unique among the Jewish community. In this particular study, researchers observed that almost no Cohanim possessed the YAP, even when comparing Ashkenazim and Sephardim. It can be observed that finding the common genetic marker within both Ashkenazim and Sephardim Cohanim from around the world undoubtedly indicates that the origin of YAP pre-dates the separation the two Jewish communities.

In their second study, the researchers gathered an even larger population group studying 306 Jewish men, 106 of them being Cohanim. In this study, several more genetic markers were tested and the scientists were able to conclude that 97% of the Cohanim tested shared the same array of six Y-chromosome markers, compared to only 50% of lay Jews. These six markers, including YAP, are considered unique-event polymorphisms, meaning that they are among genetic mutations that are thought to have only occurred on a single occasion in human evolution. This would imply that Jewish males with those polymorphisms shared one common ancestor in the past. Throughout their various studies, researchers have been able to confirm that now over 90% of self-identified Cohanim have this common set of genetic markers.

This research has contributed to numerous surprising findings. First, this genetic information has resulted in the highest “paternity-certainty” rate ever documented in population genetics studies. Secondly, and often most exciting for many historians and researchers, is that this information could have significant ramifications in the search for the biblical ten lost tribes of Israel.

In 926 BCE., the kingdom of Israel divided into two kingdoms. Until then, all twelve biblical tribes of Israel had been unified under the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon. When Solomon’s son took over the throne, however, the ten Northern tribes resisted and seceded from the kingdom. After their rebellion, the tribes were split into two different nations and remained so until around 723 B.C., when the Assyrians conquered the Northern kingdom. Most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom. The deported Israelites supposedly intermarried with the peoples of the locations where they resettled. They eventually lost their distinctive identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to the narration. Many now refer to them as “the lost tribes of Israel.”

Several groups around the world practice Judaic customs and claim to be descendents of the biblical tribes of Israel. This can be a highly controversial issue because sometimes communities will claim to be Jewish in order to obtain Israeli immigration rights that promise full citizenship to all Jewish people around the world. A joint London-Oxford University team examined a black, Bantu-speaking tribe in South Africa and Zimbabwe called the Lemba that claimed to be one of these lost tribes. Today the Lemba number around 50,000 people. Though largely affiliated today with Christianity today, the Lemba have an oral tradition of having descended from Jews and maintain many Jewish practices such as circumcision, ritual slaughtering of animals for food, abstention from eating pork, and keeping one day each week as holy. According to this oral history, the original group of Lemba was primarily male, and made their way to Southern Africa along the eastern coast by boat.

Tudor Parfitt, a British academic, came across the Lemba tribe while lecturing in South Africa about Ethiopian Jews. Several members of the audience, black men wearing the traditional Jewish head covering, the kippah, approached him claiming to also be Jewish. After considering Skorecki’s research on the Cohanim, Parfitt sought out to determine whether or not the Lemba’s supposed Jewish ancestry could be confirmed through examining the Y chromosomes of the Lemba men and seeking out similarities to the Y chromosomes of Jewish men around the world.

The results were astonishing, showing that 9% of the Lemba men (a percentage 3 times higher than that of known Jewish populations) had a Cohen haplotype, and that the priestly class of Lemba known to be descendents of the tribe’s original founder, Buba, had a Cohen Y chromosome frequency of 53%. The Buba is recognized as the senior of the twelve Lemba clans and in many ways the Buba is comparable to the Cohen. Many non-Lemba Bantu speakers were studied as well and it was found that they did not carry the Cohen haplotype. The researchers concluded that the Lemba most likely originate from a mixture of Jewish, Arab (much like Jews are also a mixture of Semitic peoples) and Bantu origins, but the presence of the Cohen haplotype in Lemba men could only have an exclusively Jewish source. The genetic evidence is therefore consistent with the Lemba’s Jewish-rooted oral tradition. This striking evidence may now help Jewish historians to identify a lost tribe, and has helped the Lemba and will potentially help other such groups more clearly understand their own histories. Additionally, the Lemba people will perhaps one day be able to migrate to Israel if they so choose and obtain citizenship as Jews, and they now will be able to feel connected to the entire Jewish world.

This research is an excellent example of how knowledge of both cultural and biological factors plays a significant role in our understanding of human beings. Through looking at this example of Jewish Cohanim, anthropologists can demonstrate how all humans are truly linked in some way by cultural bonds, and certainly linked by genetics and evolution. As a Jew, I found this research very meaningful. To be part of the Jewish community is to share a common history, memory and tradition. It is fascinating that my community is not simply united by stories, practices and cultural traditions, but that these stories and traditions can be linked together through genetics, and to an extent proven to be science and not just religious custom. It is exciting to think that I am so closely related genetically, and culturally, to so many people in the world.

The human face has always been used for the scientific and unscientific crowd alike to determine differences and similarities among any group. These facial differences, however, are only defined by a very minute portion of each person’s DNA. Yet that minute portion can influence traits such as the color of eyes, shape of the face, nose and mouth. At the onset of scientific advancements and socialization, these once permanent features are becoming increasingly easy to manipulate.

First, the rise of cosmetics allowed people to cover and enhance certain parts of the face. Some may goes as far as a change in skin tone or deceptively larger or smaller eyes. Later advancements include color contact lenses to change color of eyes and hair dye to transform light blonde hair to a crimson red. All these changes were not completely permanent, asides from the hair color, which when hair grew out could still maintain its original color, but at the end of the day, with a splash of water, the face is back in its original form. Then in the 18^th century the introduction of plastic surgery revolutionized the natural human face.

Plastic surgery is not a recent phenomenon. In fact, it has been around for at least 4,000 years ago. Egyptian manuscript revealed that physicians were reconstructing and treating faces from injuries including mandibular and nasal fractures in 3,000 BC. Another example of early use was cited in 800 BC where Indian physicians were using skin grafts for reconstruction surgery. Major developments in plastic surgery picked up during late 1800s with increased needs for medical treatments in serious facial and head injuries caused as a result of war.

One of the common procedures that was refined during this period was rhinoplasty or the surgical repair of the nose. The word part “plasty” in rhinoplasty is also found in plastic surgery, but not to mean “artificial”—instead, from the Greek root, “to mold,” “to repair” or “form.” Physicians wanted to find ways to repair or form the nose, where in some cases was partially nonexistent. With a culmination of past and current techniques, several European physicians were able to fine tune the operating procedures of rhinoplasty in the 19^th century. The more successful prescriptions included the use of heterogeneous free bone grafting to reconstruct saddle nose defects and the use anesthesia to make reconstructive rhinoplasty more tolerable on the patient.

The latter success is the one of the driving factors to perform plastic surgery for aesthetic purposes. In 1891, John Roe, an American otorhinolaryngologist, performed the first aesthetically purposed rhinoplasty. He reduced a dorsal nasal hump on a young woman’s nose by an internal incision between the nasal bone and upper lateral cartilage. This successful operation, the use of anesthesia to reduce pain during the operation, and the acceptance of aesthetics to be reasons for surgery helped propel an age-old medical practice to the billion dollar industry it is today.

However, today’s plastic surgeries are not limited to facial reconstruction, but also to liposuction, lipoplasty, and breast augmentation. According a NBC4 news report, the top five cosmetic procedures for women are: (1) breast augmentation, (2) liposuction, (3) nose reshaping, (4) eyelid surgery and (5) a facelift. In men, they are: (1) nose reshaping, (2) liposuction, (3) eyelid surgery, (4) hair transplantation and (5) ear surgery (to pin back ears). Many of the surgeries last no more than half a day and its results can last a lifetime. The cost for surgery is also lowering and many people find it normal to consider plastic surgery. In Cleveland, Ohio older job candidates are turning to plastic surgery for a younger fresh look to compete with the new college graduates in the job market.

Stories of how women are willing to go under the knife, even in unsafe conditions, have brought up issues of motivating factors. Countries such as China and South Korea have varieties of specialists—some good and some not qualified performing these plastic surgeries for thousands of men and women. These women are looking for a cure to unattractiveness and in one case raising her nose by three millimeters was the answer to her psychological woes. The very next day, she reported that many commented on how pretty she looked.

Hao Lulu of Beijing, China is also undergoing plastic surgery—in addition to getting her eyes widened, the skin of her cheeked smoothed, breasts pumped up, calves slimmed, hips rounded and rear end reshaped, she is also going to slim down her face and smooth out skin on her neck (Guterl 2003). Once these procedures are done, Lulu has agreed to let the beauty center that performed the $50,000 surgery to use her as their spokesperson (ibid). The beauty center has performed well over a half-dozen operations a day and in recent years the number of surgeries has reached millions, unofficially (ibid).

Many people, youths in particular, are insecure about how they look and are often targeted for the use of these types of plastic surgeries. Often, there is a certain look that is in style and consequently many people will go running to these doctors to gain that look. However, some skeptics complain that there is a lack of individuality, especially when everyone around you looks the same. The push may seem to be a more homogenous definition of beauty worldwide.

What baffled me even more was the idea of a mathematically pleasing face, where the dimensions of a face can follow a pattern of 1.618 to 1—the Golden Ratio (Guterl 2003). This is derived from a notion that ideal beauty is quantifiable and this pattern is seen in things such as snail shells and tree leaves. A computer program has actually been devised to create the ideal face of correct proportion from a scan of the candidate.

In the past, there seems to be an evolutionary advantage to being the wider hipped in women because they were likely to have success in births. Yet the current times suggest a body type totally deviating from what was considered ideal. With the advent of technology, plastic surgery has made available to society a do-it-yourself kit to perfecting superficial beauty. Facial features are now influenced by how susceptible people are convinced that they need to change their faces. In no time, however, a face lift or breast augmentation may lose its temporary effects on some people because true beauty lies within. But who knows—someone may decide come up with creating your own “artificial personality”! Along with a popular looking face, a personality of your favorite celebrity may just be the step away from biodiversity and one dangerous step into conformity.