Q&A with Alondra Nelson
By Misha Angrist,
Genome Magazine
| 03. 30. 2017
Why did you choose to examine African-Americans’ approach to genetic ancestry in The Social Life of DNA?
Given the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, given the history of eugenics, one of the curiosities for me was why in the world would African-Americans put their saliva in an envelope and expect that they’re going to get anything meaningful for their lives or their history [from a genetic ancestry] test? That became the puzzle of the book.
What did you learn?
That there were all sorts of complicated answers. The African-American genealogists I spoke with were not only suspicious, they were also curious — they were science geeks. I thought if they knew better, then they would do better. But what they said was, “Look, we know this history [of Tuskegee and eugenics] and we’re going into this with that history in mind, and we’ll take that into account as we negotiate and think about the results we get back.”
What does it mean for DNA to have a “social life?”
Initially, I thought I was talking about racial identity and ethnic identity. And...
Related Articles
It’s been a busy couple of months in biopolitics, with developments in the US, UK, China, Japan, and implicitly on Mars. Time for a brief roundup.
• • •
Bioethics needs an update
The National Research Act is now 50 years old. It was signed into law on July 12, 1974, as a direct response to publicity about the 1932 “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The Hastings Bioethics Forum celebrated its anniversary with an...
By Robert Resta, The DNA Exchange | 07.22.2024
Medical geneticists and genetic counselors have an often complicated and at times tense relationship with people with disabilities, their families, advocates, and scholars. Geneticists are strong advocates and supporters for all of their patients, regardless of their abilities and disabilities...
By Katherine Bourzac, Nature | 07.10.2024
Image courtesy National Human Genome Research Institute
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to encourage effective medical advances while also ensuring that patients and research subjects are protected. This dual mandate demands tricky judgment calls that are made more difficult by outside pressures of several kinds, political, judicial, and especially commercial. This April story at Bloomberg examines one deeply troubling pattern of regulatory capture:
Americans Are Paying Billions to Take Drugs That Don’t Work
Companies are increasingly...
