Posted on 09/17/2002 8:21:39 AM PDT by blam
Genes may be reason for Jews' low alcoholism rate
Genes, and not religious conviction, explain why Jewish people typically have fewer drink problems than non-Jews.
Researchers in the US say a genetic mutation carried by at least a fifth of Jews appears to protect against alcoholism.
The same inherited trait is fairly common in Asian people, but is much rarer in white Europeans.
The Daily Telegraph says the findings could help explain why Israel has one of the lowest levels of alcoholism in the developed world.
The mutation, called ADH2*2, is involved in the way the body breaks down alcohol in the bloodstream.
Scientists are unsure exactly how it protects against alcoholism, but it is thought to increase levels of the toxic chemical acetaldehyde - a by-product of alcohol metabolism. At high levels, acetaldehyde causes headaches, nausea and flushing.
Almost all white Europeans lack the ADH2*2 variation and so produce less of the by-product. Thus drinking tends to be more pleasurable, increasing the risks of alcoholism.
The new study, published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, looked at the relationship between the gene variant and alcoholism among 75 Israeli Jews aged 22 to 65.
The study's author, Dr Deborah Hasin, from Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute, said: "This finding adds to the growing body of evidence that this genetic variation has a protective effect against alcoholism among Jewish groups."
Story filed: 08:34 Tuesday 17th September 2002
75 individuals seems like a small group to study. Were there any differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews? How about Yemeni Jews? They may not have had enough from each group to draw any firm conclusions. How about comparisons with the Samaritans or with Lebanese or Palestinian Christians--the trait may not be limited only to Jews.
I'm thinking the same thing.
Gotta be real careful in accepting these "Gene studies". Long threads here on FR last year seemed to indicate most such studies were at least "badly tainted" with the self interest of the sponsors and researchers. The "research results" always seemed to meet the expectations of the financial sponsors. Other experts blasted their integrity.
I know and agree. But, when it is the only lead available, I follow it until it is dis-proved. (It's included into a big pile of other information that will someday 'shake-out')
Oi! Come over here and say that!!! *hic*
Yep, none of the Israelites were named Jews until well after the split into Northern and Southern Kingdoms, about 922 BC.
I challenge your minimilization of this respectfully.....with regards to physical differences between the 3 major racial groups and their subset hybrids.
You should note however that I do not take the leap of drawing intellectual distinctions based on race based genetic differences. That is much more speculative. The physical differences are quite apparent.
Of course Jews are not a race. However a Sephardic and particularly an Oriental Jew probably has more genetic commonality with his fellow Semites than with his Ashkhenazim cousins.
Yeah, what's up with that? And just how is Jewish Rye bread made? How does it make a choice of religion?
Hogwash. (And that's the most repectful term I can come up with.) Culture has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. If you drop a Swedish infant into the middle of South Korea, in 18 years you'll have a blond haired, blue eyed Korean; not a Swede. Culture is learned.
Yes and no. Mainly no. If you'd like to hear more, ask.
Your statement that it is Hogwash that genetics influences behavior which influences culture discounts many rather obvious exceptions like American Indian alcoholism. I for one do not think that American Indians have incredible alcoholism rates strictly because of their behavior and culture. They are obviously genetically predisposed to abuse alcohol and occupy an environment conducive to such behavior hence their genetics is indeed influencing their behavior and in turn their culture.
BTW, you could probably drop that Swedish baby into a family of chimps and it would emulate chimps as well...to a degree.
I have observed race and culture all over the world and confess that from a layman's perspective that there are indeed differences physically which can most definitely be catagorized by race. Often but not always, there are substantial cultural definitions ascribed by race (and genetics) as well but then one gets into all the other variables which contribute besides race so it becomes impossible to draw a conclusion as to how much influence that is.
Yes....and culture is developed over a period of time by behavior which in my view is influenced by many factors such as climate, geography, food sources, and yes genetics. And genetics likewise change right along with the other variables as they change.
Every year at Passover, my father would take down a bottle of wine he kept in a kitchen cabinet. He and my mother would sip a little bit. That was it for drinking until the next Passover.
In college, I once had two drinks (whiskey). I felt so sick I never drank again.
Truth is, I feel deprived of real alcohol appreciation.
However if genetics and hence behavior have no influence on culture than why do we not all have a universal bland culture worldwide?
We have different cultures because we speak different languages. Are you going to claim that language is dictated by DNA? Is there a French gene? An English gene? When people speak different languages, they don't interact. If they don't interact, then they don't share culture.
Indeed in your extreme example of dropping one Swedish infant into any foreign environment then you are correct that this infant will assume most of the cultural practices around itself in time.
Most practices? Try ALL practices. Or perhaps you can tell us what Swedish cultural traits are genetically determined. You are obviously mistaking genetics for culture.
Oh... Admittedly, "Hogwash" isn't the most accurate term I could have used. However, I didn't want to see the AM pull the post for foul language; no matter how apropos it might be.
The word "anti-Semite" was invented during the discussion of the "Jewish question." Since it was being debated by intellectuals, many of whom wanted to show that their prejucide is not of a common-fold kind, a high-brow word was used: anti-Semite rather than anti-Jewish. There was no confusion, since there were no other Semites in Western Europe, and no "Semitic" question of any other kind has ever been raised.
Now, the Arab propaganda just loves this stuff: they are quickly to point out that, if the word is to be broken down into parts, that term cannot apply to them. The point is exactly that: the word "anti-Semite" stands historically for "against the Jews." It was NOT built up from the parts "anti" and "Semite;" when broken down into these parts it looses its meaning.
ABC NEWS WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The out-of-Africa theory is not dead, anthropologists and other experts said, despite two studies that challenge the idea we are all descended from a single African "Eve." U.S. and Australian researchers published two reports that used physical and genetic evidence to suggest there may have been mixing of pre-humans with modern species. They said they had proved wrong the mainstream out-of-Africa theory -- that the ancestors of all living humans emerged from Africa some 50,000 years ago and either killed off or out-competed all other human-like creatures who settled across much of the world. One study used genetic evidence that suggested "Mungo Man" -- an Australian skeleton dated to between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago -- is genetically unrelated to Africans. The researchers, Gregory Adcock of Australian National University and colleagues, said their finding showed the first modern humans evolved in Australia, not Africa. Another, published in Friday"s issue of the journal Science, analyzed physical features of early human skulls to suggest there must have been interbreeding among the migrating Africans and resident Neanderthals and even Homo erectus species of pre-humans. "There never was a marauding band of Africans," University of Michigan anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, who led the second study, said in a telephone interview. "It certainly means that the "Eve" theory, the replacement theory, seems to be wrong." The Australian team and Wolpoff and colleagues belong to the "multiregionalist" school of human evolution. They believe humans evolved around the world at roughly the same time, and that they probably mixed with earlier species such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. The out-of-Africa school says that all earlier humans died out and were replaced by a small group from Africa who quickly conquered the world. Some experts say the two theories are not incompatible -- although they predict a fight over the latest studies. FINGER-POINTING AND EGOS "There might be a lot of finger-pointing and name calling and debate that is more heat than light," said Peter Underhill of Stanford University, who has published genetic studies that date our common ancestors to an African man who lived 59,000 years ago and an African woman who lived 143,000 years ago. "But I don"t think it torpedoes the recent out-of-Africa scenario at all. I don"t think these two papers are going to turn the world of human evolution on its head." It does not matter whether early humans mixed or evolved into "modern" forms in more than one place, Underhill said. The out-of-Africa theory holds only that one lineage finally held sway, either through luck, better genes, or a combination of the two. We are all descended from that lineage, he said. "Everyone on Earth today is very closely related," he said. "It might suggest that there was some hybridization with moderns and possibly other modern lineages that existed 60,000 years ago that are now extinct, or it is possible there was some kind of hybridization with some sort of archaic human that lived in the past," Underhill added. "But no one is walking around so far in Europe with Neanderthal (genes)." So if both theories can co-exist, why argue? "Egos, egos, egos," Underhill said. "Scientists are human." Clark Howell, a professor emeritus of human evolution at the University of California Berkeley, agreed. "There is a tendency in some instances for some people at some times ... to jump to very wide, sweeping conclusions," he said. "In my view these two studies don"t upset any apple carts that are known." In other words, modern humans may have indeed evolved in places other than Africa. They may even have mated occasionally with Neanderthals, who did live at the same time and in the same places. But genetically, they have since died out. "If we are looking for the ancestry of modern people, where people alive today came from, where their genes came from -- if there was such hybridization it is negligible. It is impossible to find today," Chris Stringer, head of human origins at London"s Natural History Museum and an architect of the out-of-Africa theory, told Britain"s Guardian newspaper.
And yes I know paragraphs are our friend but that's how this came.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.