racisme: et alors : Voici la source

sundance

29/12/2004 à 00:53

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By now
most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals. Is
a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or her
DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports. But
unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of DNA
markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area of
racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but that
changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that an
unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the white
man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the arrest
of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good indication
of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do so," says
Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of Cincinnati's Center
for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board skirted the
racial-marker issue in part because of the political minefield it
represented. Thus today's standard American DNA fingerprint, with its
battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently added to the standard 13),
is a sort of bar code identifier that is fine for matching two DNA
samples but offers no hints about the human package from which a
crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic identification.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty acceded to the request
of a family whose son had been a passenger on United Flight 93 (the
thwarted terrorist mission brought down in Pennsylvania). "We had a
specimen that consisted of at least two individuals' remains, one of
which was their son's," he explains. "The family was reluctant to bury
it with his other body parts if it contained any remains that might
belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty determined, with 95 percent
certainty, that the unidentified tissue did not belong to anyone of
Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty, "but
we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn, within
each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and skin color,
and other facial features predominate. Such information could prove
useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it) should not be
interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy that a person
will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last March
that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was 85
percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the time,
the police were on an altogether different track: They had been seeking
a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of one of the
crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's sample
to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right," Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police say
matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now awaiting
trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may be just the
beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say. "To be honest,
most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside somewhere along a
continuum rather than as members of physically distinct groups." He says
DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to detect more specific physical
traits, and it hopes to have the first such test--Retinome, for eye
color--ready for market by the end of 2003. "After that, give us another
year for hair color," he says. The latter is a particularly bold boast,
since not much is known about hair color markers beyond one associated
with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service trumpeted
the development of something called a DNA photofit. Emboldened by the
identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic look" (fair skin and
red hair), it poured money into an ambitious project at University
College London. Scientists scanned the faces of hundreds of volunteers
in an attempt to correlate digitized facial geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely paralleled
the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists, who build their
drawings around a witness's best recollections of certain landmark
geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape and the distance
across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College team
could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney, a
medical imaging expert at University College London. But the connection
between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for the London
scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student learns,
genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical expression of
our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he argues that the
sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer analysis of genetic
information greatly expands the layers of genetic clues that can go into
a DNA-based best guess about a person's physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the whole
genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're searching
for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing a grid
search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically determine, OK,
the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid." This contrasts, he
says, with gene searches of just a few years ago, which were much more
hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the National
Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch based on the
DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of black and
Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to the NFL and
concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia (associated with
African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of eyewitness
accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany currently
outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in medical
situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not even
supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says Benecke. "But
how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only looking at things
that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from now,
we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal might as
well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By now
most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals. Is
a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or her
DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports. But
unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of DNA
markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area of
racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but that
changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that an
unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the white
man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the arrest
of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good indication
of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do so," says
Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of Cincinnati's Center
for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board skirted the
racial-marker issue in part because of the political minefield it
represented. Thus today's standard American DNA fingerprint, with its
battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently added to the standard 13),
is a sort of bar code identifier that is fine for matching two DNA
samples but offers no hints about the human package from which a
crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic identification.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty acceded to the request
of a family whose son had been a passenger on United Flight 93 (the
thwarted terrorist mission brought down in Pennsylvania). "We had a
specimen that consisted of at least two individuals' remains, one of
which was their son's," he explains. "The family was reluctant to bury
it with his other body parts if it contained any remains that might
belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty determined, with 95 percent
certainty, that the unidentified tissue did not belong to anyone of
Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty, "but
we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn, within
each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and skin color,
and other facial features predominate. Such information could prove
useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it) should not be
interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy that a person
will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last March
that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was 85
percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the time,
the police were on an altogether different track: They had been seeking
a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of one of the
crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's sample
to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right," Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police say
matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now awaiting
trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may be just the
beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say. "To be honest,
most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside somewhere along a
continuum rather than as members of physically distinct groups." He says
DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to detect more specific physical
traits, and it hopes to have the first such test--Retinome, for eye
color--ready for market by the end of 2003. "After that, give us another
year for hair color," he says. The latter is a particularly bold boast,
since not much is known about hair color markers beyond one associated
with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service trumpeted
the development of something called a DNA photofit. Emboldened by the
identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic look" (fair skin and
red hair), it poured money into an ambitious project at University
College London. Scientists scanned the faces of hundreds of volunteers
in an attempt to correlate digitized facial geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely paralleled
the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists, who build their
drawings around a witness's best recollections of certain landmark
geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape and the distance
across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College team
could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney, a
medical imaging expert at University College London. But the connection
between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for the London
scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student learns,
genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical expression of
our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he argues that the
sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer analysis of genetic
information greatly expands the layers of genetic clues that can go into
a DNA-based best guess about a person's physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the whole
genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're searching
for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing a grid
search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically determine, OK,
the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid." This contrasts, he
says, with gene searches of just a few years ago, which were much more
hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the National
Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch based on the
DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of black and
Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to the NFL and
concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia (associated with
African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of eyewitness
accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany currently
outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in medical
situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not even
supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says Benecke. "But
how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only looking at things
that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from now,
we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal might as
well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

Vous avez filtré cet utilisateur ! Consultez son message

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By now
most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals. Is
a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or her
DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports. But
unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of DNA
markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area of
racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but that
changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that an
unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the white
man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the arrest
of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good indication
of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do so," says
Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of Cincinnati's Center
for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board skirted the
racial-marker issue in part because of the political minefield it
represented. Thus today's standard American DNA fingerprint, with its
battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently added to the standard 13),
is a sort of bar code identifier that is fine for matching two DNA
samples but offers no hints about the human package from which a
crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic identification.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty acceded to the request
of a family whose son had been a passenger on United Flight 93 (the
thwarted terrorist mission brought down in Pennsylvania). "We had a
specimen that consisted of at least two individuals' remains, one of
which was their son's," he explains. "The family was reluctant to bury
it with his other body parts if it contained any remains that might
belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty determined, with 95 percent
certainty, that the unidentified tissue did not belong to anyone of
Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty, "but
we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn, within
each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and skin color,
and other facial features predominate. Such information could prove
useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it) should not be
interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy that a person
will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last March
that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was 85
percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the time,
the police were on an altogether different track: They had been seeking
a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of one of the
crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's sample
to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right," Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police say
matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now awaiting
trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may be just the
beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say. "To be honest,
most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside somewhere along a
continuum rather than as members of physically distinct groups." He says
DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to detect more specific physical
traits, and it hopes to have the first such test--Retinome, for eye
color--ready for market by the end of 2003. "After that, give us another
year for hair color," he says. The latter is a particularly bold boast,
since not much is known about hair color markers beyond one associated
with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service trumpeted
the development of something called a DNA photofit. Emboldened by the
identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic look" (fair skin and
red hair), it poured money into an ambitious project at University
College London. Scientists scanned the faces of hundreds of volunteers
in an attempt to correlate digitized facial geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely paralleled
the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists, who build their
drawings around a witness's best recollections of certain landmark
geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape and the distance
across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College team
could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney, a
medical imaging expert at University College London. But the connection
between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for the London
scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student learns,
genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical expression of
our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he argues that the
sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer analysis of genetic
information greatly expands the layers of genetic clues that can go into
a DNA-based best guess about a person's physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the whole
genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're searching
for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing a grid
search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically determine, OK,
the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid." This contrasts, he
says, with gene searches of just a few years ago, which were much more
hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the National
Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch based on the
DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of black and
Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to the NFL and
concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia (associated with
African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of eyewitness
accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany currently
outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in medical
situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not even
supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says Benecke. "But
how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only looking at things
that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from now,
we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal might as
well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

Goldy

29/12/2004 à 02:11

Je suis tout à fait les propos de monsieur RAI, les races existent bels
et bien, mais elles ont apportées tellement de problèmes à l'humanité
qu'un bon nombre de personnes préfère maintenant les nier, c'est vrai
qu'éthiquement, c'est beaucoup plus joli de se dire qu'on est tous
pareils et tout.

Mais depuis les esclaves d'Amérique, et surtout Hitler avec sa race
aryenne et sa race juive (qui elle n'existe pas, car on ne peut pas
associer librement une religion à un groupe de personnes, même si les
fondamentaux de cette religion, ne prônant pas le prosélytisme, a permis
à un bon nombre de Juifs de garder les traits similaires à leurs
ancêtres d'Israël), il est tout simplement impossible pour le monde
scientifique de parler de race en ce qui concerne les êtres humains. Ce
n'est pas pour autant qu'elles n'existent pas. On parle plus volontiers
de caractère ou particularité, ou bien encore l'origine associée à cette
particularité, il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion. Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

Je suis tout à fait les propos de monsieur RAI, les races existent bels
et bien, mais elles ont apportées tellement de problèmes à l'humanité
qu'un bon nombre de personnes préfère maintenant les nier, c'est vrai
qu'éthiquement, c'est beaucoup plus joli de se dire qu'on est tous
pareils et tout.

Mais depuis les esclaves d'Amérique, et surtout Hitler avec sa race
aryenne et sa race juive (qui elle n'existe pas, car on ne peut pas
associer librement une religion à un groupe de personnes, même si les
fondamentaux de cette religion, ne prônant pas le prosélytisme, a permis
à un bon nombre de Juifs de garder les traits similaires à leurs
ancêtres d'Israël), il est tout simplement impossible pour le monde
scientifique de parler de race en ce qui concerne les êtres humains. Ce
n'est pas pour autant qu'elles n'existent pas. On parle plus volontiers
de caractère ou particularité, ou bien encore l'origine associée à cette
particularité, il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion. Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

Vous avez filtré cet utilisateur ! Consultez son message

Je suis tout à fait les propos de monsieur RAI, les races existent bels
et bien, mais elles ont apportées tellement de problèmes à l'humanité
qu'un bon nombre de personnes préfère maintenant les nier, c'est vrai
qu'éthiquement, c'est beaucoup plus joli de se dire qu'on est tous
pareils et tout.

Mais depuis les esclaves d'Amérique, et surtout Hitler avec sa race
aryenne et sa race juive (qui elle n'existe pas, car on ne peut pas
associer librement une religion à un groupe de personnes, même si les
fondamentaux de cette religion, ne prônant pas le prosélytisme, a permis
à un bon nombre de Juifs de garder les traits similaires à leurs
ancêtres d'Israël), il est tout simplement impossible pour le monde
scientifique de parler de race en ce qui concerne les êtres humains. Ce
n'est pas pour autant qu'elles n'existent pas. On parle plus volontiers
de caractère ou particularité, ou bien encore l'origine associée à cette
particularité, il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion. Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

sundance

29/12/2004 à 02:36

Goldy a écrit :

...il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Normal, ils sont moins racistes qu'en europe.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Iceland Unveils Its Gene Pool and Debate Flares

http://www.samsloan.com/icelandg.htm

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion.
Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu
dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

Goldy a écrit :

...il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Normal, ils sont moins racistes qu'en europe.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Iceland Unveils Its Gene Pool and Debate Flares

http://www.samsloan.com/icelandg.htm

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion.
Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu
dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

Vous avez filtré cet utilisateur ! Consultez son message

Goldy a écrit :

...il est impossible de nier les races en tant que tel,
seuls les Américains n'ont pas peur d'utiliser le mot race.

Normal, ils sont moins racistes qu'en europe.

Le problème de la race avec les humains, c'est qu'elles ont de plus en
plus tendance à s'estomper, nous sommes tous devenus des bâtards, et il
n'est plus possible pour beaucoup de pouvoir se faire assimiler à une
race telle que l'on pourrait le faire avec un chien ou un cheval, la
complexité de la chose à aussi permis d'avancer la thèse de l'absence
même de races humaines, mais ce n'est pas parce qu'elles n'existent
plus, qu'elles n'existent pas.

Iceland Unveils Its Gene Pool and Debate Flares

http://www.samsloan.com/icelandg.htm

Mais de par mon métier, j'ai appris à observer les gens (je suis
photographe) et c'est amusant d'arriver à reconnaître toutes ces
similitudes qui peuvent apparaître dans un groupe de personnes, de par
des traits et des formes qui laissent imaginer qu'il devait bien y avoir
une race à l'origine.

Je pense donc qu'il ne faut pas nier l'existence même des races
humaines, mais plutôt partir du principe qu'elles n'existent presque
plus dans notre civilisation (ce qui n'est pas le cas partout dans le
monde) et surtout qu'elles sont très difficilement applicable pour un
très grand nombre de personnes chez qui il n'y a plus vraiment de traits
caractériels permettant d'être directement associer à un groupe de
personnes.

Philippe RAI a écrit :
.

Pas du tout, une race est une division d'une espèce en fonction de
certains critères morphologiques, biologiques et comportementaux.

C'est valable pour tout le règne animal, l'homme n'étant qu'un animal
parmi d'autres.

C'est tout à fait scientifique à partir du moment où cette division est
clairement définie.

Le bordel commence quand des politiques et idéologues s'emparent de la
chose pour dire et faire n'importe quoi.

On entend d'ailleurs souvent parler de racisme pour une religion.
Bref ce
mot est utilisé n'importe comment.

Tout à fait, c'est intentionnel pour brouiller les pistes.

Il serait d'ailleurs peut être temps de rayer ce mot du vocabulaire pour
désigner ces actes.

Non, il faut revenir aux définitions et s'y tenir.

Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

Tu confond racisme et discrimination. Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu
dis,
n'a pas de sens. Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est toujours pour brouiller les pistes et permettre à ceux qui nous
manipulent de pouvoir accuser n'importe qui de n'importe quoi pour
satisfaire leurs propres intérêts idéologiques et politiques.

Philippe RAI

Verogpx

29/12/2004 à 03:47

Mustard wrote:

"Big Nose's Kates" a écrit dans le
message de news: cqrftl$kod$
Vous pouvez le remercier effectivement de vous avoir sauvé la
mise....

De m'avoir sauvé la mise !!!!!
de quoi suis je donc coupable ? d'avoir relayé une info et d'avoir été
offusqué de la façon dont cela été timidement traité par les médias ?

Non ce qu'ils te reprochent c'est d'voir parlé de quelque chose qui est à
"contre courrant" de la bonne pensée du moment !
Si tu ne penses pas comme la majorité mais qu'en plus tu oses le dire... ils
se déchainent

--
Véro

Verogpx

29/12/2004 à 03:53

b0bba wrote:

Mustard a écrit :
Je croyais que la loi sur le racisme s'appliquait dans les deux sens.

Le racisme, c'est à l'encontre de minorités non ?
Tout comme l'homophobie est un racisme anti-pédé, on a jamais vu de
racisme anti-hétéro...

ben tiens va faire un tour chez les homos et tu verras ce qui se raconte sur
les hétéros...
Je n'ai jamais pensé que le racisme n'était avéré quez lorsque c'était vers
des minorités...

--
Véro

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-.

29/12/2004 à 08:01

sundance a ecrit : news::

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By
now most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals.
Is a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or
her DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports.
But unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of
DNA markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area
of racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but
that changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that
an unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the
white man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the
arrest of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA
sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good
indication of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do
so," says Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of
Cincinnati's Center for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board
skirted the racial-marker issue in part because of the political
minefield it represented. Thus today's standard American DNA
fingerprint, with its battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently
added to the standard 13), is a sort of bar code identifier that is
fine for matching two DNA samples but offers no hints about the human
package from which a crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic
identification. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty
acceded to the request of a family whose son had been a passenger on
United Flight 93 (the thwarted terrorist mission brought down in
Pennsylvania). "We had a specimen that consisted of at least two
individuals' remains, one of which was their son's," he explains. "The
family was reluctant to bury it with his other body parts if it
contained any remains that might belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty
determined, with 95 percent certainty, that the unidentified tissue
did not belong to anyone of Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty,
"but we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn,
within each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and
skin color, and other facial features predominate. Such information
could prove useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it)
should not be interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy
that a person will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last
March that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was
85 percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the
time, the police were on an altogether different track: They had been
seeking a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of
one of the crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's
sample to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right,"
Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police
say matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now
awaiting trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may
be just the beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say.
"To be honest, most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside
somewhere along a continuum rather than as members of physically
distinct groups." He says DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to
detect more specific physical traits, and it hopes to have the first
such test--Retinome, for eye color--ready for market by the end of
2003. "After that, give us another year for hair color," he says. The
latter is a particularly bold boast, since not much is known about
hair color markers beyond one associated with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service
trumpeted the development of something called a DNA photofit.
Emboldened by the identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic
look" (fair skin and red hair), it poured money into an ambitious
project at University College London. Scientists scanned the faces of
hundreds of volunteers in an attempt to correlate digitized facial
geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely
paralleled the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists,
who build their drawings around a witness's best recollections of
certain landmark geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape
and the distance across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College
team could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney,
a medical imaging expert at University College London. But the
connection between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for
the London scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student
learns, genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical
expression of our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he
argues that the sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer
analysis of genetic information greatly expands the layers of genetic
clues that can go into a DNA-based best guess about a person's
physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the
whole genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're
searching for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing
a grid search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically
determine, OK, the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid."
This contrasts, he says, with gene searches of just a few years ago,
which were much more hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the
National Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch
based on the DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of
black and Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to
the NFL and concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia
(associated with African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of
eyewitness accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany
currently outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in
medical situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not
even supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says
Benecke. "But how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only
looking at things that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from
now, we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal
might as well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

Et où voyez vous dans ce texte que les asiatiques et les africains sont
"différents" génétiquement ? On peut tous partager notre sang et nos
organes vous savez ? N'importe quel homme et n'importe quelle femme
peuvent s'unir et avoir une union fertile .

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans
la plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

sundance <lor@sundam.com> a ecrit : news:33ea15F3ts8rfU1@individual.net:

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By
now most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals.
Is a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or
her DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports.
But unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of
DNA markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area
of racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but
that changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that
an unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the
white man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the
arrest of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA
sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good
indication of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do
so," says Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of
Cincinnati's Center for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board
skirted the racial-marker issue in part because of the political
minefield it represented. Thus today's standard American DNA
fingerprint, with its battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently
added to the standard 13), is a sort of bar code identifier that is
fine for matching two DNA samples but offers no hints about the human
package from which a crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic
identification. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty
acceded to the request of a family whose son had been a passenger on
United Flight 93 (the thwarted terrorist mission brought down in
Pennsylvania). "We had a specimen that consisted of at least two
individuals' remains, one of which was their son's," he explains. "The
family was reluctant to bury it with his other body parts if it
contained any remains that might belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty
determined, with 95 percent certainty, that the unidentified tissue
did not belong to anyone of Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty,
"but we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn,
within each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and
skin color, and other facial features predominate. Such information
could prove useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it)
should not be interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy
that a person will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last
March that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was
85 percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the
time, the police were on an altogether different track: They had been
seeking a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of
one of the crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's
sample to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right,"
Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police
say matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now
awaiting trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may
be just the beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say.
"To be honest, most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside
somewhere along a continuum rather than as members of physically
distinct groups." He says DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to
detect more specific physical traits, and it hopes to have the first
such test--Retinome, for eye color--ready for market by the end of
2003. "After that, give us another year for hair color," he says. The
latter is a particularly bold boast, since not much is known about
hair color markers beyond one associated with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service
trumpeted the development of something called a DNA photofit.
Emboldened by the identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic
look" (fair skin and red hair), it poured money into an ambitious
project at University College London. Scientists scanned the faces of
hundreds of volunteers in an attempt to correlate digitized facial
geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely
paralleled the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists,
who build their drawings around a witness's best recollections of
certain landmark geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape
and the distance across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College
team could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney,
a medical imaging expert at University College London. But the
connection between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for
the London scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student
learns, genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical
expression of our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he
argues that the sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer
analysis of genetic information greatly expands the layers of genetic
clues that can go into a DNA-based best guess about a person's
physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the
whole genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're
searching for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing
a grid search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically
determine, OK, the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid."
This contrasts, he says, with gene searches of just a few years ago,
which were much more hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the
National Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch
based on the DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of
black and Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to
the NFL and concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia
(associated with African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of
eyewitness accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany
currently outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in
medical situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not
even supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says
Benecke. "But how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only
looking at things that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from
now, we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal
might as well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

Et où voyez vous dans ce texte que les asiatiques et les africains sont
"différents" génétiquement ? On peut tous partager notre sang et nos
organes vous savez ? N'importe quel homme et n'importe quelle femme
peuvent s'unir et avoir une union fertile .

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans
la plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

Vous avez filtré cet utilisateur ! Consultez son message

sundance a ecrit : news::

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

génétique, de l'ADN et qu'il n'y a *pas* de différences génétiques
entre un européen, un africain
ou un asiatique.

Ben voyons! Intox.

Vous avez d'autres informations ? J'ai hâte de les entendre.

DNA and a New Kind of Racial Profiling

Jessica Snyder Sachs

Nothing in American police work is more controversial than racial
profiling. Minorities are targeted for small offenses in the hope of
uncovering bigger crimes, and the practice has generated successful
lawsuits by the ACLU and pledges from state governments and law
enforcement agencies to clean up their discriminatory acts.

Add to this charged atmosphere the prospect of a DNA-race angle. By
now most Americans know that when criminals leave traces of
themselves--blood, semen, hair, a scrape of skin under a victim's
fingernails--at crime scenes, they leave a unique genetic fingerprint
that can establish their presence at the scene with great certainty.
Less known but more controversial is that DNA traces also leave clues
about ancestry and appearance, clues that, as genetic science matures,
might be used to generate a sort of police sketch.

Racial differences constitute small notes within the great opus of the
human genetic code, but the very fact that genetic markers linked to
ethnic origin are, in a sense, cosmetic--that is, they affect outward
appearance--makes them potentially useful in the hunt for criminals.
Is a suspect of fair Celtic stock or of darker African origin? His or
her DNA may tell. Such information could prove far more useful to
street-pounding cops than notoriously unreliable eyewitness reports.
But unless the science proves reliable, there is risk here: The use of
DNA markers could confer authority on police searches--isn't genetic
information more reliable than even fingerprints?--that, in the area
of racial markers and appearance, it may not deserve.

Until recently, genetic markers have not been used in manhunts, but
that changed earlier this year when a private gene lab concluded that
an unknown serial killer was a medium-to-dark-skinned black, not the
white man that police had been focused on. The lab, it turned out, was
correct, and although its conclusion did not directly lead to the
arrest of the suspect, it advanced the case for supporters of the DNA
sketch idea.

In 1997, when members of the national DNA Advisory Board officially
selected the gene markers for DNA evidence matching, they could have
included a few markers associated with ancestral geographic origins
(European, East Asian, sub-Saharan African)--which are a good
indication of race and ethnicity. "We deliberately chose not to do
so," says Ranajit Chakraborty, director of the University of
Cincinnati's Center for Genome Information. Chakraborty says the board
skirted the racial-marker issue in part because of the political
minefield it represented. Thus today's standard American DNA
fingerprint, with its battery of 15 gene markers (two were recently
added to the standard 13), is a sort of bar code identifier that is
fine for matching two DNA samples but offers no hints about the human
package from which a crime-scene DNA sample is derived.
Not that DNA hasn't already been quietly used for ethnic
identification. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Chakraborty
acceded to the request of a family whose son had been a passenger on
United Flight 93 (the thwarted terrorist mission brought down in
Pennsylvania). "We had a specimen that consisted of at least two
individuals' remains, one of which was their son's," he explains. "The
family was reluctant to bury it with his other body parts if it
contained any remains that might belong to a hijacker." Chakraborty
determined, with 95 percent certainty, that the unidentified tissue
did not belong to anyone of Middle Eastern ancestry.

"We may not be able to tell German from French," says Chakraborty,
"but we can place individuals in major continental groups." In turn,
within each of these groups, certain types of hair texture, eye and
skin color, and other facial features predominate. Such information
could prove useful in an investigation, admits Chakraborty. "But (it)
should not be interpreted that you can say with 100 percent accuracy
that a person will have, say, brown eyes."

Because geneticists have largely kept mum about ethnic markers, it
proved something of a shock when DNAPrint Genomics concluded last
March that a Louisiana serial killer's "biogeographical ancestry" was
85 percent sub-Saharan African and 15 percent Native American. At the
time, the police were on an altogether different track: They had been
seeking a white man who had been seen lurking in the neighborhood of
one of the crime scenes.

"Basically, the phone line went silent," says Tony Frudakis, research
director at DNAPrint, describing the conference call in which he
revealed the lab's results to police investigators. They were dubious,
Frudakis says, and asked to see DNAPrint's analyses of 20 other DNA
samples of known individuals they'd sent along with the killer's
sample to test the lab's reliability. "We got them all right,"
Frudakis says.

The investigators were convinced enough to expand their search to
include African-Americans, then had a break in the case due to an
unrelated incident. Derrick Todd Lee, called in for questioning about
two unrelated killings, voluntarily gave a DNA sample, which police
say matched DNA from the serial murders. Arrested on May 27 and now
awaiting trial, Lee is African-American. A basic ancestry profile may
be just the beginning for the DNA-based police sketch, boosters say.
"To be honest, most of us are mongrels," says Frudakis. "We reside
somewhere along a continuum rather than as members of physically
distinct groups." He says DNAPrint is developing genomic tests to
detect more specific physical traits, and it hopes to have the first
such test--Retinome, for eye color--ready for market by the end of
2003. "After that, give us another year for hair color," he says. The
latter is a particularly bold boast, since not much is known about
hair color markers beyond one associated with red hair.

DNAPrint is not the first to claim progress toward a gene-based police
sketch. In the late 1990s, Britain's Forensic Science Service
trumpeted the development of something called a DNA photofit.
Emboldened by the identification of the gene marker for the "Celtic
look" (fair skin and red hair), it poured money into an ambitious
project at University College London. Scientists scanned the faces of
hundreds of volunteers in an attempt to correlate digitized facial
geometry with genetic markers.

The approach made intuitive sense, and it would have closely
paralleled the anthropometric tricks used by police sketch artists,
who build their drawings around a witness's best recollections of
certain landmark geometries, such as nose height and width, eye shape
and the distance across the broadest part of the face.

The Forensic Science Service had faith that the University College
team could deliver in a couple of years, says team member Alf Linney,
a medical imaging expert at University College London. But the
connection between genes and facial appearance proved too complex for
the London scientists, and the project was suspended in 2000.

"We may never be able to fully reconstruct a suspect's face from genes
alone," says Mark Benecke, one of Germany's most respected forensic
biologists. "Genes coordinate the whole thing, but events during
development and illnesses or malnutrition during childhood greatly
influence facial symmetry." As every high school biology student
learns, genotype plus environment equals phenotype--the physical
expression of our genes. All of which Frudakis concedes. Still, he
argues that the sophistication of new "high-throughput" computer
analysis of genetic information greatly expands the layers of genetic
clues that can go into a DNA-based best guess about a person's
physical appearance.

"We're using neural networks and sophisticated pattern detection
methodology to systematically determine genetic sequences over the
whole genome for thousands of people," Frudakis says. "So when we're
searching for genes associated with hair color, in essence we're doing
a grid search. It's a treasure hunt in which we systematically
determine, OK, the treasure isn't here, let's search the next grid."
This contrasts, he says, with gene searches of just a few years ago,
which were much more hit-and-miss.

Critics fear that the DNA sketch concept opens the door to biased,
unscientific racial profiling based on unproven gene markers for
behavior, including criminal behavior. "The temptation will be to run
DNA data through computers to conclude, for example, that you can
identify markers for, say, sexual offenders," warns sociologist Troy
Duster, author of Backdoor to Eugenics and a consultant to the
National Human Genome Research Institute. Imagine such a data crunch
based on the DNA of convicted criminals, given the preponderance of
black and Hispanic men in American prisons. "It would be like going to
the NFL and concluding that the DNA marker for sickle-cell anemia
(associated with African ancestry) makes you a good football player."

Despite such objections, forensic biologists like Benecke predict that
the accuracy of DNA-based descriptions will edge past that of
eyewitness accounts within 15 years, barring legal roadblocks. Germany
currently outlaws the disclosure of DNA-gleaned information, except in
medical situations with a patient's consent. "Technically, we're not
even supposed to notice if there's a Y (male) chromosome," says
Benecke. "But how can it be an invasion of privacy if we're only
looking at things that can be seen from the outside?"

Unencumbered by such privacy laws, U.S. forensic labs already have
nearly everything they need to develop their own "genetic witnesses."
Given the time and money, they will continue with the genomic sifting
and sorting. Frudakis makes this bold prediction: "A few years from
now, we're going to have figured out so many traits that a criminal
might as well leave his driver's license at the scene of the crime."

Et où voyez vous dans ce texte que les asiatiques et les africains sont
"différents" génétiquement ? On peut tous partager notre sang et nos
organes vous savez ? N'importe quel homme et n'importe quelle femme
peuvent s'unir et avoir une union fertile .

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans
la plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-.

29/12/2004 à 08:06

sundance a ecrit : news::

Certainement pas tête vide, les victimes d'agressions en général
sont majoritairement issues de l'immigration.

Intox. Va dans une prison un jour.

On met les victimes en prison maintenant??

Les agresseurs.

On ne parle pas des agreseurs on parle des victimes. essaies de te
concentrer davantage pour suivre la conversation.

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans la
plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-.

29/12/2004 à 08:18

sundance a ecrit : news::

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :

C'est plutôt un *plus* pour une sexualité 100% épanouie. ;-)

L'épanouissement dans la perversion !

C'est pervers d'etre homosexuel ?

Evidement!

Encore un renifleur de slips ..

Beurk, c'est sale!

C'est vrai et c'est ce que tu es ! c'est sale de s'occuper de la sexualité
des autres que tu vives une misere sexuelle complète due à ton impuissance
ou à ton physique ingrat n'est pas une escuse.

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans la
plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-.

29/12/2004 à 08:19

sundance a ecrit : news::

.-*°*¤o La Guêpe o¤*°*-. a écrit :
"sts99" écrivait news:41d16f87$0$10617$

Les blancs ne seraient pas les victimes majoritaires des crimes de sang
racistes?

Certainement pas tête vide, les victimes d'agressions en général sont
majoritairement issues de l'immigration.

Intox. Va dans une prison un jour.

Toi c'est à l'école que tu devrais aller pour apprendre à lire.

--
"Pour ce qui concerne précisément les skinheads et les nostalgiques du
troisième reich, ils sont exclus du Front National, sauf si comme dans la
plupart des cas ils ne l'ont pas quitter par eux-mêmes,"
-+- damien26a, pas exclus du FN sauf si il ne l'a pas quitté-+-

Saitoub

29/12/2004 à 10:47

"sundance"

Saitoub
"sundance"
Vol Pone a écrit :
Hello à *n%* :
Mustard
Tu confond racisme et discrimination.
Un racisme anti pédé, comme tu dis, n'a pas de sens.
Etre pédé, comme tu dis, ce n'est pas une race.

C'est une deviance!

C'est plutôt un *plus* pour une sexualité 100% épanouie. ;-)

L'épanouissement dans la perversion !

et dans l'ouverture..

et la dilatation...

On appelle ça une déchirure...

racisme: et alors : Voici la source

10 réponses

Veuillez sélectionner un problème