Genetics, ancestry and identity

Methods of genetic kinship testing

36.43 Although current scientific knowledge holds that there is no genetic basis for race, there are several forms of genetic kinship testing that might be used to establish that one person is related to a living person who is recognised as belonging to a particular family or group; or that a person is descended from a deceased person who was recognised as belonging to such a family or group.

36.44 The most common form of genetic kinship testing between two living persons involves the comparison of both individuals’ DNA profiles (and potentially those of other putative relatives, as well). These profiles comprise a set of numbers representing the number of short tandem repeats at different loci along a person’s DNA molecule. If the profiles are sufficiently similar, a forensic scientist may report a probability that the persons are biologically related.^[53]

36.45 Two main techniques are currently used in identifying genetic ancestry: mapping polymorphisms on the Y chromosome to trace paternal ancestry, and on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to trace maternal ancestry. The former technique identifies biological relationships between a father and son, while the latter identifies biological relationships between a mother and her male and female children.^[54]

36.46 Using these techniques, some laboratories are marketing genetic tests that purport to identify Jewish ancestry,^[55] Native American ancestry, ‘Viking markers’,^[56] and even a genetic connection to the so-called ‘Daughters of Eve’.^[57] Genetic testing is now also available commercially which purports to help black people in America, England and the Caribbean trace their lineage back to the parts of Africa from which their ancestors originated.^[58]

36.47 Dr Martin Richards, a researcher in human evolutionary genetics, has cautioned against investing any spiritual significance in the ‘not very meaningful DNA sequences’ that emerge from such testing, pointing out that:

Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. … Buoyed by the hype, the private sector has been moving in. … By tracking the history of genes back through time, geneticists can try to reconstruct the migrations and expansions of the human species. They have no special insight into ethnicity and identity.^[59]

Overseas experiences

36.48 Apart from such fads, there have been a number of circumstances in recent times in which serious consideration has been given to the role (if any) of genetics and genetic testing in determining racial or ethnic identity. The website of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics contains useful case studies and discussion of the issues in this area.^[60]

36.49 The Center for Bioethics notes that, to date, there ‘are no reports of American Indian tribes requiring or relying on DNA testing for membership’.^[61] However, in February 2000, a Bill was introduced into the Vermont state legislature, which proposed that the State Commissioner of Health should establish standards and procedures for DNA-HLA testing to certify that an individual had Native American ancestry.^[62] The Bill failed to become law and has not been reintroduced—after provoking a strong negative reaction to the prospect of using genetic testing to determine racial or ethnic heritage, both as a matter of scientific validity and public policy.^[63]

36.50 There has also been controversy in the United States over the identity of the so-called ‘Black Seminoles’.^[64] The Seminoles are an established Native American tribe originating in what is now the southern part of the United States. Over a period of about 200 years, significant numbers of fleeing black slaves found refuge among the Seminoles. In the aftermath of the American Civil War, the Seminoles in Oklahoma signed a treaty with the United States government under which ‘Blood Seminoles’ and ‘Black Seminoles’ were accorded equal rights. However, in July 2000, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma passed a resolution to amend their tribal membership criteria to require possession of ‘one-eighth Seminole Indian blood’—in effect, expelling many of the Black Seminoles (also known as ‘Freedmen’) from the tribe. The Center for Bioethics’ commentary notes that:

At a time when using genetics to prove identity is becoming more and more common, the Freedmen are an interesting case primarily because genetics has traditionally taken a back seat in the construction of their ‘Indian-ness’. Their membership of an American Indian tribe has for generations been based on a shared history, rather than on shared Indian genetics. However, the Freedmen’s membership of the Nation is now under threat as the tribe moves over to an identity system that places genetics above history, that values blood quantum over contribution to tribal affairs.^[65]

36.51 In Canada, there has been controversy over indigenous membership rules in Kahnawake, a large Mohawk community near Montreal. In 1981, the membership rules were changed to require ‘at least 50 per cent Mohawk blood’—and some residents were then told they could no longer have jobs or homes on the reserve even though their families had lived there for generations. After considerable community disputation and the commencement of some litigation, the community announced in March 2003 that it intended to change the membership rules so that while Mohawk lineage would remain a key factor, other criteria would include residency and the commitment to learn the Mohawk language. Professor Taiaiake Alfred, an adviser to the band council on this issue, noted that the ‘50% blood rule’ rule had been prompted by the Canadian Indian Act,^[66] which introduced the idea that a bureaucratic ruling could be made about who is, and who isn’t an Indian. Professor Alfred commented that:

The Indian Act took away the fundamental rights of native people in Canada to define who they are. There is no justification outside of colonial control to have one group of people telling another group of people who they are.

The object of this [new] law is to get away from the notion of blood quantum. We moved back to the traditional conception of what it means to be a Mohawk, cultural factors and community integration, as opposed to strict genetic determination.^[67]

36.52 There also have been a number of cases in which particular African communities—such as the Falashas of Ethiopia,^[68] the Abayudaya of Uganda,^[69] and the Lemba of Southern Africa—have asserted a Jewish religious identity, based upon ancient oral traditions, or the presence of certain genetic markers said to be associated with persons of Jewish heritage, or both.^[70] In the case of the Lemba, a recent Y-chromosome study found evidence of Semitic origins, although it was not clear whether this involved Jewish or Arabic ancestry, or a mixture of the two. However, the study found that the Lemba carry a particular genetic marker (the Cohen modal haplotype or CMH) at a frequency similar to that found in Jewish populations, although this marker was not found among neighbouring African tribes.^[71] Apart from any desire to gain broader acknowledgment of their deeply-held religious identity and heritage, recognition of their status as Jews also has potentially significant legal consequences, in so far as the State of Israel’s Law of Return 1950 grants every Jew the right to migrate to Israel and to acquire citizenship automatically.^[72]

36.53 Elliott and Brodwin have attempted to put genetic ancestry testing into context, noting that:

clearly confusion looms when genetic markers conflict with other kinds of markers of group membership, such as a shared culture or historical narrative. Does it make you more English, or Sioux, or [a relative of Thomas] Jefferson if your identity has been corroborated by a genetic marker? …

Many observers worry that this new genetic information will be given too much authority in deciding questions about identity. Media accounts have often treated tracing of genetic ancestry as the final answer to extremely controversial questions—as if genetic tests had authoritatively settled the question of whether the Lemba are really Jewish or the question of from what African tribe can an individual African-American legitimately claim descent.^[73]

36.54 Brodwin has pointed out that, whatever the emerging scientific knowledge of population genetics, the use of such genetic information will often have a sharp political edge:

For example, tracing your ancestry—via a pattern of particular alleles, or mutations on the Y chromosome or in mitochondrial DNA—has become not just a laboratory technique, but a political act. Who in our society requests this sort of DNA analysis, and who provides it? Once people learn the results, who controls what those results mean? It is no longer just geneticists and population biologists, but also political activists, individuals claiming inclusion in a particular ethnic, racial, or national group, and those who must decide to accept or reject their claims.

To interpret the results of research with genetic markers means not just judging whether the laboratory used the right population-specific allele or had a large enough sample size. It also involves judging the worth of genetic knowledge against other kinds of claims to authentic identity and group membership (oral history, written documentation, cultural practices, inner convictions). What is at stake in genetically-based claims of identity or rightful belonging is not just good or bad science. What is at stake is also personal esteem and self-worth, group cohesion, access to resources, and the redressing of historical injustice.^[74]

36.55 Similarly, Professor Tudor Parfitt, who conducted the Lemba study, has noted that perceptions of genetic research may substantially influence aspects of group self-identity. This has the potential to cut both ways by providing

ammunition both for conservative forces in the preservation of their prejudices and for liberal groups who seek the elimination of differences among peoples.^[75]