Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. When prisoners mean profit, the numbers don't go down (Guardian)

Cracking down on Sky TV for inmates is easy, writes Zoe Williams. Solving the paradox of a privatised prison service is going to be a lot harder.

2. Voters should learn the lesson of history and back a Tory (Daily Telegraph)

Stealing votes from the Tories guarantees the election of a pro-European Labour Party in thrall to the unions, says Peter Oborne.

3. Bangladesh's tragedies must stop (Financial Times)

Western companies should not withdraw from the country but work to raise standards, writes John Gapper.

4. MMR is the Hillsborough of my profession (Times)

In a crime worse than phone hacking, journalists of all stripes put sensationalism before science and misled the public, writes David Aaronovitch.

5. Whatever you think of fracking, this isn't the way forward (Guardian)

An energy policy based on buying off hostility to fracking by building badminton courts won't keep our lights on, says Michael Hanlon.

6. Which side is Cameron's new team on? (Daily Telegraph)

His backbench advisers may find their loyalties divided between No 10 and the Commons, writes Sue Cameron.

7. Austerity is not the only answer to debt (Financial Times)

Keynes was not dismissive of debt, write Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart. Why should we be?

8. Dave won't back down on aid. But wily ministers are finding ways to get him out of the mire (Daily Mail)

Sinuous ministers such as Philip Hammond are searching for legitimate ways to raid the aid budget, writes Stephen Glover.

9. Like the unions before it, the press has shown us who really governs Britain (Guardian)

Cameron has failed a generation by allowing Leveson to go under, says Martin Kettle. Media barons have bent parliament to their will.

10. This pensioner isn’t giving his benefits back (Independent)

I cannot send off cheques to the very people, ministers and civil servants alike, who are so bad at their jobs that we have had to invent a word to describe their failings, says Andreas Whittam Smith.

Getty
Show Hide image

White supremacists are embracing genetic testing - but they aren't always that keen on the results

Users of far-right site Stormfront are resorting to pseudo science and conspiracy theories when DNA tests show they aren't as "pure" as they hoped.

The field of genomics and genetics have undergone almost exponential growth in recent years. Ventures like the Human Genome Project have enabled t humanity to get a closer look at our building blocks. This has led to an explosion in genetic ancestry testingand as of 6 April 2017 23AndMe, one of the most popular commercial DNA testing websites, has genotyped roughly 2 million customers.

It is perhaps unsurprising that one of the markets for genetic testing can be found among white suprmacists desperate to prove their racial purity. But it turns out that many they may not be getting the results they want. 

Stormfront, the most prominent white nationalist website, has its own definition of those who are allowed to count themselves as white - “non-Jewish people of 100 per cent European ancestry.” But many supremacists who take genetic tests are finding out that rather than bearing "not a drop" of non-white blood, they are - like most of us a conglomerate of various kinds of DNA from all over the world including percentages from places such as sub Saharan Africa and Asia. Few are taking it well.

Dr. Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, of UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics and the research institute Data and Society respectively, presented a research study (currently under peer review for publication) at the American Sociological Association a week ago, analysing discussion of GAT on Stormfront forums. Panofsky, Donovan and a team of researchers narrowed down the relevant threads to about 700, with 153 users who had chosen to publish their results online. While Panofsky emphasised that it is not possible to draw many quantitative inferences, the findings of their study offer a glimpse into the white nationalist movement's response to science that doesn't their self perception. 

“The bulk of the discussion was repair talk”, says Panofsky. “Though sometimes folks who posted a problematic result were told to leave Stormfront or “drink cyanide” or whatever else, 'don’t breed', most of the talk was discussion about how to interpret the results to make the bad news go away”.

Overwhelmingly, there were two main categories of reinterpretation. Many responses dismissed GAT as flimsy science – with statements such as a “person with true white nationalist consciousness can 'see race', even if their tests indicate 'impurity'".

Other commentators employed pseudo-scientific arguments. “They often resemble the critiques that professional geneticists, biological anthropologists and social scientists, make of GAT, but through a white nationalist lens", says Panofsky. 

For instance, some commentators would look at percentages of non-European DNA and put it down to the rape of white women by non-white men in the past, or a result of conquests by Vikings of savage lands (what the rest of us might call colonialism). Panofsky likens this to the responses from “many science opponents like climate deniers or anti-vaxxers, who are actually very informed about the science, even if they interpret and critique it in idiosyncratic and motivated ways".

Some white nationalists even looked at the GAT results and suggested that discussion of 100 per cent racial purity and the "one drop" rule might even be outdated – that it might be better to look for specific genetic markets that are “reliably European”, even though geneticists might call them by a different name.

Of course, in another not totally surprising development, many of the Stormfront commentators also insisted that GAT is part of a Jewish conspiracy, “to confuse whites by sprinkling false diversity into test results".

Many of the experts in the field have admitted to queasiness about the test themselves; both how they come to their results and what they imply. There are several technical issues with GAT, such as its use of contemporary populations to make inferences about those who previously lived in different places around the world, and concerns that the diversity of reference samples used to make inferences is not fully representative of the real world. 

There are other specific complications when it comes to the supramacist enthusiasm for GAT. Some already make a tortous argument that white people are the “true people of color" by dint of greater variation in hair and eye color. By breaking up DNA into percentages (e.g. 30 per cent Danish, 20 per cent German), Panofsky says GAT can provide a further opportunity to “appropriate and colonise the discourse of diversity and multiculturalism for their own purposes". There's is also, says Panofsky, the simple issue that “we can’t rely on genetic information to turn white nationalists away from their views."

“While I think it would be nice if the lesson people would take from GAT is that white nationalism is incoherent and wrong. I think white nationalists themselves often take the exact opposite conclusion."