Reactions to Shreeve...

a) Should the term race be used by scientists? Is it a biological reality?

James Shreeve

     When I first skimmed this article, I noticed that there are a lot of "race" or "racial" appearing in it. From this information, I could guess that its main point is focusing on the word "race." Later I found out that my guess was right.

     The author of the article is James Shreeve, who is a science writer. He argues whether it is reasonable for scientists to use the word "race" or not by using examples of 10 people who are related and also have opinions about his question.
   
     Shreeve does not mention to his position clearly, and from the last page of the article, readers are able to guess what his idea is. According to Peter Smouse, who Shreeve quotes in the last part of the article, "it's [race] all a matter of perspective." In other words, the word "race" can be turned in to different meanings when different people use it. Therefore, it means that it is not a biological reality, but relying on one's perspective, which is not so strong evidence to believe.

b) In what case should it be used? Police work? Medical research?

Routes which OUR ancestors had passed

     In the case people are talking casually, it is okay to use the word "race" because sometimes it is difficult to express grouped people without using the word. Also, police should use the word because it is easy and smooth for both general citizens and polices themselves to identify the characteristics of criminals or victims. However, in medical research, it should not be used because the relationship between race and disease is not found yet. Moreover, if someone identify one race to have some negative factors, it may be leads to discrimination without credible evidence.