Company: MedPage Today/Role: (Science & Ethics Blog) Article Writer [link]
Marry Me? We're Genetically Different
I used to wonder something about pet dogs – specifically, mutts and their survival compared to that of a purebred.
When I was younger, my family owned a purebred dog that was extremely intertwined genetically with her relatives. I noticed that our dog had a much shorter life than other dogs I had known, and this also seemed to be a common occurrence for other people's pets that I knew. I assumed that genetics could be a factor.
In regard to this article from vetstreet.com, it seems that some vets agree that mutts generally tend to live longer than purebreds due to their lower incidence of genetic mutations and resulting disease.
As we know, these kinds of genetic mutations aren't only true for dogs, but also occur in humans. The definition page on Biology-online.org explains that smaller gene pools indicate "low genetic diversity, reduced chances of acquiring biological fitness, and increased possibility of extinction," whereas larger gene pools indicate "high genetic diversity, increased chances of biological fitness, and survival."
Most of us are well aware that familial breeding in humans (the smallest of gene pools) can cause deformities and other harms in children, and for this reason, it is completely taboo in many countries. But I wonder if, on a much larger scale, we could apply this same knowledge to the offspring of people who mate within a certain race or ethnicity.
People of the same races and ethnicities are already predisposed to higher rates of certain illnesses because of their biological similarities. For example, there is Tay-Sachs disease, which is most common in Eastern Europeans of Jewish decent; cystic fibrosis, which is most common in whites; and sickle cell anemia, which is most common in African Americans.
Though many of us have begun to modernize our views and explore our interests in other cultures, many people are still encouraged by their elders to marry within their own race from a young age because of religious or cultural reasons. However, perhaps it would be plausible to encourage children to marry those of an opposite race or ethnicity.
Biologically, the inner animals that are inside all of us humans are naturally attracted to the smells of pheromones that are genetically different from us, and conversely, we tend to not be attracted to pheromones that are too genetically similar or too incompatible.
In a hypothetical sense, it seems logical enough -- if two people of the same area of a continent have similar mutations in their recessive genes, wouldn't a child have a higher chance of developing that mutation? And on the contrary, if two people from two different areas of a continent have offspring, wouldn't the child be less likely to have those same recessive genes and thus less likely to develop that mutation?
An article about genetics from NPS.gov explains that more diverse variations of genotypes may be the key to survival in humans in regard to disease resistance because "genetically uniform populations (such as highly inbred crops) are famously vulnerable to diseases and pathogens, which can (and do) decimate populations in which all individuals are equally vulnerable."
I can relate to those whose parents or grandparents encourage their children to marry within a certain faith or race in order to keep that race going and I see why that is important, but if it is further proven that mating outside of a single race or ethnicity could be beneficial to the health of offspring in a substantial way, would we have just as much reason to encourage that choice as well? Also, maybe branching out beyond our faiths would help us be open-minded about the lifestyles and religions of other cultures as a whole.