Slashdot Mirror


Hungarian Sequencing Company Vets DNA For 'Gypsy Or Jew' Genes

ananyo writes "Hungary's Medical Research Council (ETT), which advises the government on health policy, has asked public prosecutors to investigate a genetic-diagnostic company that certified that a member of parliament did not have Roma or Jewish heritage. The MP in question is a member of the far-right Jobbik party, which won 17% of the votes in the general election of April 2010. He apparently requested the certificate from the firm Nagy Gén Diagnostic and Research. The company produced the document in September 2010, a few weeks before local elections. Nagy Gén scanned 18 positions in the MP's genome for variants that it says are characteristic of Roma and Jewish ethnic groups; its report concludes that Roma and Jewish ancestry can be ruled out." Adds ananyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.

78 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 5, Funny

    But did they scan him for the vampire gene?

    1. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if by "racist" you don't mean "white person who says anything bad about someone who's not white" and consider it fairly.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      The general consensus among my black friends is that they prefer to be referred to as black, "colored" refers to any non-white race and is too broad. As with my post above, which for some reason was modded flamebait, I'm only parroting the words of my black friends.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    3. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      "but what bugs me is the usage of the term "American" by US people. I moved to Central America and noticed how the term American is only used for US by the US, while the whole FSCKIN continent is America."

      There is no better option. It's the United States of America. Only one of those words makes sense to use as a national identifier.

    4. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by drkim · · Score: 2

      I also dislike the term "African American" simply because it doesn't really mean an African American; it's just vague.

      Case in point: Charlize Theron. She was born in South Africa. Grew up in near Johannesburg. Became a US citizen in 2007. Shouldn't she be considered African American?

      Generally, I think people should be able to call themselves anything they want.
      Personally, I would like it to be descriptive - or at least - consistent.

    5. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Geeky · · Score: 2

      All racial terminology is arbitrary and largely based on artificial social preferences.

      Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?

      Perhaps when you want to describe someone? It makes me laugh when people tie themselves in knots trying to describe someone without using colour - you'd use height, hair colour and style - loads of things like that. Why not skin?

      Sometimes it's the clearest identifying characteristic. I've had it at work - someone has told me I need to go to another office and speak to the a guy - "Oh, the tallish one, medium build, er.. brown eyes...". He was the only black man in the office - surely that would have been a lot easier, but they felt it would be racist to mention it.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    6. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a Canadian. By your definition that makes me an American.

      Nah; you're a North-American. ;-)

      The simplest way to explain why "American" refers to a citizen of just the one country is to consider the question "What's the only country in the world with 'America' in its name?" The English term "American" is an adjective that refers to that one country. That's why English-speaking people everywhere use "American" to refer to citizens of that country. Similarly, they use "Canadian" to refer to anything related to the country with the string "Canada" in its name.

      Granted, it is confusing to have "America" also used in the names of a couple of continents. But we should be smart enough to handle that issue. This problem doesn't exist with, e.g., "Africa". It is used in the names of several countries, so when you want to talk about citizens of one of those countries, you usually wouldn't say "African"; you'd include another part of the country's name.

      There have been a few attempts to coin names based on the "US" abbreviation, but that sorta flopped. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of other countries whose names (in translation) include "United States of". So "citizen of the United States" is technically ambiguous, and refers to different countries when you translate it into various other languages.

      But no other country uses the character string "America" in its name, so it can be safely and unambiguously used (in any language) to refer to a citizen of just the one country.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.

    1. Re:As a hungarian by octothorpe99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.

      Don't do that! You'll need your towel if you're going to travel!

  3. Re:Vampire by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 2

    Tell that to Bela Lugosi

  4. Hard to know what to think of this... by multicoregeneral · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would it even matter? Unless you're some kind of right wing, neo nazi freak - oh, wait... never mind.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      +3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...

      I don't think Jobbik has exactly been coy about it's platform with regards to this: they DO hate Jews and Roma. Take your thinly-veiled Godwin's law reference and stuff it up your Nazi ass.

    2. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...

      Yes, +3 informative. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media. Only in American journalism does the term "far right" not exist. Anytime extremist parties like the National Front or British National Party are mentioned in America it is conveniently omitted that these are parties of the right.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    3. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?

      If not, they probably shouldn't be labeled as a far-right party. The left-right dichotomy is about ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth. I feel as though lumping in extremist groups, which have little or nothing to say about economic policy, with other right or left-leaning groups to be a disingenuous attempt to make the more mainstream, non-extremeist parties look bad by association. Whether it's lumping in a group of racial bigots with the right or eco-terrorists with the left, it doesn't accomplish anything and just detracts from meaningful conversation by providing for easily constructed straw men for people on both sides of the isle.

      That your comment has turned into the usual Europe vs. US crapfest just goes to show why lumping in extremist groups is a bad idea. It just fosters additional rhetoric and generalizations that aren't conducive for civil discourse.

    4. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The left-right dichotomy is not exclusively about the means of production and distribution of wealth. It began as a divide between the aristocracy and the commoners, and what is now called "libertarian" (generally considered "right-wing" in America) was originally a left-wing position, being against the established powers of the nobles.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)

      I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:

      "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

      There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?

      This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.

    6. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      European right:

      Free trade
      Less government regulation (liberalized economy)
      Law and order
      Controls on immigration and measures to make immigrants conform to local customs

      European left:

      Statutory protections for workers
      Individual rights
      Tolerance for immigrants and respect for diversity

      American right:

      Homophobic, xenophobic, scientifically illiterate, market fundamentalist, religious fundamentalist nutjobs who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan even though he'd be run out of the modern GOP as the 'most radical socialist president everrr!'

      American left:

      Anything to the left of Genghis Khan

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    7. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by F.Ultra · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics) the definition have changed over time, is often used differently in the USA vs most of Europe. However since the beginning, Fascism (which is what these parties are) have belong to the right, together with the Coservatives, and one thing that is common among all these we-hate-minorities is that they are extremely conservative.

    8. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,

      For example, every major computer OS was developed in the US

      Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?

    9. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,

      For example, every major computer OS was developed in the US

      Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?

      FFS will you stop confusing the "everything cool was invented in America" lobby with facts? Sheesh!

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    10. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?

      Sorry, but the capitalist v socialist / privatisation v nationalisation debate ended in Europe ages ago. Everyone is more or less agreed that there's a happy medium. Only in the USA is this tedious debate still going on.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    11. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by cavreader · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linus was born in Finland but did the vast majority of his Linux work in the US. His family even moved to Portland, Oregon to be closer to the OSDL's Beaverton, Oregon location to do his work. As of 2006 he was only responsible for developing approximately 2% of the entire Linux OS. The kernel was developed using UNIX as the model to produce a version capable of using the different CPUs for things like the PC or phone CPUs and chip sets. He did great work but building a kernel does not make a OS, it provides the most important component but he is not 100% responsible for the Linux OS. His biggest contribution was increasing awareness of the Open Source model. He has did a lot of good work but Windows, Unix, and the Apple OS are the predominate OS systems in use today all over the world. People come to the US mainly because it offers the individual the opportunity to succeed using the resources available in the country. Most of the other countries in the world rely on stealing the technology developed in the US and re-branding it.

    12. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      What is now called libertarianism predates anybody ever proposing progressive taxation and social services, and so cannot possibly have been a reaction to that.

      Way back in the bad old days, the state was unabashedly an apparatus of the powerful to keep their position of power by exploiting the masses. This was called feudalism, serfdom, aristocracy, etc.

      Then some revolutionaries had the crazy idea that the law should treat everybody as equals, give everyone the exact same rights and responsibilities, and let those bloody aristocrats work for a living instead of leeching off the labor of their serfs. Let everyone be free to make their own way in life equally, owing nobody anything but the respect of letting them do the same; and let everybody be responsible for themselves, and unable to burden others with providing for them while not lifting a finger themselves. This was called liberalism, and is now called classical liberalism, or libertarianism.

      Later still, some other people said hey, some people are getting richer than others even without special treatment by the law, and that lets them oppress the poor masses anyway even if legally they're all equal; there should not only not be laws favoring the powerful over the powerless, there should be laws favoring the powerless over the powerful. This is called variously socialism, communism, or other names depending on the flavor; and because it's advocated by the same classes of people who were advocating the removal of legal restrictions earlier, the name for their movement -- "liberalism" -- was inaccurately applied to it, despite it no longer being about liberty per se.

      Since both the people who liked the old feudalism and systems like it, and the people who liked liberalism before socialism came along, are fighting to preserve some system they see as good against changes they see as bad, both are "conservative". But to the original right wing, liberals (classical liberals, libertarians) are just as radically leftist as socialists. And to liberals, socialists are taking a step backward from equality before the law back into authoritarianism and some people living off the labor of others. And to socialists, like yourself apparently, both liberals and the old conservatives appear equally to resist the glorious socialist revolution, despite the fact that they disagree with each other just as much as liberals disagree with socialists.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  5. Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

    These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.

    It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid, and to not *care* about racial purity.

    While notions of race are tied up in all sorts of political correct nonsense and/or racist stereotyping, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a certain nexus of genes that are associated with what we commonly call race, and no amount of politically correct handwaving will make the science go away. Things like sickle cell anemia are associated with people of African descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics), as is Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jewish_people), high rates of adult lactase enzymes in people of Northern European descent, low rates of alcohol dehydrogenase in several Asian groups, and so forth.

    Long story short, while the concept of race is socially constructed (what is considered "white" has changed significantly over the last 100 years), the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.

    1. Re:Nonsense? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we are going to be scientific, drop the notion of race and use clines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

      It would kind of be like applying modern astronomy to the celestial spheres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

    2. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have one picture for you: http://i.imgur.com/PTol8.jpg

      So much for race not existing.

    3. Re:Nonsense? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They aren't even always ethically suspicious. I'm a pasty white guy with a father from india. 2 generations from now my descendants could wonder if my father is really my father and they actually have a great grandfather from india. That could be especially important if it turns out we carry some genetic disposition to disease that would effect women, that we will never see manifest.

      If you're Black in the US you may want to know what tribe or area you ancestor was kidnapped from in africa.

      Testing like this can also, on a macroscopic level, pose serious questions about any notion of racial purity. This jackass in hungary may be definitely not be partially roma or jewish, but that doesn't ask what percent of the population in hungary are.

    4. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cline and race have the same definition, so their use is interchangeable. The general public knows what race means and not cline. So if you want to speak to the general public use race.

    5. Re:Nonsense? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

      These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.

      That's why the two statements are joined with the word "and"...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Nonsense? by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.

      Not so much, because hybridization is the norm, not the exception. That is, it is perfectly possible for a "white" person in the US to have many "black" genetic markers. My family has been in North American for over 300 years, and it would be astonishing if I didn't have some African, Jewish and Native American ancestors.

      So while it is correct to say that "certain genetic markers have higher rates of association with certain socially constructed cultural groups" the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless. So it is clearly false to claim that genetic tests for "race" are "scientifically valid" (whatever that means... certainly they are anti-Bayesian, which is the only meaning "scientifically valid" should have.)

      Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.

      As an example of the lack of genetic distinction between "races": both Irish and Eastern European immigrants to Canada were once considered racially distinct from Anglo-Scottish immigrants. They were literally considered "not white" (which you allude to.) Likewise, Korean and Japanese people are genetically identical, but belong to socially distinct and often mutually antagonistic "racial" groups.

      Genetic differences between cultural groups may (but do not necessarily) exist. This does not validate genetic tests for "race" because "race" is a genetically meaningless concept due to the weakness of the association between cultural groups and genetics.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid

      Judaism is not encoded in anyone's DNA. People convert to Judaism all the time, and people convert away from Judaism to other religions all the time. My great-grandfather was a blond-haired, blue-eyed German who was raised by Catholic parents, who fell in love with my great-grandmother, converted to Judaism, and immigrated to America. Unless you are one of those people who thinks that converts are not really "Jews" (which is not a position that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jewish movements [openly] accept), you cannot claim that genetic tests can reveal whether or not someone is Jewish.

      A second issue with the tests is that there are several genetically distinct Jewish populations (hint: this is because genetics has more to do with geography than with religion). The Ethiopian Jews have a very different genetic "fingerprint" than European or Middle-Eastern Jews, and I am just going to go out on a limb and guess that the test performed on this politician did not include genetic markers from Ethiopia. I similarly doubt that genetic markers from Central Asia populations were included, or from controversial communities like the Lemba. Not all Jews have white skin, black hair, or prominent noses, and not all Jews have European DNA.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless

      No, it's not. That's the point. Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.

      If you can discriminate between two groups using stats, that means that the two groups are statistically distinct, tautologically speaking.

      >>Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.

      I agree it's all nonsense - it's normally called miscegenation here in the US.

      As I said in my post, it is possible for racism to be nonsense while still acknowledging that science can genetically tell the socially-constructed races apart.

      It's the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might make you feel.

    9. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      Given this was taking place in Hungary, we can use some common sense and assume they are testing to see if the guy's DNA matched markers taken from Ashkenazi Jews.

    10. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>Genetic subgroups, OK--although based on probability, yes? But does that make a "race"? Are (Ashkenazi) Jews a "race"? Are "several Asian groups" a "race"? Better to use less-charged language, don't you think?

      Being afraid of language never benefited anyone.

      As I said, race is a socially constructed phenomenon that *also* has enough statistical differences in the people given those labels for science to discriminate between them.

      I just hate it when otherwise scientifically-minded people become complete dimwits any time a politically correct urban legend turns out not to be true.

    11. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that as recently as 400 years ago, Hungary was ruled by the Ottoman Empire -- the same empire that mass numbers of Sephardic Jews ran to after the Spanish expulsion -- it is not at all unlikely that there are Hungarians who are descendants of Sephardic or even Yemenite Jews, or any of the other Jewish populations that lived under Ottoman rule. You are also ruling out the possibility that people traveled, and that some of this guy's ancestors might have found their spouse in the middle east (which is not terribly far from Hungary), or that someone from another region was traveling and met their spouse in Hungary.

      The only populations you can really rule out are populations that were isolated to the point of being forgotten, like Ethiopian Jews.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:Nonsense? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      The criterion that whoever has a Jewish mother is Jewish though is widely accepted in pretty much all of Judaism.
      And it doesn't matter if you convert, you'd still be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish Atheist or Jewish Pastafarian.

      I suppose these people's racial 'logic' works on similar terms.

    13. Re:Nonsense? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Informative

      English is not a programming language. In addition to the logical AND usage of "and", it can also be used to mark co-ordinate statements.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    14. Re:Nonsense? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.

      Sort of. Statistical methods are very good at assigning groupings, by definition. They're also very good at helping you win bets, develop a broad strategy and operate at a large scale. They can't guarantee that person A is race X - by definition.

      And it's there that this idea of genetic race identification falls apart. The racial identity is a social construct, and to associate it with genetic markers makes it a counterproductive undertaking.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    15. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You're just being clineist.

    16. Re:Nonsense? by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really is a beautiful picture. It's a shame that it doesn't have any context to explain what it shows. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that it supports your position?

  6. sort of two distinct issues by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. How accurate are these tests?

    and 2. How ethical is doing something like that?

    I think the answer on #1 is actually more complex than this summary makes it sound. The notion of pure ethnic groups is a fiction, but you can trace some kinds of population lineages using genetic markers. That's in fact some of how we've recreated early human population movements; by estimating when in time certain markers diverged between Asian and European populations, for example, we can estimate when those populations migrated out of the Middle East / Africa area where their ancestors likely originated. The HapMap project maps some more recent geographical correlations.

    1. Re:sort of two distinct issues by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone with even a brief understanding of the history of that region of Europe realizes that notions of racial purity are bunk. Now it is possible that the Roma and Jews are still sufficiently genetically distinct due to lower rates of interbreeding, but the fact is that the Hungarian people are, to put it vulgurally, mongrels. Even the ancient Huns themselves were likely a hodge podge of ethnic/racial groups from all over Eurasia, and Hungary has so many layers of occupation and invasion dating back to Classical times that while we can say the progenitor population probably spoke a Uralic mothertongue, you have a wide array of later groups; early Indo-Europeans, Turkic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic and on and on. If you want to find a population approaching a full blooded Hungarian, I suggest you go to Finland.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:sort of two distinct issues by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want to find a population approaching a full blooded Hungarian, I suggest you go to Finland.

      There are no "full-blooded" Uralic peoples. Uralic/Finno-Ugrian is a linguistic appelation, not a genetic one. The Uralic languages have spread across a wide swath of genetically unrelated peoples, and the Finns have just as much a varied background as Hungarians.

    3. Re:sort of two distinct issues by Iskender · · Score: 2

      Like the other poster said, you're wrong in your last point.

      Finland almost equals Iceland when it comes to being a go-to country for genetic research on homogenous populations.

      Now of course all present European peoples have many peoples behind them. But to say that Hungarians and Finns have mixed with others equally much is just wrong.

  7. Crapola by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the rather complex history of invasions and migrations through Hungary, I can't even imagine what one would qualify as a pure Hungarian. We're not talking about largely homogeneous populations like Iceland or Norway, we're talking about a country that has been the stomping ground from everyone from Central Asians to Germans to Mediterranean types. Read a history of that region. The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Crapola by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ah, you see, the beauty of the racist fuckwit approach is that you do not have to define "true full blooded Hungarian". You only need to define single factors as "un-Hungarian" or "un-$country_of_your_choice", so that you can persecute at your heart's content. When you done with one group, you switch to the next. Keeps the population on its toes, you see?

      Also, you employed reason while looking at racist crap. Never works, trust me on that.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  8. Re:In case you were wondering by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

    And vomiting generalized insults over a whole continent puts you on the moral high ground compared to your average neonazi idiot how, exactly?

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  9. Re:In case you were wondering by gman003 · · Score: 2

    There are still Nazi pigs in Europe

    FTFY. This is just proof that idiocy knows no national boundaries - there's racist fucks in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania and probably even Antarctica.

    Unless you can definitively demonstrate that your country has never, in all its history, engaged in any sort of ethnic discrimination (or been the victim of it)...

  10. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not really. It's been a while since then, and the interbreeding with Neanderthals that happened only to the future caucasoids and mongoloids. In particular, light-colored hair developed twice, among caucasoids and a certain tribe of pacific islanders.

  11. Political agenda here? by GottMitUns · · Score: 2

    I got an impression that Slashdot is pushing a certain point of view here. What's that about "nonsense" of racial purity? Are you denying that Jews and Gypsies exist? There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs. It is certainly possible to determine the likelihood of person having certain ancestry based on genetic typing.

    1. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs.

      You'd think so, but it's not actually the case. e.g. Any two black Africans are no more likely to have common DNA than any black African and a white European. Sure, they're both going to have higher levels of enzymes that synthesize melanin, but that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't determine by looking at them. Race is an false concept invented out of ignorance and tribalism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, now try doing that on a large group of black africans and white europeans. You'll get a bunch of clusters, but the black africans aren't any more likely to be in the same cluster than a white european and a black african. There are going to be similarities between closely related groups, but those similarities don't match up with what we traditionally call race.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The DNA of Africans and Europeans/Asians differs a lot.

      Very true. The DNA of any two random africans differ a lot as well.

      I always find it amusing when people who don't know anything about genetics talk about it as if they do. Especially on slashdot.

      Genetics is my job, bitch.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Scientist, but not PI. Why would I write with professionalism on /.? Usually I'm trying to avoid doing that when I'm here.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.

    Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.

    Now, if you want to talk about whether or not an adopted Jew, or a convert, count as "really" Jewish, that gets into matters of dogma, not genetics - And don't think this extends only to the "racists" - Just as some groups would hold such ancestry against someone, orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement.


    And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.

    1. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by readin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.

      Jacab was how many years ago? Maybe 5000? With an average childbearing age of 25, that makes 200 generations. Ignoring inbreeding for the moment, the number of ancestors you have doubles every generation. 2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big, many many times the number of people there were on this planet 5000 years ago or even today.

      Even if you go back a mere 2000 years ago, you have 80 generations meaning you have far more ancestors than there were people.

      What this implies is that you are almost certainly the descendant of every single person who was alive and had progeny in your ancestors region 2000 years ago. You can argue that that still doesn't make you descended from certain minorities, but think about that exponential growth in ancestors again. All it takes is one foreigner to come in and mix with the gene pool. 1000 years later everyone is that foreigner's descendant. There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.

      About the only way one could reasonably claim not to have ancestors of a certain race is if that race was almost completely isolated - like the American Indians or Australian aborigines. But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    2. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement. And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.

      The jews believe that the savior hasn't yet come, because Jesus couldn't pass (or refused) tests in the old testament. They're still waiting for their savior, and one of those tests is that the savior will be a descendant of a particular person. If anyone here is being stupid, it's you -- there is no jewish race. Either you descended from that specific person, or you didn't.

      The jewish community has maintained geneology records to an unrivaled level of detail ever since; it's at the very heart of their religion. The scientific test is completely superfluous to them; they know who they are because they've maintained records since before we knew what DNA was. Also, a scientifically-valid test to determine whether a given person is a direct descendant of another person is a matter that has non-religious legal implications; For example, in estate proceedings.

      I guess the bottom line here is that people have gotten twisted up about the definition of race and forgotten that the jewish community is a special case: Their religion is literally based on genetics, and has been unfairly lumped into racial politics; They don't care what 'race' you are today, only whether or not you descended from a specific person (or not). Science can already determine whether you've descended from Ghenghis Khan or not (there's actually a pretty good chance the answer is yes), and if you go back far enough, you'll find a point when humanity was nearly wiped out... and almost all of us are descended from one of about 20 women, the so called "genetic Eves". You can't dismiss the jewish community without dismissing good science as well.... hell, the records the jewish keep have scientific value themselves -- anyone who studies geneology will attest to this.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  13. Re:But.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah, I was wondering the same question about prosecution, then read:

    The ETTâ(TM)s secretary, JÃzsef Mandl, chair of medical chemistry at the Semmelweis University in Budapest, says that the certificate is âoeprofessionally wrong, ethically unacceptable â" and illegalâ. The council discussed the issue on 7 June and concluded that the genetic test violates the 2008 Law on Genetics, which allows such testing only for health purposes.

    I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?

    I suppose this guy could claim he was trying to screen himself for something like Tay-Sachs disease or something else genetically related to being Jewish...

    But still....kinda hard to see a law like this in existance...shouldn't you be able to test yourself for whatever reason you wish?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  14. Test Results by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't speak for the Roma, but on behalf of the Jewish people, I accept the results of this test. This idiot has nothing to do with us genetically. Cue other ethnic groups demanding he test himself so they can wash their hands of him as well. (Sadly, people like this take: "Nobody wants me" to be a compliment rather than an insult.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  15. Re:But.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?

    A few months ago I was listing to NPR, and they were having this exact debate. There was a representative from the AMA arguing that ordinary people were too stupid to interpret DNA tests, and therefore they should be illegal unless a doctor requests them. So this is not just a Hungarian thing, there are plenty of Americans who also think the world is "too modern" for you to be allowed to have knowledge about your own body.

  16. Re:Vampire by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Informative

    Transylvania is only a part of Romania (not "Rumania") after World War I. It was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before. And Hungarian is still the second language there. Nothing is simple in the Balkans :-)

  17. Hungarians are a sad bunch by Prune · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In talks with Hungarian friends, some of which still live there, they seem keenly aware of the poor image their country has in the eyes of the rest of the world. It's a country best known for giving the origins to history's most prolific serial killer, Elizabeth Bathory (killed ~600 young girls with torture methods that make the Spanish Inquisition look like amateur hour), and for being the de facto porn capital of Europe. Worse, the attempts of Hungarians to whitewash haven't made things much better, yet they persist. For example, last year there was quite a bit of drama on the Wikipedia page for the countess, with Hungarians trying to sanitize the Bathory article of some of the more gruesome details and putting in claims that the evidence against her was hear-say and/or politically motivated (veritably and verifiably false, as there were plenty of well-documented witnesses). When this didn't work out and much of the dishonest editing was undone (though I've still been unable to fully restore the article), they tried to shift the blame for the edit attempts on feminists. Which might have been convincing, had I not hang around Hungarian IRC channels in one of which the whole whitewash campaign was discussed.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  18. No monopoly by kstahmer · · Score: 2

    It’s reassuring to know that the United States of America doesn’t have a monopoly on nut cases.

    --
    HRH The Duke of Windsor
  19. Re:ananyo is bullshit by semiotec · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/7/1957.abstract

    An X-Linked Haplotype of Neandertal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations

  20. Re:In case you were wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Stop generalizing!

    Americans are so stupid...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:But.. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And as OP shows, they were right. Uneducated people cannot interpret them correctly, so instead they work their imagination, and use the tests for racial profiling and discrimination nazi-style (notably this is the CORRECT usage of nazism, as that is exactly what nazi idea was - that humans have racial elements that make them less worthy that are genetic based on race, rather then largely independent of race, such as stupidity).

    Here you see the danger of ignorance at work, yet again. Saddest part is, we already have done this particular dance in the past, several times. And it never ended well. And as sad as it is, the argument that "people need to be protected from their own ignorance" appears to have merit. Though personally, I would prefer education as a solution rather then enforcing ban on exploiting ignorance.

  22. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

    I don't think the interbreeding did anything to propogate the genes. Where's the neandrathal DNA in modern humans?

    Congress?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  23. Re:ananyo is bullshit by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's part of us. I would be interested to know if white people's blond hair, blue eyes, and large noses have Neanderthal origins. After all, they lived in cold climates far longer than modern humans.

    The issues from TFA shed light on a the ethical complexity of genetics. Personally, I want a copy of my genome. I have some specific health related reasons I want it, but it would be cool to do things with it, like find out roughly what percentage Native American I am (I'm at least 1/32nd Cherokee), if that's even possible. Where have my mitochondria evolved most recently? Do I have the cheating gene?

    Hungary has it wrong on two counts. First, they outlawed extracting genetic information except for health reasons. That's got to put a real damper on genetic research, and the Libertarian in me is crying foul. It's my genes, and I should be free to do what I want with them. Second, they're going after the genetics lab over this dumb law, rather than going after the MP for racist behavior. Let's hope we have more success in the US in drafting legislation to protect peoples right to genetic privacy, while giving people full access to data about themselves, and promoting genetic research.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  24. recommend book "DNA USA" by Sykes by peter303 · · Score: 2

    DNA USA is a readable journey through various DNA techniques and ancestry studies by the British geneticist Bryan Sykes. It covers many of the arguments discussed in this thread. Sykes has written several other books like this, which update the state of the art about every three years or so.

    An interesting argument from Sykes is that after 400 years, some ancestors are edited out of your heritage. You can only have 50K contributors to the 25K pairs of genes you carry. And after 16 generators, some the ancestors no longer give you any genes. 400 years is 16 generations. To worry about a billion ancestors back 30 generations is not that important.

  25. Please don't by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If good gives up, evil prevails.

  26. Re:But.. by flaming+error · · Score: 2

    " I didn't see where this individual had used his own genetic results for any type of discrimination"

    Perhaps you missed the part where he made it his campaign platform.

    "the USE of the tests for himself, didn't seem to do any harm to anyone else."

    The use of the tests was to pander to racists. Fanning the fire of racism does harm, in this case to jews and roma.

    "Is finding your genetic racial disposition something that in of itself is inherently wrong?"

    Probably not, but logical fallacies are:

    1) Z = X + Y (learning genealogy + campaigning on genealogy)
    2) X is non-negative (nothing wrong with genealogy)
    Therefore Z is non-negative

  27. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    You claimed that Jews are indistinguishable from any other group, but that's in fact wrong

    Prove it. How will you distinguish Jews from non-Jews, other than by religion and culture?

    How about if we simply use the genetic test described in the article?

    As you noted there are a bunch of subgroups of Jewish people who have ancestral ties. As a result even if only due to their proximity and history there will be genetic ties as well.

    Except that the Ethiopian Jews' genetics were closer to the general population Ethiopia than to any other Jewish population. So much for using genetics to test whether or not someone is Jewish.

    By the way, your story of your great grandfather and your father only illustrates how races can change over time.

    No, it illustrates that there is nothing genetic about being Jewish. People have converted to Judaism throughout the history of Judaism; it is absurd to think that there is some Jewish forefather or that all Jews share some common lineage.

    Yes I could declare that I am a Jew, but I would still be cognizant that I am Jewish in religion only, I did not suddenly change my ancestry.

    So what? Do you really think that having Jewish ancestors has some special significance? I would guess that almost everyone living in Europe and the Mediterranean region has at least one Jewish ancestor. Does that really make a difference to you? Do you really care that much about who your ancestors were going back hundreds or even thousands of years?

    Judaism is a religion and a culture. There is no Jewish gene; there are some genes that are common to certain Jewish communities, which has to do with a cultural demand to marry within the community, but those genes have absolutely nothing to do with being Jewish.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  28. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a controversial 2005 paper that did suggest Ashkenazi Jews may have above average math and verbal intelligence, and inferior spatial intelligence

    Some 40% of Ashkenazi Jews have mitochondrial DNA descended from just four women. If those four women had DNA that encouraged above average intelligence it would be quite plausible for the same tendency to extend to a large percentage of Ashkenazi Jews.

    Physical characteristics of our brains are determined to a significant extent by our genes, along with nutrition and other factors, but it is entirely plausabile that there are genetic factors that would result in above average intelligence, just like there are genetic factors that result in above average strength, stamina or speed.

    Its just a matter of time before someone is going to try to genetically engineer superintelligent humans.

    P.S.

    Last laugh at all the people, especially interkin3tic, who fileted me on the slashdot thread a few weeks about $1000 DNA sequencing when I pointed out how neo nazi's would immediately latch on to it as a way to determine racial purity. Assorted liberals asserted that we had moved beyond Nazi's, eugenics and race and it would never happen again. I pointed out then Hungary already had a neo Nazi government going down this path again, and today here you are.

    --
    @de_machina
  29. Re:The test was not necessary by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is only passed down from the mother, meaning it's not sexually mixed. This DNA is also ONLY used in the mitochondria, the DNA doesn't affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria. So even if there are 4 women who originate an entire ethnic groups Mitochondria it says NOTHING about the sexual mixing of regular DNA that has occurred over those generations. So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than paternity and descendence studies.

    I won't even get into genetics versus environment and the studies that have shown intelligence, ambition and knowledge are as dependent on environment (upbringing) as they are on natural advantages.

  30. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 2

    So you have definitively established that the mitochondria has no role in the function of the brain even though neurons have hundreds of mitochondria and they are essential to meeting the energy needs of neurons.

    Please do share with us your innovative research.

    --
    @de_machina
  31. Re:Vampire by billstewart · · Score: 2
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  32. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is one of many papers, "Neuronal degeneration and mitochondrial dysfunction", where mitochondrial DNA does seem to "affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria".

    Would you like to retract your kneejerk claim now or later?

    --
    @de_machina
  33. Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anti-Roma racism in Europe (esp. Eastern Europe) has purely pragmatic roots. Denounce it as non politically correct all you want, but there's a strong correlation between Roma and petty criminals - especially those Roma who are identifiably Roma (i.e. wear the appropriate clothing, speak the language etc). Of course, this isn't because there is some kind of "Roma DNA" that includes some "thief gene" in it. It's because European Roma culture historically was, and to a large extent remains, conductive of petty crime. Today, this is primarily a self-perpetuating problem, much like disproportionally high numbers of criminals among African Americans in the USA - association of the whole group with crime leads to discrimination of it uniformly regardless of how individual members conduct themselves, which in turn means that their individual opportunity to achieve a higher status in life is that much less, which means that many are turned towards crime again as the most rewarding way of living that is left available to them. But, from the perspective of your average Eastern European citizen, who knows that out of ten thieves he saw in his life, eight were Roma, it doesn't matter - "fool me once" and all that.

    Anti-Jewish racism, on the other hand, is mostly political - Nazi heritage and all that.