Alleles* Have No Religion
by Seth Ward, PhD From HaLapid, Summer 2006 The science of genetics is a recent one. It dates only from 1900, when a paper by Gregor Mendel was presented using what we now call genetics to explain heredity. Watson and Crick’s discovery of DNA is only half a century old, and advances in science in only the past two decades have allowed for substantial application of genetics to explaining the history of human demography. This is a science very much still in its infancy. Genetic inheritance has the potential to tell us much about the ancestry of groups of individuals, including how closely related a particular population is, possibly to track movements between populations and so forth. Complex issues of scientific discipline, treatment of human subjects, and medical and counseling applications are raised by genetic research having to do with inherited traits, particularly when genetic inheritance causes disease or disability or leads to a heightened susceptibility. These have been much discussed by scientists, and professional protocols govern how they can proceed. So, too, forensic DNA analysis is now available to identify perpetrators, rule out suspects, free those improperly convicted, and determine the identity of corpses and skeletal remains where there were no fingerprints available; and professional standards must necessarily ensure that such evidence stands up to the demands of our system of justice. Much less has been done on the ethical and scientific issues raised by the demographic analyses which have only recently become possible. Genetic research is already shedding significant light on relevant issues of historic demography, and it is an important tool for those interested in knowing whether various populations or communities have a hereditary link to the Jewish people. The Society must promote and disseminate it. But we must also be part of the discussion of the ethical and interpretational boundaries of this research. Various genetic surveys indicate a highly coherent Jewish gene-pool, especially among Ashkenazi Jews, and suggest the degree to which Jews are similar genetically to populations of the Middle East and other locations. Research focusing on genetic material passed down only through a single sex is of particular interest. The Y-chromosome, found only in males and thus passed along from biological father to son; or mitochondrial DNA, inherited only from the mother. Genetics have in some cases appeared to confirm some traditional suppositions—for example, that Jewish communities on the whole have a high degree of endogamy over past centuries. Studies seem to confirm that many Jews who self-identify as kohanim share a common male ancestor possibly living during first or second Temple times or even earlier. Other studies suggest that there were a limited number of female ancestors in many Jewish communities; they suggest a high degree of female endogamy although the founding women may or may not have had Jewish ancestry themselves. Such genetic demography is hardly unique to Judaism; a recent study of African Americans found that many had genetic traits consistent with a high percentage of European ancestors. Such studies provide a scientific platform to address a number of a religious, historical, community, and personal identity issues. Theories suggested by this data are often thought provoking and useful, but they are not always completely substantiated by research; indeed the field is young, as are disciplinary standards for determining the meaning of findings and discussing them within the context of more traditional disciplines. 1. Genetic screening as a model for demographic reconstruction There are a number of protocols for genetic screening; like many scientific procedures performed on human populations, universities or hospitals have established parameters that must be analyzed before ordering a genetic test. Typical considerations include: · Screening has real benefit in preventing or treating illness · Cost is justifiable. · Results are reliable. · Adequate followup is provided: medical, psychological, social, educational, and other support measures are available for those people found to be carriers of the tested gene. Geneticists also debate the degree to which detailed technical information is useful to the patient or the family, including what types of information should be provided, and how much information is useful. Clearly many patients and their families cannot adequately respond to specialized medical or scientific information in the same way that researchers or physicians with years of specialized training and experience can, and in some cases, the learning curve to understand this information is inconsistent with—and less useful than—discussion of the ramifications of the information. At first glance, this “illness” model for demographic genetics would seem to be totally irrelevant to demographic genetics. Yet many individuals evidence strong reactions when they find that the ancestry suggested by genetic testing is quite different from what they had previously supposed, no less so then when anthropologists or folklorists challenge their previous assumptions. We rightly raise such issues in anthropological research, insisting on professional approaches so that researchers to conduct themselves in ways respectful of the potential reactions of human subjects to conclusions drawn about them; so too, a professional attitude towards sharing medical and scientific results with patients and families is an important part of medical practice. The “Reliability of results” parameter often is rated in terms of the percentages of “false positives” or “false negatives,” and much testing seeks to balance reliability, cost and relative ease. Thus urinalysis is routine for drug testing, due to ease and low cost, and the reliability of the negative result. But a positive result for poppy derivatives is not reliable at all, as it can be triggered by poppy-seed bagels or even hamantaschen; one source estimated “that 70% of DOT opiates positives are due to poppy seeds.” The meaning of this statistic is clear: the test is quite reliable for poppy derivatives, but this source estimates that only 30% of those who test positive use heroin or other poppy-based drugs. Similarly, demographic genetic studies test for shared ancestry and genetic similarity but this model suggests that the degree to which a given ancestry correlates with current religious, ethnic or racial identity (absent decisions made on the basis of genetic results alone) should be taken into account in assessing the meaning of the data. 2. Public health vs. demography Research suggests that certain genetic traits linked to diseases found in Ashkenazi populations are also present in populations with Hispano backgrounds. In some of these cases, genetic testing has shown highly specific genetic variations. It is statistically unreasonable to assume multiple “founders” –i.e., an original ancestor held in common by all who posses a unique genetic pattern. But it is usually impossible to determine whether the founder in a given population was Ashkenazi, a Spanish-speaking “Crypto-Jew,” or indeed some person with no actual link to either community who happened to passed on the gene. Wide incidence in unrelated Southwestern US communities with known Jewish heritage might be significant; presence of the genetic variant in isolated communities may reflect bottleneck/founder situations in which the variant occurred among the first settlers, and disappeared in some communities and was magnified in others; or that it was introduced later only within specific communities. In any case, the fact that the public health significance is clear does not mean that the demographic significance is as well. 3. Genes and Jewish Identity. As we have seen, unique genetic markers may determine that two individuals are likely to share a common ancestor, but the signficance of such findings is by no means clear. Alleles have no religion. Judaism does not have alleles as it is open to anyone to join. People inherit their genes but they construct their religious identity in various ways, some of which reflect their birth or bringing, and some reflect choice. Where ascribed and biological parentage differ (i.e., in cases of adoption) we usually expect ascriptive parentage to correlates much more strongly with religion than the biological one. Conversion into Judaism has always been possible; indeed it has been common in some periods. Genetic studies all present the Jewish population as being quite coherent, but of course some ancestors of Jews were not Jews. Some may even have been enemies of the Jewish people. Archaeological evidence suggests that coherent Israelite communities emerged only in the 11th or 12th prechristian century, which means that genetic correspondences older than about 3000 years are irrelevant. The Talmud asserts that among those studying and teaching Torah were descendants of Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar and Haman (Sanhedrin 96b), all enemies of Israel from much earlier days whose latter-day descendants joined Judaism. Significantly, the Talmudic version of the passage does not name names except for Shemaiah and Abtalion (teachers of Hillel) who openly admitted they were converts: the Rabbis protected the identity of those who did not make such statements public. Conversion to Judaism included the conversion en masse of Idumeans in the 1st pre-Christian century and documentary evidence suggests significant conversion to Judaism from the first century and perhaps up until Christianity achieved protected status in the 4th century. Many Khazars became Jews in the 8th or 9th Christian century. While it could be argued that their genetic effect is much greater in the Ashkenazi world, presumably their descendants also came to places such as Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, and the Middle East where they mixed in with Sephardic populations as well. Throughout history, too, there have been individuals who have left the Jewish community; their descendants would carry their ancestors genes but not their religious identity. All in all, while Jews in general appear to have a high degree of shared genetic heritage, to be sure, but it is also important to note that Jews share common ancestors with non-Jews; there is no “Jewish gene” found in all Jews and lacking in all non-Jews. There is continuing tension between “genetic essentialists” who believe that Judaism is entirely heredity, and those who believe it is entirely commitment to God and Torah—ultimately, not a hereditary entity at all. My friend Professor Daniel J Lasker is deservedly famous in some circles for comparing the two attitudes as seeing Judaism as “software” vs. “hardware.” Maimonides is associated with the “software” position; Judah Halevy with the Hardware position. Maimonides, however, stresses the importance of community and of the training one receives in one’s birth environment, and even Ha-Levy accepts that the descendants of converts who are born to parents who were born as Jews are indistinguishable from those who have four Jewish-born grandparents. After the Nazi racial program, it seems to me that it is difficult to support a position that emphasizes Judaism as a matter of biological ancestry—even if it is proud of that ancestry rather than committed to stamping it out. When contemplating marriage or determining priestly or levitical status, Judaism is in fact usually a matter of biology. The rule is that “offspring from a legitimate marriage follow the father,” whereas “any [woman] who does not have Jewish marriage (Hebrew: kiddushin)—not with [her husband] and not with others—the offspring is like her.” Since a non-Jewish woman never has the possibility of kiddushin and a Jewish one generally always does, in traditional Jewish law, the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish, and the child of a Jewish mother is. On the other hand, the hereditary Priestly and Levitical status (Hebrew: Kohen and Levi) follow the father. So, too, do “Sephardic” or “Ashkenazic” status, to the extent that these have implications in Jewish law and ritual. This rule seems to protect against the possibility that mothers of persons asserting they were Jews were in fact not; no such degree of “protection” seems to have been necessary regarding fathers. Jewish observance would not seem to play any role in this at all, but traditionally, except for marriage and certain aspects of Israeli law, observance and lifestyle rather than lineage determine in practice whether someone is considered Jewish, including such items as calling them to the Torah or offering them charitable contributions designated for Jews. Historically—up to the 1700s—this almost always meant appearing to follow minimal standards of Sabbath and dietary observances. In the past two centuries this has been complicated somewhat due to a fall-off in observance and Jewish training, a more mobile society, greater intermarriage and conversion, both into and out of Judaism. The Reform movement endorsed “patrilineal descent” meaning that the child of a Jewish father or a Jewish mother is considered Jewish. Yet here as well, Jewish genes alone do not make someone Jewish. Reform doctrine also requires an explicit affirmation of Jewishness in order to be considered Jewish, a concept also embodied in traditional formulations about the rejection of idolatry or Sabbath desecration. Madeleine Albright is a famous case: most people do not consider her Jewish at all, although she now knows that she had four Jewish grandparents. In most surveys and many research studies, Judaism is self-determined. Persons who answer affirmatively to the question “Are you Jewish” or who select Judaism ass a response to a question about religious affiliation are considered Jewish, without further determination of parentage. In the State of Israel and, historically, in many European countries, Judaism is also a matter of public determination, subject to political considerations. The frequent vehemence of debates about “who is a Jew” with respect to the Israeli population registry indicate that this is no simple matter, and Israeli law has determined that a person cannot claim to be Jewish by “nationality” (what we would probably call ethnicity in the US), but not by religion. It is usually assumed that throughout history, Judaism has been overwhelmingly a hereditary affair. Nevertheless, conversion, adoption, exogamy, political considerations and other factors led to a complicated situation that must be considered when attempting genetic demographics. Genetic testing can add much to our knowledge of Jewish demography. I am not arguing that it is unreliable. On the contrary, it offers a tool of enormous power to confirm or reject various propositions about Jewish migration patterns, community coherence and endogamy, and ancestry. Nevertheless, it must be used carefully and with regard to its limitations, both with respect to the kind of information it offers, and to the vagaries of the demographics of the Jewish community. And, to return to the considerations noted in the discussion of genetic screening, considerations about reliability (and the meaning of reliability), interpretation of the results, and counseling based on the results of demographic genealogy merit far more care when we remember that individuals apply the results of such research findings to their own lives. * Alleles: Different versions of the same gene. |
Society For Crypto Judaic Studies
|
