The first thing that stuck out to me was in the Preamble of the AAPA statement. It states that “Scientists should try to keep the results of their research from being used in a biased way that would serve discriminatory ends.” This is probably the most socially progressive statement I’ve witnessed in a scientific text. In addition, at the end of the AAPA statement, it says, “Racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations.” These two statements are so powerful! People don’t really think of science and social justice to be entangled fields, but in this circumstance, especially considering the science of race (or non-race theory to be specific), the two fields pair really well. Political action led by experts in scientific fields should be more frequent. Maybe by backing up more social justice issues (besides climate change of course) with researched fact, more people would begin to understand the importance of these social issues.

The AAA statement feels more substantiated than the AAPA statement. The AAA statement gives explicit examples for their claims such as: “Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair” and the discussion on the Holocaust as an example for extreme beliefs about race and superiority. The purpose of the AAPA statement is to make broad, political, and declaratory points which summarize years of detailed research, but the AAA statement gives examples from this research to explain their claims and seems to be a more approachable and informative text. What I found that both statements, especially the AAA statement, did well was explaining the context surrounding the formation of “race”. Explaining this political and cultural context is crucial to understanding the oppressive construction of “race” and why this derogatory construction needs to be eliminated from the scientific field.

To explain the non-existence of race to someone, I would first start by making sure they understand evolution. Evolution, migration, and the genetic variation that results from evolution is the basis for understanding the fallacy that is race. Organisms evolve to better adapt to their environments, and as the human species evolved over many generations, natural selection made unfavorable mutations lower in frequencies. This allowed for more favorable mutations to better ensure the survival of the human population. In the case of human evolution, as people migrated, they needed to adapt to their environments and the varying amounts of UV/sunlight in these areas. Humans in climates closer to the equator adapted to have darker skin to protect themselves from the sun, and humans in climates further from the equator adapted to have lighter skin to ensure that they absorbed vitamin D. I would also give other examples like that in the O’Luanaigh reading about Tibetans having mutated genes that improve their ability to survive in higher altitudes. The variation in skin color and the spectrum of skin tones that resulted in the initial variation is for evolutionary survival and doesn’t suggest any form of superiority over the other. Just as the AAPA statement did, it’s important to stress that all humans living on this planet are the descendants of a single ancestor. This concept is what unites all people and prevents the existence of multiple biological races.