I am sorry that you feel a need to squelch any comment that does not supinely echo Miss Roberts clearly and demonstrably false notions of biology. I put in a comment yesterday and you refused to post it.

There is no question that race is biologically determined. Everyone knows it and to pretend the opposite is like climate denial - to put forward a political position in the face of science.

It is a pose to pretend that the human genome project somehow can make final determinations about the subtleties of human development. I guess that when racial characteristics are finally found in some more advanced dissection of the human genome, your guest will turn her back on that biology too. Because it will happen. The lack of racial characteristics in the human genome is purely a reflection of the primitive state of analysis of the genome that saddles us today.

This says nothing about racism or politics which is what it is in this world today. But to insist blindly that two black people will not make a black child but could just as easily make a child that could pass for Japanese if the culture dictates is absurd and it is a shame that you support such nonsense.

Dr. Roberts views are shared by many in the medical research field. There are three separate issues here that the interviewer, not Dr. Roberts, did not get: 1) Skin color, appearance, culture, etc. are not genetically determined. But these are physiology differences. There is a gene attached to "blue" versus "black" eyes. But these should not be connected to "inferiority or superiority". On the other hand "heart structures" are not different across race...or across any category of human beings. But heart conditions are affected by "culture, poverty, health care services, eat habits, etc.". In that regard drugs that work for a particular group with a particular history, culture and eating habits, etc. that might be useful and helpful. On the other hand one can assume being Sephardic Jewish makes one susceptible to Tay-Sachs, though this is genetic...it is associated with a group, but that group cannot be associated with "race". It is associated with genetic intermarriage, specific history...which over time become a "cultural or ethnic group". So the illness is genetic...but the association with a "race" would not make sense.

Scientists who use race as a "biology", as Dr. Roberts states, forget that "genetic illness" might be more associated with a particular cultural group or closed communities (that end up sharing a certain ethnicity and race)...but cannot be closely associated with a "racial gene" that does not exist. You can have a gene for a type of hair, color of hair, skin color...but it is not a "racial gene".

I am sorry the program was not clear!