Is It Better to Be Mixed Race?

Is It Better to Be Mixed Race?

Features

Lewis Hamilton

Sunday 25 October 2009

A comprehensive study of hybrid vigour and heterozygous advantage.

Download a PDF of this article

Today, many accept racial mixing as the inevitable result of globalisation. Scientists are fascinated by theories that this mixing could lead to a genetic advantage. Despite this, the reality is that historical misunderstanding of racial differences sparked Hitler’s desire for a superior race and led to the Jewish Holocaust. With an increased knowledge of genetic diversity, scientific evidence now reveals that had Hitler got his wish the result might not have been superiority but instead a weaker race.

A Modern Genetic Perspective

For over a century animal and plant biologists have known that mixing two diverse strains of a plant or animal can result in more vigorous and healthy offspring. This “hybrid vigour” was first shown by American Plant Scientist George Shull at the Station for Experimental Evolution, Cold Spring Harbor, in 1908 when he crossed two different corn strains resulting in a more vigorous hybrid.

So, could mixed race children gain a noticeable genetic advantage and show degree of hybrid vigour?

Hybrid Vigour

Hybrid offspring are called the first filial or “F1” generation, hence the term gardeners are familiar with when buying seed; ‘F1 hybrid’.  To produce F1 hybrids, the farmer crosses two pure-bred parent strains. Often, these parent stocks are relatively small populations and hence are genetically rather uniform.  For this reason, the hybrid offspring tend not only to be more vigorous than their parents, but are also relatively uniform in appearance, a second desirable trait.

How far does hybrid vigour extend?

Hybrid vigour represents just one point on a spectrum of how related two parents are.

At one end of the spectrum is inbreeding, where the parents are closely related. This tends to produce very unfit offspring, many of which die young. Better is to choose an unrelated partner. When the partner is not only unrelated but comes from a different population, this is like being ‘super-unrelated’ and can lead to hybrid vigour. However, there must be an end-point where the parents are too different. Most obviously this end-points comes when the parents are so unrelated they are actually different species.  Thus, when a donkey and a horse mate the offspring are called mules.  Mules are interesting because the show some elements of hybrid vigour, being strong and hard-working, but they are also infertile.

What is the basis of ‘Hybrid Vigour’?

There are two main components of hybrid vigour, referred to as ‘outbreeding’ and ‘heterozygote advantage’. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes containing about 30,000 genes. Only the sex chromosomes break the ‘pairs’ rule, women having two ‘X’ chromosomes and men one ‘X’ and one ‘Y.

If you carry two copies of a gene that differ slightly in how they work, it is a bit like having an extra channel on your TV set: you don’t have to watch it but there may be times when the extra channel comes in handy. It gives you extra flexibility.  An individual who has two identical copies of a gene (good or bad) is called a homozygote, while someone who has two copies that differ is called a ‘heterozygote’.

The benefit of outbreeding

Broken genes are usually rare, so to inherit two broken copies of the same gene is unlucky and can result in serious health problems. However, the chances increase considerably if your parents are related. With more genes that are identical by descent, a child will have more genes where both copies are broken.

If inbreeding is bad, outbreeding, marrying an extremely unrelated partner, should be good for the same reason.  With a less related partner, the number of genes in your children that are identical by descent is reduced, and with it the chance that a gene has two broken copies.  It is not that your children will inherit fewer broken copies in total, just that every broken copy has a much better chance of finding itself partnered with a good copy.

The benefits of heterozygous advantage

Outbreeding can be thought of as avoiding the bad effects of having two broken copies of the same gene.  Heterozygous advantage deals with the extra flexibility one may get from having two good, but slightly different copies of the same gene. 

Is there hybrid vigour in humans?

So, what happens when people from different human populations marry - is this likely to bring the benefits discussed above? Yes, it probably will, says Amos, both by reducing the number of gene-pairs that are broken and by increasing the number that are ‘both-good-but-different’.  Combined, the result should be, on average, children who are genetically healthy, for example, who are less likely to catch ‘flu or who live a little bit longer.  However, the size of this effect is extremely difficult to measure because so much of a human’s fate is due to the environment: having good genes won’t stop you getting run over by a drunken motorist!

The Future

In the 21st Century, as more and more populations move and mix with each other, scientists predict that genetic heterozygosity will increase. However, it won’t increase indefinitely, but should reach a peak and then either stabilise or decrease depending on how future generations choose to live. 

To read the full story of Hybrid Vigour and a recent history of racial mixing, download the Is It Better to Be Mixed Race PDF

Discover more about the Race: Science's Last Taboo season.

Comments

Your Comments

Post your comment

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in to Channel 4:

Sign In Here or Register Here

Comments closed

Comments are closed at the present time

Your comments

Post your comment
By posting on this website you are agreeing to abide by our Comments Policy.
Mandatory Fields are marked with *
Your Comment (Maximum characters: 4000) *
You have

Comments

Thank you for your comment!

Your message will be reviewed and the best ones will be published below.

If you intended to make an official comment to Channel 4 please contact us.

Comments

  1. You would be most unwise to co-parent a family using this programme as a 'guide'. Brought to you from the people who made 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which seemed to mostly be evidenced by 'on the payroll of oil company scientists' and others with an especial axe to grind. I have sadly started treating C4 'science' progs. as 'lets be controversial whatever the consequences'. My own opinion of this 'argument for cross-breeding' is although I love the sheer beauty of ethnicity in women for example. I do not see a 'sum greater of the two parts' in crosses between black and white, or between SE asian and white etc. From my ''obviously racist'' standpoint I don't see any real obvious advantage. i.e. my own experience does not fit in with what the C4 prog. told me. Much like the Global warming swindle, where I have my own evidence, direct measurements by thermometer of North Atlantic waters done over 30 years where I and many other ships officers, have routinely checked and witnessed the rise of Atlantic temperatures with basic equipment (not highly manipulable 'satellite data'). We have witnessed greater levels of heat energy in the system, which I will believe before the collection of C4 highly selected numpties. On the prog. in question: I do not look down on mixed race children, but if they had such genetic advantages, then nations with armies trooped by mixed race warriors would have swept the earth many times, which they obviously have not. i.e. the advantages would have become very apparent. The Japanese who have not cross-bred with other races much, should be a sickly, stupid and generally failed race. Again, obviously they are not, they have a more cohesive society with none of the problems we British have taken on with uncontrolled immigration. Large parts of our cities have become no-go zones to anyone not packing armaments. So the damage you people with defective and poorly derived theories do is immense. Let us celebrate the family of man by keeping racial difference, not trying to achieve one size fits all. I believe in genetic diversity but not all the world on one small island. In my view: C4 science is pseudo-science, and I reject it again. Essential nonsense.
    Posted by Paul Darlington on 12/01/2010 07:13:15
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  2. This documentary suggests that people in the UK have a problem with people who are mixed race. As a London dweller, I think we have one of the most multi-racial countries in the world and I certainly don't have a problem with that...nor do I know anyone who does! I agree mostly with Dinie below, I feel like you were just comparing black and white people in the UK and failed to delve into any other race (of which we have many). I am white, yes, but half Jewish too...so I guess I'm mixed race myself, but even I don't find this documentary a breakthrough or a big deal! The conclusion was; that mixed race people MAY be less likely to suffer from certain diseases, but it failed to retrieve any solid evidence, which made the whole thing obsolete! The presenter said she had proven that mixed race is better, but that was clearly a lie! Documentaries are made to reveal a truth...most of us don't like being lied to! Stop being so opinionated, Channel 4, and try not to be biased once in while! I'm also agreed with Dinie in the whole pc issue of the title - "better" is clearly going to offend people and you must have been aware of that. I don't think that's going to give Channel 4 a very good reputation, you'll just be labelled rascist and you probably are. A completely pointless show, unless you want to prove that Channel 4 is racist, in which case, BRAVO!!
    Posted by Helena on 16/11/2009 01:13:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  3. As a british caribbean woman I was saddened by this programme which clearly is in line with the racist colonial views which were used to divide and conquer during slavery days. Mixed people are NOT better, more so because of the petty reasons that the presenter and the scientists came up with regarding better health(mentally and physically), and attractiveness. What I dont understand is why couldn't the presenter have titled the programme a little differently like using the word "advantage" instead of "better". All this view does is applaud the inverse racist black men(and some women), who favour white ideals of beauty, and cause them to denigrade and insult those of a darker skin, because we wont be able to give them so called "superior" children.I dread to thin what self esteem issues that young black women will go through because of this programme and the wider social impact that it may have. Also,Brazil was not a good example in my opinion of showing racial mixing- they could easily have found varied racial mixing iplaces in the caribbean, particularly Jamaica and Cuba, which has a more diverse mix of people(Chinese,Syrian,Portuguese Jews, Southern Indian,and Scottish to name some.); In contrast to only looking at black-white relationships in England. Who knows Those people may be as heterozygous as mixed race people in Britain. Methinks you need to think again channel 4. Disappointing.
    Posted by Dinie on 12/11/2009 14:48:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  4. Great show! I'm half Scottish, half Panamanian and on the Panamanian side I have a Chinese grandfather and a Spanish grandmother. When they said mixed race people can be healthier and backed it up with scientific reasons, I understood. However, when they said they're more attractive, I'd have loved to have heard a bit more explanation (so I can tell my girlfriend, lol!). I'm reading Darwin's Descent of Man by Sexual Selection and he's saying that the more 'typical' look of a population is regarded as their 'standard of beauty', but at the same time, we crave variation once this becomes commonplace. Anyone have any thoughts because I'm a bit confused by the show's explanation? I completely understand the presenter's friend when he said he had a 'unique perspective of the world'. For those of you who are offended by the title, relax - a lot of headlines need to be slightly controversial to get our attention. It got us watching, didn't it? Again, groundbreaking, innovative and very rational show. Well done!
    Posted by Ted on 07/11/2009 15:21:08
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  5. When I was studying Genetics 50 years ago the effect of "Hybrid Vigour" was well known and used often to produce stock which had superior food to weight gain, disease resistance, and generally better stronger animals. The effect was also used to identify and sex chicks by their colour if the Light Sussex and Rhode Island Red breeds were crossed. So the effects of Hybrid Vigour have been know for generations and although we are not supposed to refer to peoples races as similar to animal and bird breeds it must seem that it applies here as well. But, before we think of ourselves as "White British", we must remember we were produced by continually mixing immigrants to our shores, and the only peoples who might remain as "untainted" by mixing races are perhaps Amazonian Indians yet to be found in the Rain Forest? An interesting programme but what was it trying to prove?
    Posted by Old Stockman on 04/11/2009 15:57:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  6. It was quite an interesting programme with a dramatic headline but as per usual its nurture not nature which seems to be the deciding factor. Interesting that the presenter didn't DNA her own daughter for the sake of scienec or does it have to be someone of a certain age? harping on about how mixed Brazil is when the discrimination is there for all to see. News to me that europe seem to be the last populated place on the planet. However for that dna bullet to occur as in her friend you needed an african and white european. It wouldn't have worked with a west indian or indeed an american black as they would undoubtedly have white ancestry. Nurture not nature having a mixed parentage doesn't bring you massive benefits such as being able to run, sing, dance, learn bettter than whites or Africans.
    Posted by iglad on 04/11/2009 12:55:13
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  7. This programmed made me really angry. Fair enough that mixed race people are highly unlikely to become sick but it does not give them or anyone to say that they are better than Africans, White, Asians, Jews etc. This sort of mind set is the reason why the slave trade developed, why Jews were killed off. Its just re-creating hatred amogst people and I am really upset and uncomfortable with it.
    Posted by Upset on 04/11/2009 01:31:05
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  8. A truely eye opening documentary, most interesting to watch. Having a genic disability, which appears to be a milder strain from anyone else in my family, has made me always fascinated by the process of passing my genes onto my child and the impacts this will have. I think its most important research continues in this field, and that we continue to challenge those with ignorant attitudes. Prehaps more programmes such as this will help educate people in their heritage...
    Posted by Becca on 04/11/2009 01:08:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  9. only countries like the Uk and other english transplants over the world like USA, Australia and some former Uk colonies that are so used to labelling people with terms like mixed race,ethnic minority, african american, asian american..etc are the ones that will always be the inbred minority...why there are no terms such as european american? why do you think born english people are not english just because they look not white? why cant you be english and black? who made up this stupid labels???? the europeans did.It is just funny that everything they eat and wear and use in their houses comes from other parts of the world...should we also label food and clothes as white or mixed race fruit????
    Posted by marieta severo on 03/11/2009 17:58:15
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  10. How many people are taking this television show seriously? Are people really that foolish that they will belive this isn't just as bad as the racists they seek to discredit?
    Posted by Dragonbeard on 03/11/2009 00:43:12
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  11. I am very pleased to have just seen such a refreshingly intelligent and thought provoking documentary. A huge congratulations to the team who proposed this programme and those who commissioned it. The world is moving forward and it is time that the issues of genetic diversity are discussed in a mature and constructive way. This programme did that in a pioneering way for broadcast media. We can all be proud of our genetic heritage whatever it is, and more importantly we should also be proud of the genetics of our posterity. Those who still seek "racial" purity must understand that their grandchildren/great grandchildren will most probably be of mixed genetic origin. The future is upon us and it must be embarced. Thanks to programmes like this we will see an end to prejudice based upon genetic grounds. We are all of the human race and we all have a role to play in the future of human kind.
    Posted by Michael Clayton on 02/11/2009 22:19:10
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  12. I wonder - what do we mean by mixed race? If I am white Brazilian (of Italian descent on one side and African on the other but at least 4 generations ago) and my partner is White British - would our children be mixed race?
    Posted by Gus Lo Bianco on 02/11/2009 21:02:51
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment

Last on:

Thursday 04 February

3.15AM, Channel 4

Advertisement

Skip Channel4 main Navigation
Explore Channel4
Food
Homes
Film
News
Comedy
See All

Channel 4 © 2010. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.