MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394607295 · doi:10.1353/nai.2024.a924414

Inventing the Thrifty Gene: The Science of Settler Colonialism by Travis Hay (review)

2024· article· en· W4394607295 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNative American and Indigenous Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHayColonialismBiologyHistoryAnthropologyGenealogySociologyArchaeologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Inventing the Thrifty Gene: The Science of Settler Colonialism by Travis Hay Krystal S. Tsosie (bio) Inventing the Thrifty Gene: The Science of Settler Colonialism by Travis Hay University of Manitoba Press, 2021 IN INVENTING THE THRIFTY GENE: The Science of Settler Colonialism, non-Indigenous historian Travis Hay writes a compelling critique of James Neel's flawed "thrifty gene hypothesis," a concept that still pervades many settler-geneticists' understanding of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indigenous people. This hypothesis is an extension of similar "mismatch" narratives; it posits through an evolutionary biology lens that a disease state emerges due to a divergence between Indigenous Peoples' supposedly innate and genetic predisposition to storing higher blood glucose levels attuned over centuries of traditional diet patterns and periodic famine that have become maladaptive to recent or "modern" carbohydrate-and starch-rich industrialized diets. This narrative is repeatedly substantiated in Western settler-scientists' explorations of diabetes, although it has been discredited by many who have rightfully pointed to colonial and structural factors—such as forced removal of culturally based foodways, destabilized food sovereignties, and inequities in preventative healthcare—as more evidence-based contributors to the diabetic state in Indigenous peoples compared to reductionist, simplistic narratives rooted solely in DNA.1 Hay cites these works, but he also weaves a readable and accessible history of how these concepts and dichotomies (Indigenous versus Western, "premodern"/ancestral versus modern/industrial) can be misused and serve as settler hubris reified as "science" through a singular, narrow lens of genetics. Much of Hay's book is an extended exploration of how Western academia has foundationally situated race as a biological construct in the fields of human genetics and genomics, anthropology, and even medicine. While contemporary human genetics and genomics research tries to eschew its eugenicist past—which led to dangerous, hierarchical constructions of genetic racism—academic scholars still must check each other to ensure that studies based on exploring genetic variation and differences between populations do not biologically reify "race." For instance, a 2018 open letter signed by sixty-seven scientists and researchers criticized geneticist David Reich's book Who We Are and How We Got Here for substantiating differences between groups as being of genetic not social constructions.2 As [End Page 142] long as researchers continue to push for increased inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in genetic studies, the need will remain for a book such as Hay's, which questions the situation of Indigenous bodies as sources for settler-science's extraction and benefit. As Hay writes, just as Indigenous lands and resources were usurped by colonialism, "Indian blood, like diamonds, and oil, thus became supremely valuable to settlers" (90). As a part of an intensive diagnostic analysis of Neel's genetic interest in Indigenous Peoples, Hay deconstructs Neel's "obsess[ion] with Indian blood" as a preoccupation "with his own biological self," which is an interesting critique of the man often regarded as the father of modern human genetics (87). The emergence of Hay's book comes fortuitously timed with recent and ongoing conversations to include Neel's legacy that has impacts for policy and the reckoning of genetic science.3 However, in considering the centricity of damage that one settler-scientist can do, we must also take care not to grant too much power in storifying the influence of one man as a proxy of the fields' sins at large. After all, in terms of the study of Indigenous genetics, settler-science already has a lot to atone for as it moves forward. Krystal S. Tsosie KRYSTAL S. TSOSIE (Diné/Navajo Nation) is assistant professor in the School of Life Sciences in the Center for Biology and Society at Arizona State University. Notes 1. Southam et al., "Is the Thrifty Genotype Hypothesis Supported by Evidence Based on Confirmed Type 2 Diabetes- and Obesity-Susceptibility Variants?"Diabetologia 2009 52, no. 9: 1846–51. 2. "How Not to Talk about Race and Genetics" Buzzfeed Opinion, March 30, 2018, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich). 3. "Response to Allegations against James V. Neel in Darkness in El Dorado, by Patrick Tierney," American Society of Human Genetics 70, no. 1 (2002): 1–10...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it