Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:57 PM

Kissing Cousins

Sharon Begley

A good way not to win friends in an immigrant community is to blame its high rate of birth defects on the practice of cousin marriages. That’s what British environment minister Phil Woolas did in February, blaming birth defects in children in the UK’s Pakistani community on marriages between first cousins. “If you have a child with your cousin, the likelihood is there will be a genetic problem,” he told the Sunday Times. (Calls by a Muslim activist group that Woolas be fired went for naught; he was promoted in October to immigration minister.) That belief is reflected in laws in 31 U.S. states that either bar cousin marriage entirely or permit it only if the couple undergoes genetic counseling or cannot have kids.

But in a paper in the journal PLoS Biology, Hamish Spencer of New Zealand’s University of Otago and Diane Paul of Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology argue that the genetic risk to children born of cousin marriages is much less than widely believed.

Risk is in the eye of the beholder, of course. But in 2002 an expert panel convened by the National Society of Genetic Counselors found that the risks of a first-cousin marriage are about 1.7% to 2% above the background risk for congenital defects and 4.4% above background (which is vanishingly low to begin with) for dying in childhood.

Advertisement

Whether 2% and 4% seem like a big extra risk or a piddling one probably depends on how much you want to marry your cousin, but Spencer concludes that “neither the scientific nor social assumptions behind [anti-cousin-marriage laws] stand up to close scrutiny. Women over the age of 40 have a similar risk of having children with birth defects and no one is suggesting they should be prevented from reproducing. People with Huntington’s disease or other autosomal dominant disorders have a 50 per cent risk of transmitting the underlying genes to offspring and they are not barred either.”

And what of the belief that humans have an incest-avoidance gene that keeps people from lusting after their cousins? None has ever been found. And if avoiding incest with a cousin is part of human nature, as some evolutionary psychologists contend, then an awful lot of humans haven’t noticed. In Turkey and Morocco, first-cousin marriages account for 22% of all marriages, and second-cousin marriages for another 29%, finds demographer Georges Reniers of the University of Ghent. Cousin marriages are similarly common among China’s majority Han ethnic group and in the Middle East and sub-Sahara Africa.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: PRETTYNPINK (January 7, 2009 at 9:37 AM)

WebMiner - TOUCHE'

P.S. Thanks for the spell check!....and the interesting blogging....


Posted By: WebMiner (January 7, 2009 at 2:20 AM)

P-N-P,

History is of the men that wrote the book, and the numerous accounts of eyewitnesses to events of the day. It is said that there is more documented evidence of Christ's existence than there is of Caesar's, yet people commonly doubt Christ's accounts and seldom doubt Caesar's. Given, Caesar never claimed to be a Messiah, but still, it gives pause as to why one guy gets the pass and the other gets the microscope.

"if god was the penman" there again, who's words are those?"

Depends. For base explanation of the message God wants us to hear, He is the ultimate author. But there is no denying the lyrical stylings of David in the Psalms, the sensuous writings of Solomon in his 'Song' book, or even the anal detailings of Ezra in the Chronicles (very boring stuff, Ezra would have made a stellar CPA - no offense to CPAs out there, lol). What I'm trying to say is that during the creation of the 66 books that would become the modern Bible, God didn't take over the authors to create a monotone tome; he intead expressed his message through their writing style, allowing each author's style to remain. It is more natural that way, but no less accurate than if he wrote the thing himself. I mean, considering he's the author of creativity, would you expect anything less? Cue up the Guinness guys - brilliant!!!

"I COULD TELL YOU THAT GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE ALL THIS ON THIS BLOG. WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?"

Well...now don't take this personally... but no. But let me say that in all honesty, he didn't tell me to write this either, so we're even. God has said enough to this point, any more wouldn't do any good. You know, it is said that when Christ was dying on the cross, his tormentors mocked him in his state and said that if he was so great why wouldn't he save himself at that very moment. He had at his disposal all the angels in heaven looking on, ready to spring into action. Had he used his power to save himself, the masses would still have not believed. There's only so far you can go to convince someone, then you just leave them to their own devices.


Posted By: kasi7114 (January 6, 2009 at 11:16 PM)

kissthis!: Thank you so much for the interesting reading! I'm always looking for new sources about this topic in particular.

I admittedly am not as well read on royal bloodlines as history was never my subject. I'm much more familiar with genetics aspect of the situation. The Queen Victoria was just an example that I'm fairly familiar with in general because it is brought up often in class as a misconception. What I told you before I got from the work of Dr. Martin Ottenheimer. He's a social anthropologist and most of his work has been on the topic of marriage. That particular bit about Queen Victoria can be found on page 117 of his book Forbidden Relatives, which specifically addresses cousin unions and how their have been perceived in Europe versus the US. Its very dry and dull at times but I learned a lot from it.

You might also take a look at the Textbook of Human Genetics by Levitan and Montagu who talk specifically about the case of hemophilia in the royal family but that book is a little older (1977) or at least my copy is - there might be a more recent edition.

I'm also familiar with the research that has been done by Dr. Robin Bennet, which specificially addresses the issue of consanguinity.  She's a former President of the National Society of genetic counselors  - www.nsgc.org), I'm honestly only familar with her because I had the pleasure of meeting her once for an interview. Very neat lady!

From what I understand about genetics though its not really the in-breeding or the line-breeding that cause genetic defects to manifest more often unless the breeding is repeated over and over again. Then the problem is not really from the inbreeding perse but rather just that you have a ridiculously small gene pool. If a 1000 or 2000 group of people (not related) that is isolated are left to themselves for a few generations they will have major increased genetic defects in their population even if no one ever mates with a relative. The population studies on the Aland Islands are a good example of this. They have a rare bleeding disorder and some kind of eye problem that is next to unheard of in Europe proper. I tried to find you a link but all the good ones required subscriptions to academic journals... sigh.

So inbreeding doesn't usually become a problem unless you stop outbreeding. Because its the small gene pool that is really the problem not the incest itself. Its just incest over and over again means that you have a small gene pool.

And now that I'm thinking about it - that may even be what happened with the Royal families in Europe. I'm still fairly certain that nobles very rarely married close cousins based on many genetic texts, but they did have a very limited select group of people to choose from when selecting a mate. The reason the Pakistani have a problem (and notice they have more a problem in Britain than they do in their native country) is because they have such a small gene pool to select from because they constantly are inbreeding and rarely outbreeding.

I enjoyed the first link you sent to me the most as it had some information that is new to me. I would be curious if they had anymore numerical numbers on how often inbreeding did take place in the royal family (rather than simply stating that it did). I hadn't even thought of the Egyptian or Incan royal cultures. I would love more information on them if you could point me in the right direction. I also am glad they took the time to define what they considered incest because it is defined differently from state to state or country.

The essay did site Dr. Bemiss in the beginning, and in the scientific world his work (while it was heavily influential politically) is highly criticized in the scientific community. His research did not contain representative samples as almost of his work was done in asylums and most of his "evidence" is merely anecdotal descriptions of behavior of the children of legitimately insane people. Also his data didn't support his claims as he saw more problems in the children of third cousins than in first of second cousins in the blind portions of the experiment.

You're absolutely right - there are no "right" or "correct" answers in science. Only debates! I think that's why I love science as much as I do. ^_^

*************************

To winkiesixtysix: You've looked up every branch of your family all the way to the 1400s?!  You have got to give me some research tips girl! I would love to be able to build it that far. Not sure it would fit on my wall though as a family tree starts to flare out rather quickly! I mean, how on earth do you keep track of all those ancestors?! You have four grandparents, eight great great grandparents, sixteen great great great grandparents etc. It multiples by two every generation. If you go all the way back to the 1400s that's about 20-25 generations if you assume each generation is about 25-30 years apart. In the 24th generation back you have something on the order of 16 million (2^24 to be exact) ancestors in that generation alone to keep track of!! And you do it so well that you can remember off the top of your head that there are definitley no close cousin unions at all for twenty something generations! And considering that the world only had 350 million people total during the 1400s that's a lot of people!

Cousin marriages in the US now make up about one in a thousand and according to everything I've ever read on the topic its only become less common with time. But let's assume that its only been one in a thousand all the way back to the 1400s. Do you really think that in those millions of ancestors there have been no cousin marriages in your family tree?! You're honestly more likely to win the lottery.

PS. You only have 16 million ancestors in the 24th generation back if you assume no one ever married a cousin. Everytime someone does marry a first cousin they lose a fourth of the tree and a second cousin they lose an eighth, and so forth.