The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

Basic genetics tells us that consanguineous mating ("inbreeding," defined as sexual union between second cousins or closer) is bad. Each of us carries approximately 500-1200 deleterious mutations in our genome, most of which are offset by second copies of properly functioning genes. Consanguinity increases the likelihood that some of these harmful recessive traits will reveal themselves, hence the scientific caveat against incestuous relationships.

Of course the near-innate reluctance of most Westerners to cast a romantic eye toward their siblings or cousins preceded this Mendelian wisdom. Cultural contempt for consanguinity had deeper roots in the early efforts of Catholicism to unite nepotistic familial clans under the hierarchical rubric of medieval Christianity. This precocious papal proselytism helped usher in the modern era of centralized political authority that currently underpins much of Western thinking about marriage and allegiance to the state. It continues to exert influence over our geopolitical directives.

Outside of Europe and the United States, however, consanguinity is far from being a faux pas. A recent study by Rudan et al. reported in the Journal of Medical Genetics places the worldwide prevalence of inbreeding at 1-10 percent. Regional demographic data indicate remarkably high rates of first-cousin and uncle-niece marriages in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. An analysis in the March 2004 issue of Annals of Human Biology reports that consanguineous relationships account for nearly 39 percent of all marriages in Iran, while a quick browse through www.consang.net reveals concordant frequencies characterizing certain parts of India, the Balkans and Pakistan.

Traditionally, interest in inbreeding has been largely confined to researchers studying rare disorders. It is now known, however, that inbreeding leads to increased incidence of several complex, late-onset diseases, including cancer, gout, asthma, depression and multiple sclerosis. It also dramatically worsens the course of hypertension, which will adversely affect one in three individuals by 2025. As treatment and prevention protocols for certain infectious diseases improve, particularly in developing-world countries, they will also unmask these previously unseen medical burdens that are not so readily cured with a mere pill or vaccine.

Interestingly, the mounting medical interest in consanguinity has been paralleled in select foreign policy circles, which have begun to recognize the health-independent impacts of inbreeding on nation-building objectives in Iraq and elsewhere. Neo-conservatives like Steve Sailer and Randall Parker, for example, have highlighted the religious and geographic differences contributing to the historically factious political environments that prevail in the Middle East. They argue for the paramount importance of consanguineous marriage in Arab society, which serves to pool family resources, prevent destructive rivalries and concentrate power among a trusted few.

In a pre-war interview with The New York Times, Robin Fox, an anthropologist at Rutgers University, highlighted this unarticulated ideological discord between the United States and Iraq: "Liberal democracy is based on the Western idea of autonomous individuals committed to a public good, but that's not how members of these tight and bounded kin groups see the world. Their world is divided into two groups: kin and strangers."

In fostering a distrust of outsiders, this "us versus them" mentality subsequently impairs the development of organizational structures extending beyond the immediate family. Tribe-like alliances thrive at the expense of civic loyalty, stunting the development of credible democratic institutions and large-scale economic enterprises. Consanguinity thus breeds the unfortunate authoritarianism of monarchs and despots in the Arab world and casts serious doubt, some argue, on the substantive value of upcoming Iraqi elections.

Though the merits of this position are debatable (successful democracies have existed alongside widespread inbreeding in Turkey and Japan, for example), it does raise timely questions about the social ramifications of today's advanced science. Genetic screening initiatives target, at least indirectly, the elimination of consanguinity. On one hand it is becoming increasingly clear that international health strategists must face up to the looming reality of persistent inbreeding -- that it is a growing public health threat to be actively discouraged, not passively tolerated. On the other hand, interference of this sort could be met with profound local resistance (reminiscent of the cultural imperialism associated with the Crusades) and may, if only marginally successful, become a destabilizing political force.

More generally, however, this intersection between medicine and international security reveals the connectedness of two seemingly disparate issues, reaffirming the unwritten law of unintended consequences while also offering the possibility of novel solutions to old problems. Conquering consanguinity for medical reasons may cultivate the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for stable peace in war-torn countries, while astute foreign interventions may aid healthcare professionals in overcoming challenges that would otherwise appear insurmountable. Tortuous as they may be, these interactions should be considered with an open mind.

Ultimately, the global campaign against consanguinity should proceed with vigor. It should not, however, be pigeonholed as a purely medical endeavor, but should instead engage further consideration as a yet-unexamined mechanism for achieving greater peace and abiding stability.

Jason Lott is a first-year student in the School of Medicine from Anniston, Ala. Whole Lotta Love appears on Mondays.

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.