Biological and Ecological Factors associated with Down Syndrome
The biological approach of anthropology focuses on genetics, environment, and individual choice, where as the ecological approach is a bit broader, looking at plants, animals and humans, culture, as well as economy and natural resources. Although a little different, these two approaches fit well together, and coincidently are studied simultaneously in many instances. Anthropologists often look at biological causes in a certain ecosystem or society, and how diversity is established as humans adapt to these particular environments.
In 2011, John Starbuck published an article in the Journal of Contemporary looking at how the diagnosis of Down Syndrome, based on biological and physiological attributes, progressed throughout history (Starbuck). For the majority of history, we had no idea what Down Syndrome actually was or what caused it, and that these individuals once described as “Mongoloids” actually all had a very specific thing in common. It is therefore very important for anthropologists to not only look at the biological causes and physical descriptions we have from the past, but to make sense of the cultural and social stigma these misunderstood individuals faced in the past.
As I previously described on the home page, Down Syndrome is diagnosed when an individual has a third, or additional copy of the 21st chromosome, giving it the name Trisomy 21. The most typical cause of Trisomy 21 twenty is nondisjunction, when a pair of chromosomes does not separate during meiosis. A chart illustrating this process is shown below. One of the biggest biological factors in the incidence of Down Syndrome is maternal age. After the age of 35, the risk of having a Down Syndrome child increases significantly, and continues to do so each year. A chart illustrating these statistics is posted below.
Throughout history, those who were seen as “different,” whether it is physically like racial differences, or mentally, like having a significantly lower IQ or other mental impairments, were mistreated and abused. In ANP 204, we were shown multiple examples of this, such as how race, even though not a biological difference becomes biology, and therefore allows for social, economic, and political inequality (Gravlee). The eugenist movement in North Carolina is also another perfect example of the horrific inequality and torture that was placed on those who were seen as idiots and unfit to have children (YouTube). Unfortunately, those suffering from Down Syndrome have obviously physical and mental differences, and so in turn suffer from similar inequalities.
In his article, Starbuck looked at a variety of different medias that depicted down syndrome individuals, from paintings, to sculptures, carvings, and more. These dated back hundreds to thousands of years and come from all different cultures and countries. It is much easier to study the physical diagnosis and history of Trisomy 21, however, compared to the mental and physiological. These descriptions and diagnoses come much later in history, once technology and records were more accurate (Starbuck). What biological and ecological anthropologists have studied is what brought individuals to these conclusions and their methods, as well as the implications of those suffering from the disease. They have found that much of this has to do with the culture and society of the time as to how the Down Syndrome individuals were treated.
The biological approach of anthropology focuses on genetics, environment, and individual choice, where as the ecological approach is a bit broader, looking at plants, animals and humans, culture, as well as economy and natural resources. Although a little different, these two approaches fit well together, and coincidently are studied simultaneously in many instances. Anthropologists often look at biological causes in a certain ecosystem or society, and how diversity is established as humans adapt to these particular environments.
In 2011, John Starbuck published an article in the Journal of Contemporary looking at how the diagnosis of Down Syndrome, based on biological and physiological attributes, progressed throughout history (Starbuck). For the majority of history, we had no idea what Down Syndrome actually was or what caused it, and that these individuals once described as “Mongoloids” actually all had a very specific thing in common. It is therefore very important for anthropologists to not only look at the biological causes and physical descriptions we have from the past, but to make sense of the cultural and social stigma these misunderstood individuals faced in the past.
As I previously described on the home page, Down Syndrome is diagnosed when an individual has a third, or additional copy of the 21st chromosome, giving it the name Trisomy 21. The most typical cause of Trisomy 21 twenty is nondisjunction, when a pair of chromosomes does not separate during meiosis. A chart illustrating this process is shown below. One of the biggest biological factors in the incidence of Down Syndrome is maternal age. After the age of 35, the risk of having a Down Syndrome child increases significantly, and continues to do so each year. A chart illustrating these statistics is posted below.
Throughout history, those who were seen as “different,” whether it is physically like racial differences, or mentally, like having a significantly lower IQ or other mental impairments, were mistreated and abused. In ANP 204, we were shown multiple examples of this, such as how race, even though not a biological difference becomes biology, and therefore allows for social, economic, and political inequality (Gravlee). The eugenist movement in North Carolina is also another perfect example of the horrific inequality and torture that was placed on those who were seen as idiots and unfit to have children (YouTube). Unfortunately, those suffering from Down Syndrome have obviously physical and mental differences, and so in turn suffer from similar inequalities.
In his article, Starbuck looked at a variety of different medias that depicted down syndrome individuals, from paintings, to sculptures, carvings, and more. These dated back hundreds to thousands of years and come from all different cultures and countries. It is much easier to study the physical diagnosis and history of Trisomy 21, however, compared to the mental and physiological. These descriptions and diagnoses come much later in history, once technology and records were more accurate (Starbuck). What biological and ecological anthropologists have studied is what brought individuals to these conclusions and their methods, as well as the implications of those suffering from the disease. They have found that much of this has to do with the culture and society of the time as to how the Down Syndrome individuals were treated.
Starbuck, John. "On the Antiquity of Trisomy 21: Moving Towards a Quantitative Diagnosis of Down Syndrome in Historic Material Culture." Journal of Contemporary Anthropology 2, no. 1 (2011).
Gravlee, Clarence. "How Race Becomes Biology: Embodiment of Social Inequality."American Journal of Physical Anthropology 139 (2009): 47-57. "Eugenicist Movement in America: Victims Coming Forward." YouTube. 2012. Accessed August 10, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nshj9rCTPdE&feature=youtu.be. |