Kissing Cousins – the Mate Debate.
In 1987, a group of geneticists published a surprising study in the journal Nature. Those researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today’s major racial groups. Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study’s authors concluded Africa is the place where she lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.
We can assume from this, that once upon a time, mating between brother and sister, never mind cousins – first, second or third – was not only common, but inevitable. However, as primitive man watched the progress of his domesticated animals so he also watched the progress of his community’s children. Some animals were fatter than others, and provided more food; by restricting mating to the ‘fat’ group of animals, he increased productivity. Some children were nimbler, fitter, lived longer than others; primitive man developed memes which gradually progressed into legislation banning consanguineous marriage in an effort to restrict mating to the most desirable couplings – those best fitted to supporting the tribe in its fight for survival.
In plain English – as the restriction of mating between desirable characteristics, and the genes which caused them, produced stronger stock, so the restriction of undesirable characteristics, and the genes which caused them, were seen to create weaker stock. It was man’s desire to have more food and less ‘passengers’ in his tribe that led to this, nothing to do with racism, colour, religion, sexual proclivity or other inflammatory debating subjects. They came later.
We have spent the subsequent centuries trying to muddy the waters and bury the antecedents of genetic selection behind a welter of religious prohibitions, and latterly, anti-discriminatory legislation. Which is why the Chanel 4 Dispatches programme due to be aired tonight night at 8pm is going to set off a storm of counter accusations.
The thesis of the Dispatches programme is that whilst ‘first-cousin’ marriage is not outlawed in Britain, it is relatively rare amongst the ‘white’ population. Although it has been calculated that throughout history, some 80% of marriages were between ‘kissing-cousins’.
Until very recent times families remained living in the same area for generations, and men typically went courting no more than about five miles from home – the distance they could walk out and back on their day off from work. Now we prefer to select our life long sexual partner at random under the neon glare of a night-club, preferably with the music turned up to maximum decibel level to prevent us having any conversations such as ‘do you believe in fidelity’ in order to initiate our personal herd. Not surprisingly, such marriages have a high failure rate, and we then select another partner under the sodium glare of the local singles club to increase our herd and repeat the process five or six times as necessary. We do accidentally and unknowingly run into close blood relations this way, and on average we have a 1 – 2% chance of mating with suspect genes and producing a child with an unfortunate disability. The cost of supporting this child and artificially encouraging it to reach adulthood is borne by the entire tax payer tribe by way of generous disability payments, and grants which help to maintain the family home.
The programme will then go on to illustrate how common ‘first-cousin’ marriage is amongst the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population – 50% in the UK generally, and 75% in Bradford specifically, and that the incidence of birth defects is approximately doubled in those groups.
Birmingham Primary Care Trust confirmed that recessive genetic illness is one of the main reasons for admission to Birmingham’s children’s hospital. In fact, the Trust estimated that one in ten of all children born to first-cousin marriages in the city’s Pakistani community either dies in infancy or goes on to suffer serious disability as a result of recessive genetic disorders.
This trend has led to calls for cousin marriages to be banned. Why should the tax payer support ‘double the usual number’ of disabled babies, when the cause appears avoidable?
It is a fair point, the burden on the tax payer is softening the blow usually felt by families who suffer children born with these types of birth defects – in a less well provided for nation, the children would die at a young age – the welfare state is making it less likely that the practice of ‘kissing cousins’ will be abandoned.
However, there is an ongoing push to help older Mother become pregnant – and the incidence of genetic defects in babies born to Mothers over 40 is exactly the same as that presented by the ‘first-cousin’ marriages in Bradford. 4%. No-one is calling for a ban on Mothers over 40 having children – we accept the risk.
Not only is it part of the entire culture of arranged marriages, whereby it is important that you know everything about the family that your child is marrying into – but living several thousand miles away from the main gene pool of your tribe – it is more likely that you will turn to family and relations rather than try to select a partner for your child from unknown families. I have not been able to find a figure for the incidence of first cousin marriage within Pakistan, to judge whether it is more or less prevalent in the UK family.
If we ‘outlaw’ first cousin marriages, as many states do in the US, then we penalise all first cousins who fall in love.
If we ban Pakistani families from marrying first cousins still in Pakistan, which has been put forward as a solution, insisting that they chose partners from within the British community to widen the gene pool, we are unfairly singling out a section of the community on race grounds.
Baroness Deech has caused controversy in the genetics community at a recent family law lecture she gave on cousin marriages. She intends to” highlight the risks and the preventative measures” about the genetic consequences of consanguineous marriages. Baroness Deech would also propose in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and prenatal genetic diagnosis (PGD) for married cousins planning to have children – which is getting dangerously close to a form of eugenics via advance screening.
There is no easy political or legislative route to addressing this issue. It is an issue regarding whether any of us really have the ‘right’ to impose on society the financial burden of a disabled child whose conception could have been avoided – regrettably this programme is presenting the issue as a ‘Pakistani’ issue, which is going to be a gift to the far right religious fundamentalists.
September 1, 2010 at 12:42
-
mothers are warned of the risks of pregnancy over 40 in if they discuss it
with their doctor. The comparison with over 40?s is also less relevant as a
direct one as both circumstances are possible (i.e. cousin marriage and being
over 40) so you
- August 24, 2010 at 16:30
-
Thanks for this post. I agree that Tazeen Admad’s work on this subject has
been misleading, though naturally, being American, I didn’t see the Channel 4
program. It is indeed a “gift to the far right”:
The rate of birth defects for a single first-cousin marriage only raises
the risk by an average of 1.7-2.8% over a base risk of about 3%, according to
research. You got that right and in my view it’s a tolerable risk. However, I
must point out that the Pakistani rate is quite a bit higher than this. If we
only consider disorders that are recessive in nature, the Pakistani the rate
is actually about ten times higher. Why? Partly because of “population
subdivision” among different Pakistani groups. See the Wikipedia entry and its
source journal articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Genetics
“The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British
Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.
This is population subdivision among different Pakistani groups. Population
subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a
population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside
these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even
for couples with no known genetic relationship.[190]“
- August 24, 2010 at 15:44
-
But it is a ‘Pakistani’ issue, or words have no meaning.
- August 24, 2010 at 12:48
-
I watched this programme and was amazed at the reaction from most of the
Pakistani interviewed. Ignorance absolutely. When are we going to see some
kind of reaction from the uk media? Not seen much today.
- August 24, 2010 at 07:14
-
Mutation and reassortment are the engines of evolution. Diversity is a
vital component in a species chances of survival. Thanks to the rather
haphazard nature of inheritance an idiot can produce a genius and vice versa.
We need all of the idiots, ugly ducklings, lunatics and weirdos as much as we
need the clever, beautiful and influential in order to have a chance of
producing another Einstein or Beethoven.
Of course you cannot convince the
clever, beautiful and influential of that.
If the latter day eugenicists
get their way the human race will pay a heavy price in terms of our long term
future. First cousin marriages may well increase the risk of passing on “bad”
genes. They must, therefore, also increase the risk of passing on “good”
genes. Some traits that appear negative in fact have positive benefits e.g.
sickle cell anaemia confers resistance to malaria so only in the distant
future will it be possible to judge which were the good and bad genes passed
on by current generations.
- August 23, 2010 at 22:34
-
I know a good game: let’s everyone talk all sorts of ersatz
scientific/political/sociological/evolutionary twaddle about eugenics without
anyone mentioning that “e” word, shall we?
Oh, you’ve started without me…
- August 23, 2010 at 23:20
-
Maybe it’s because in this surreal PC world we can all clearly see the
elephant in the room but we have been conditioned not to mention it. The ‘e’
word wouldn’t have stood for ethnics and not eugenics by any chance?
- August 23, 2010 at 20:54
-
Add to the risk of inbreeding their religion also affects the health of
moslems living away from their home territory when they persist in wearing
tribal costume and covering as much of the body as possible. They experience a
much higher incidence of rickets (I read lately) due to the fact that humans
benefit from sunlight on their skin.
-
August 23, 2010 at 19:38
-
I don’t think Baroness Deech has anything worthwhile to listen after her
latest outburst on BBC Any Questions last Friday re al-Megrahi release.
Deech:
- August 23, 2010 at 18:43
-
You wrote: We can assume from this, that once upon a time, mating between
brother and sister, never mind cousins
- August 23, 2010 at 18:07
-
The issue is not one of discrimination, but of unjust State interference. I
do not really see the difference between forbidding cousins to marry, on the
grounds of “health” or genetic purity, and forbidding genetically disabled
people from reproducing, in order that the gene pool is cleansed of them. It
seems highly illiberal to forbid the marriage of people, merely on the basis
of what health consequences for the offspring will be.
- August 23, 2010 at 18:39
-
I agree with you Indigo – I don’t think that the state has any moral
right to interfere in matters of private sexualtiy – but that does still
leave the quesstion in the UK whether it is fair for the general tax payer
to shoulder the burden of avoidable disability –
- August 23, 2010 at 20:52
-
Perhaps disabled people would not be subjected to the Raccoon
Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life test if they agreed to smoke like
beagles because that habit would entitle them to sympathy. However, I
agree in cases where an adult undertook a course of action, such as
smoking, it is unfair for the general tax payer to shoulder the burden of
avoidable disability like lung cancer, etc. No treatment other than a
single economy ticket to a Swiss clinic should be offered to smokers.
- August 23, 2010 at
21:35
-
Fair point Brian – but then how do you counter the people who say
‘why should we bear the cost of caring for these lifetime disabilities –
and I am not thinking here of the NHS cost of ‘curing’ an illness, but
rather the cost of suporting someone who will never work – when the
parents chose to ignore the probably cause of their child being born
with such disability?
-
August 23, 2010 at 23:10
-
The children are innocent and do not deserve to be punished for the
arguably reckless and selfish behaviour of their parents. What if two
perfectly fit and healthy professionally qualified parents had a
perfect baby and when the baby was six months old hospital they had a
traffic accident causing massive head trauma to the baby resulting in
a permanent three-month old state of mental development? (This is
based on an actual recent case in the Midlands). Would that baby have
greater rights than a congenitally disabled baby and if so, why?
I
speak from bitter experience and have reluctantly converted the
selfish gene into the altruistic gene and voluntary forsworn not to
have children of my own. Disabled life can sometimes be too crappy to
wish to impose the risk of it on one’s offspring however much I want a
son or daughter. Apologies for getting angry about your post but I’m
the sort the Nazis took first.
- August 24, 2010 at 05:35
-
“What if two perfectly fit and healthy professionally qualified
parents had a perfect baby and when the baby was six months old
hospital they had a traffic accident causing massive head trauma to
the baby resulting in a permanent three-month old state of mental
development?”
You’re comparing apples and orangutans. The accident cannot be
foreseen and therefore can’t be avoided. This sort of genetic damage
can.
-
August 23, 2010 at 21:01
-
Of course, then one has to drill down into what exactly counts as
“avoidable”? Surely if it is known that one of a couple has haemophilia,
then it is more then likely that their offspring will have the disease, it
would count as “avoidable” disability if they then went on to have a child
with haemophilia. And, of course, in this age of abortion on demand,
technically having any child with a disability is “avoidable”. It seems
curious that some of the people to most fervently defend the right of
children with Downs syndrome to be born, seem to believe it is perfectly
acceptable for the State to interfere to limit their very creation.
-
August 23, 2010 at 21:48
-
“but that does still leave the quesstion in the UK whether it is fair
for the general tax payer to shoulder the burden of avoidable
disability”
Surely an argument against the welfare dependency state rather than the
state making up rules about who marries who.
- August 23, 2010 at
21:59
-
Precisely Kingbingo, precisely.
The thrust of the progamme has
been that this is a ‘Pakistani problem’ – I would say that it is a
welfare state problem, for without the welfare state, many of these
children would not live to adulthood. I would be strongly against the
state legislating to stop such marriages, particuarly if it was done in
a way that was directed against that one community.
-
August 24, 2010 at 13:29
-
Ok but I think I
- August 23, 2010 at
22:04
- September 1, 2010 at 12:58
-
FWIW, two cousins in my family are married (a difficult one for
siblings, incidentally; your new in-law is also the kid who was sick at
your third birthday party and was always grandma’s pet) and decided from
the outset that they would not take the risk of conceiving a child.
Instead they adopted two healthy children, and many years later are
still happily married. It is not the cousin marriage per se that is
the problem, but the insistence on progeny from the union.
-
August 23, 2010 at 17:31
-
‘Until very recent times families remained living in the same area for
generations, and men typically went courting no more than about five miles
from home
- August 24, 2010 at 19:56
-
In mediaeval times, the English were forbidden from marrying cousins
AFAIK, even second or third cousins ( I say the English, because the
(independent) Welsh weren’t). I don’t know when this prohibition was lifted,
but it may have persisted until the Reformation.
- August 24, 2010 at
21:36
-
In 1215, the Catholic Church standardised its rules concerning
‘consanguinity’ throughout the then Catholic world and effectively
outlawed first cousin marriage (and the other first order blood relations)
as incest. The Rules could be loosened a bit for aristocratic applicants
for banns for ‘reasons’…see Habsburgs.
In Catholic countries the rules became enshrined into law which applies
to this day.
It is a quirk of the Reformation in England that led to the Catholic
rule book being trashed by Edward VI and the replacement in the English
Church seemed to omit the prohibition.
The original Catholic stance derived from the rightly perceived
incidence of what we call genetic defects. We know the science but the
Church identified sin and legislated accordingly.
- August 23, 2010 at 17:31
-
How long before anyone not invited to Olympic trials or an Oxbridge
Fellowhip is deemed prejudicial to the economic well-being of a state which
exists only to bail out fuckwit bankers? The true gauge of a society is how it
treats its weakest members. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to give Stephen
Hawking a bang on the head and get Jordan to do his job instead?
-
August 23, 2010 at 17:20
-
…’If we ban Pakistani families from marrying first cousins still in
Pakistan, which has been put forward as a solution, insisting that they chose
partners from within the British community to widen the gene pool, we are
unfairly singling out a section of the community on race grounds.’…
Pakistani is not a race, it is a nationality and therefore it would not be
racist to proscribe marriage in the way described.
Do you write this stuff just to wind people up, or do you actually believe
it?
- August 23, 2010 at 17:30
-
Quite right English viking – it would be dsicriminatory.
- August 23, 2010 at 18:20
-
Against dyslexics or bad typists?
- August 23, 2010 at
18:40
-
August 23, 2010 at 17:09
-
Hi Anna. Can you tell me the source for the “80% of marriages in history
were between first cousins” statement. That’s really amazing (not to mention
shocking) if true!
- August 23, 2010 at 17:28
-
Here is the link Bored at Work. It is also quoted on Wikipedia.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
-
August 23, 2010 at 18:18
-
Thanks. The 80% is related to second-cousins or closer, which broadens
the genetic pool considerably compared to first cousins (which you
inferred in the article). Easy to see that happening in small/tribal
communities.
I’ll stop being pedantic now
{ 33 comments }