This article appraises the evidence for the the thrifty gene hypothesis. The authors highlight the fact that when population genetic data are used to map susceptibility for complex disease, the research is seen as commendable; embracing the goals of disease prevention and harm reduction for all, especially dispossessed, formerly enslaved, or colonised populations. Thus, genetic research into complex disease attracts a high investment of scientific resources, yet such research fails to greatly enhance our understanding about these diseases and it maintains problematic conceptions of human variation. The authors point out that although population genetic data may seemingly support the contention that the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is due to our biological incapacity to cope with modern affluent and sedentary lifestyles, no consistent evidence supports the notion that minority populations are particularly genetically susceptible. Further, they note that it is unclear as to why such genetic differences should exist, given the original pan-species orientation of the thrifty gene hypothesis. Genetic research into complex disease should pay close attention to key environmental, social, and genetic risk factors operating within and between groups, and not simplistically attribute between-group differences to racialised genetics.
