Views on the biology of race impact public opinion and policy

races

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. 

It has been 15 years since then President Bill Clinton and leading scientists of the Human Genome Project made their highly-acclaimed proclamations that race at the genetic level does not exist. At the time this supported the long-held narrative of scholars that the once prominent beliefs in biological determinism (race as a genetic reality) and racial essentialism (human behavior is anchored in group-based biological differences) had been all but completely laid to rest in the archives of history. However, these beliefs in race and genetics may be making a comeback as genetic and genomic research gains in popularity and media visibility. As sociologist Lawrence Bobo and colleagues recently note in their analysis of survey data, there is a recent uptick the last decade in the belief that there are innate (i.e., biological or genetic) racial differences that drive racial inequality.

In survey data from a nationally-representative sample of over 2,200 whites across the U.S. to identify how they view blacks and other whites on traits such as intelligence, athletic ability, temperament, and obesity, we found that whites generally believed that traits and behaviors for whites and blacks were more influenced by environmental factors than genetics. However, whites did not agree that all human traits and behavior are a result of environmental factors. They saw genetics playing a slightly greater role in the traits and behaviors of blacks compared to whites. These findings were stronger for stereotypically “racialized” traits, such as intelligence and athletic ability.

Read full, original post: How beliefs in biological differences can undergird racial and policy attitudes

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.56
Singularity crisis ahead? Can super babies save us from rogue AI geniuses?
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_47_30-AM-2
FDA’s expedited drug reviews are hailed in some quarters but other approval practices are problematic
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Farmers can talk to plants
Farmers are a major source of misinformation—about farming
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.19
Vaccine shootout at the CDC 
Screenshot-2026-04-12-135256
Bixonimania: The fake disease scam that AI swallowed whole
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.