Should geneticists drop ‘race’ as a biological concept?

race and ethnicity

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

If a team of scientists in Philadelphia and New York have their way, using race to categorize groups of people in biological and genetic research will be forever discontinued.

The concept of race in such research is “problematic at best and harmful at worst,” the researchers argued in a new paper published in the journal Science.

However, they also said that social scientists should continue to studyย race as a social constructย to better understand the impact of racism on health.

For more than a century, natural and social scientists have been arguing about whether race is a useful classificatory tool in the biological sciences — can it elucidate the relationship between humans and their evolutionary history, between humans and their health. In the wake of the U.S. Human Genome Project, the answer seemed to be a pretty resounding “no.”

In 2004, for example, Francis Collins, then head of the National Human Genome Research Institute and now director of the National Institutes of Health, called race a โ€œflawedโ€ and โ€œweakโ€ concept and argued that science needed to move beyond race. Yet, as our paper highlights, the use of race persist in genetics, despite voices like Collins, like Craig Venter — leaders in the field of genomics — who have called on the field to move beyond it.

Read full, original post:ย What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic

{{ 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 glyphosateโ€”the world's most heavily-used herbicideโ€”pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-05-28-at-1.36.28-PM
Viewpoint: Can mRNA research survive the Trump administration?
Screenshot-2026-06-02-at-11.59.11-AM
Magnifica Humanitas: Popeโ€™s encyclical broadside against AI naivete and overreach
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffeeโ€”including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isnโ€™t it banned?
Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 3.45
Viewpointโ€”GMOs and sustainability: Why buying organic foods is the least environmentally-sensitive food choiceโ€”without offering any health benefits
Picture1
Sounds we canโ€™t hear โ€” the hidden planetary signals behind science, fear, and misinformation
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-11_39_58-AM
Viewpoint: Who is RFK, Jr.โ€™s newly-appointed CDC senior counselor, Sara Brenner โ€” Vaccine skeptic and self-proclaimed โ€œMAHA momโ€
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
Screenshot-2026-05-27-at-10.51.25-AM
Viewpoint: โ€˜Monsantoโ€™ bluesโ€”Planned Netflix movie promises yet another round of anti-glyphosate disinformation
Screenshot-2026-06-01-at-1.35.32-PM
Viewpoint: Swine farmers are under attack for allegedly mistreating their animals. Here are the facts.
glp menu logo outlined

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