Viewpoint: ‘Race’ may be a social construct, but denying ancestral-based group genetic differences is ‘indefensible’

endometriosis miscarriage ectopic preterm

With the help of [advances in DNA sequencing], we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.

It is important to face whatever science will reveal without prejudging the outcome and with the confidence that we can be mature enough to handle any findings. Arguing that no substantial differences among human populations are possible will only invite the racist misuse of genetics that we wish to avoid.

Editor’s note: David Reich is a professor of genetics at Harvard

Read full, original post: How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ 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-2026-07-09-at-1.09.25-PM
Anti-vaccine myths rattle health care
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot 2026-07-28 at 3.22
Hidden hunger: Climate change is speeding up the decline of important nutrients in our food
Screenshot 2026-07-22 at 1.38
Viewpoint: Are the U.S. and Europe headed towards a repudiation of agricultural biotechnology red tape?
Screenshot 2026-07-28 at 3.03
What is cyberchondria?
Screenshot 2026-07-28 at 3.43
Fat cat? GLP-1 weight loss drugs for animals are on the horizon
organic scaled
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Organic food cuts pesticide exposure? A response to Dr. Rhonda Patrick
Screenshot 2026-07-28 at 2.04
Viewpoint: How AI supercharges conspiracy theories and oversimplifications to distort online health information
png-terrace-Farm-asia
Europe’s tentative embrace of agricultural gene editing could revolutionize food production and health in Asia
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-9-2026-11_33_49-AM
Viewpoint: High-dose resveratrol supplements to extend health and life? Don’t waste your money.
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-10-2026-09_42_12-AM-1
Peptides, patient autonomy, and the limits of medical freedom
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
Screenshot-2026-07-27-at-3.23.14-PM
Prioritizing AI, robotics, and nuclear energy: Trump administration is guiding research funding away from independent universities to private companies
glp menu logo outlined

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