Debating Race

R E S E A R C H A R T I C L E

Anthropologists’ views on race, ancestry, and genetics

Jennifer K. Wagner1 | Joon-Ho Yu2 | Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe3 | Tanya M. Harrell4 |

Michael J. Bamshad2 | Charmaine D. Royal3

1Geisinger Health System, Danville,

Pennsylvania 17822

2University of Washington, Seattle,

Washington 98195

3Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

27708

4Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,

Seattle, Washington 98109

Correspondence

Jennifer K. Wagner, MC 30-42, 100 N.

Academy Ave., Danville, PA 17822.

Email: [email protected]; 570-214-

3774

Funding information

National Human Genome Research Institute,

Grant Numbers: 4R00HG006446-03,

K99HG007076, and R01HG006295; The

Greenwall Foundation

Abstract

Controversies over race conceptualizations have been ongoing for centuries and have been

shaped, in part, by anthropologists.

Objective: To assess anthropologists’ views on race, genetics, and ancestry.

Methods: In 2012 a broad national survey of anthropologists examined prevailing views on race,

ancestry, and genetics.

Results: Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition

that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health.

Discussion: Racial privilege affects anthropologists’ views on race, underscoring the importance

that anthropologists be vigilant of biases in the profession and practice. Anthropologists must miti-

gate racial biases in society wherever they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts

to normalize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior.

K E Y W O R D S

diversity, racism, survey

1 | INTRODUCTION

Heated controversies over the use, (mis)appropriation, harmful effects,

and rejection of race continue to make regular headlines. The continued

use of race concepts in genetic research was described recently as “prob-

lematic at best and harmful at worst” (Yudell, Roberts, DeSalle, & Tishkoff,

2016, p. 564). Two years ago Dobbs (2014) denounced Nicholas Wade’s

“A Troublesome Inheritance” (2014)—a book in which Wade, using a

combination of circular logic, speculation, and “just-so” stories, made

unsubstantiated claims about the genetic basis for three major human

races—and described it as “a deeply flawed, deceptive and dangerous

book.” One hundred forty-three leading human geneticists admonished

Wade for his “misappropriation” of their research and rejected the idea

that their work substantiated any of Wade’s racial claims (Coop et al.,

2014). While use of race is problematic, some researchers have indicated

when it comes to eliminating racial injustices, “‘there are much bigger fish

to fry’ than scrubbing race as a biological category” (Begley, 2016). More-

over, simple substitution of terms (e.g., race, population, and ancestry) is

not a panacea, because each scientific question requires selection of an

appropriate lens through which it can be answered.

Anthropologists, regardless of prevailing perspective on race, are

(or have the capacity to be) highly influential on common conceptuali-

zations of race (Smedley, 1993). Nearly 40 years ago, Lieberman and

Reynolds (1978, p. 33) conducted an empirical investigation to deter-

mine the prevailing views on race among anthropologists at the time,

having noted belief of the existence of human races was “widespread

among scientists” generally. Lieberman and Reynolds (1978) examined

whether prevailing beliefs on race among physical anthropologists

were distinguishable from scientists generally, studied the sociocultural

influences on physical anthropologists’ perspectives on race, and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, pro-

vided the original work is properly cited.

VC 2016 The Authors American Journal of Physical Anthropology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

318 | wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ajpa Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2017; 162: 318–327

Received: 3 August 2016 | Revised: 28 September 2016 | Accepted: 6 October 2016 DOI 10.1002/ajpa.23120

reported results from a survey of physical anthropologists’ levels of

agreement with statements about race drawn from the literature. The

nine statements used by Lieberman and Reynolds in their study to clas-

sify “lumpers” (i.e., those who do not believe races exist), “splitters” (i.e.,

those who believe races exist), and “intermediate” lumpers or splitters

are shown in Table 1. Regardless of whether lumpers or splitters and

notwithstanding varying perspectives on the existence of race, Lieber-

man and Reynolds noted most physical anthropologists were “equali-

tarian in orientation and liberal in outlook” (Lieberman & Reynolds,

1978, p. 338). Their results showed (1) anthropologists from privileged

sociocultural backgrounds (labeled “overdogs”) tended to share the

then dominant view on the existence of races and, thus, tended to be

splitters and (2) anthropologists from marginalized sociocultural back-

grounds (labeled “underdogs”) tended to be lumpers, rejecting the exis-

tence of human races.

A subsequent survey in 1985 showed belief in race divided physi-

cal anthropologists roughly in half (Lieberman & Reynolds, 1996). While

scholars have periodically revisited this topic and noted the “growing

awareness of the meaninglessness of racial taxonomy” (Cartmill, 1998,

p. 659), as recently as 2003 there was not yet sufficient evidence to

conclude a “dramatic recent rejection” of race within the subfield (Cart-

mill & Brown, 2003, p. 115). By 2009, however, general consensus

among leading biological anthropologists on a number of areas was

reported, including that “[r]ace is not an accurate or productive way to

describe human biological variation” (Edgar & Hunley, 2009, p. 2).

Indeed, more nuanced views about race among anthropologists and

areas of study have emerged (e.g., Goodman, 2013). In 2012, we

decided it appropriate to re-examine views of anthropologists across

all subfields to better understand current prevailing views on race,

ancestry, and genetics.1 Here, we present that study to inform broader

efforts to move scientists “beyond race” and to encourage—as we

articulated elsewhere2—anthropology’s embrace of a holistic, anti-racist

approach.

2 | METHODS

2.1 | Survey design

A 53-item survey focused on race, ancestry, and genetics was designed

and administered using SurveyMonkey (Palo Alto, CA). Participants

were shown a series of statements and asked to rate levels of agree-

ment or disagreement using a five-point scale. Statements (shown in

the left column of Table 2) were organized into five sections covering

four themes: statements about science (two sections), statements

about medicine, statements about social and societal issues, and com-

mon statements about race. Statements previously studied by Lieber-

man and Reynolds (1978) were used as inspiration for some

statements, and four statements were re-examined verbatim (state-

ments #4, 5, 8, and 9 in Table 1). The survey ended with questions

regarding the participant’s sex, age, ancestry, race and ethnicity as per

the U.S. Census, education level, anthropological subfield, employment

sector, country of residence and work, and familiarity (i.e., experience

or interest) with genetic ancestry tests. Each section enabled partici-

pants to provide comments.

2.2 | Sampling strategy and recruitment

Anthropologists of all subfields were the target population for this sur-

vey. Because the American Anthropological Association (AAA) is the

largest organization of anthropologists and includes members from

diverse subfields, the sampling strategy focused on individuals con-

nected to the AAA. Researchers used OutWit Hub (OutWit Technolo-

gies, www.outwit.com) to digitally capture (or “scrape”) email addresses

from the member and meeting attendee pages of the AAA website

between October 5 and October 12, 2012. Survey invitations were

emailed directly to 41,231 scraped email addresses with the presump-

tion that account holders were anthropologists. Responses were col-

lected from March 5 until August 30, 2013.

2.3 | Methodological limitations

There are notable limitations to this methodological approach. While

the AAA has wide coverage across subfields, the sampled views of

AAA members and meeting attendees might not be representative of

TABLE 1 Statements examined by Lieberman and Reynolds (1978)

1. “Races are the taxonomic unit below the species level, and if such units are not called race, ‘it still has exactly the same taxonomic meaning.’”

2. “Races vary from populations ‘differing only in that frequencies of a few genes to those grouping have been totally isolated for tens of thousands of years and are at the least incipient species.’”

3. “Clines (gradations) exist but it is necessary to distinguish clines between subspecific populations and clines within subspecific populations. Interracial clines are found in intermediate populations between subspecific populations or races.”

4. “Biological variability exists but ‘this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races.’”

5. “So-called racial characteristics are not ‘transmitted as complexes.’”

6. “Human differentiation is the result of natural selection forces which operate in ecological zones and such forces and their zones do not coincide with population boundaries. Furthermore, different selective forces may operate in overlapping ecological zones. Thus, ‘geographic distributions of more than one trait have no necessary correlation.’”

7. “Races do not exist because isolation of groups has been infrequent; populations have always interbred.”

8. “Boundaries between what have been called ‘races’ are completely arbitrary, depending primarily upon the wishes of the classifier.”

9. “No races exist now or ever did.”

1We also assessed the perspectives of professional geneticists, which we

plan to report separately as “Attitudes of Genetic Professionals on Race, Ancestry, and Genetics.” 2Authors, unpublished manuscript/under peer-review as “Reconstructing Race: A Qualitative Analysis of How Anthropologists Socially Construct Race.”

WAGNER ET AL. | 319

TABLE 2 Statements and summary of responses from professional anthropologists

Statements about science Common response Correlation

1. The human population may be subdivided into biological races.

Strongly disagree or disagree (86%) 0.11 <.00010 1,909

2. Racial categories are determined by biology. Strongly disagree or disagree (88%) 0.11 <.00010 1,903

3. There are discrete biological boundaries among races. Strongly disagree or disagree (93%) 0.14 <.00010 1,868

4. Biological variability exists but this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races.

Strongly agree or agree (89%) 20.035 .12 1,894

5. Boundaries between what have been called races are completely arbitrary, depending primarily upon the wishes of the classifier.

Strongly agree or agree (69%) 0.0014 .95 1,898

6. Continental population categories—Africans, Asians, Europeans—are the same as standard anthropological racial classifications.

Strongly disagree or disagree (73%) 0.070 .0025 1,872

7. Continental population categories—Africans, Asians, Europeans—are useful for examining genetic relationships (i.e., relatedness) among people.

Strongly disagree or disagree (38%); Strongly agree or agree (33%)

0.21 <.00010 1,879

8. Race—as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (i.e., census categories)—is a useful proxy for ancestry.

Strongly disagree or disagree (73%) 0.043 .057 1,890

9. Genetic ancestry—inferred from genetic markers—rather than race, is a better proxy for genetic relationships among sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, Europeans, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans.

Strongly agree or agree (75%) 0.18 <.00010 1,887

10. The distributions of physical traits overlap among races.

Strongly agree or agree (89%) 0.016 .48 1,883

11. So-called racial characteristics are not transmitted as complexes.

Strongly agree or agree (67%) 20.082 .00050 1,814

12. Genetic differences between racial groups explain most biological differences between individuals of different races.

Strongly disagree or disagree (72%) 0.095 <.00010 1,888

13. Genetic differences between racial groups explain most behavioral differences between individuals of different races.

Strongly disagree or disagree (95%) 0.091 <.00010 1,893

14. Most anthropologists believe that humans may be subdivided into biological races.

Strongly disagree or disagree (85%) 0.094 <.00010 1,898

15. Most anthropologists believe that categorizing human groups by race has no biological basis.

Strongly agree or agree (74%) 20.083 .00030 1,896

16. Most anthropologists believe that categorizing human groups by race has no genetic basis.

Strongly agree or agree (61%) 20.12 <.00010 1,877

17. The use of the term ‘race’ to describe human groups should be discontinued.

Strongly agree or agree (71%) 20.027 .24 1,888

18. The term “race,” as used to describe human groups, should be replaced by a more appropriate and precise term.

Strongly agree or agree (71%) 0.026 .26 1,878

(continues)

320 | WAGNER ET AL.

TABLE 2 (continues)

Statements about science Common response Correlation

19. Most genetic variants among sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, and Western Europeans are shared.

Strongly agree or agree (67%) 20.036 .13 1,830

20. Most common genetic variants (i.e., alleles with a frequency of >5%) are shared among sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, and Western Europeans.

Strongly agree or agree (66%) 0.00086 .97 1,815

21. Genetic variation data may be used to cluster racially ascribed people into groups of continental origin.

Strongly disagree or disagree (37%); Strongly agree or agree (29%)

0.18 <.00010 1,843

22. Self-identified race in the U.S. highly corresponds to genetic inferences of ancestry.

Strongly disagree or disagree (67%) 0.084 .00030 1,876

Statements about medicine Common response Correlation

1. Race influences health. Strongly disagree or disagree (42%); Strongly agree or agree (41%)

0.015 .53 1,865

2. Race, in so far as it corresponds with genetic ancestry, influences health.

Strongly agree or agree (47%) 0.14 <.00010 1,867

3. Genetic differences between races explain health disparities.

Strongly disagree or disagree (71%) 0.19 <.00010 1,847

4. Categorizing individuals by race is important for biomedical research.

Strongly disagree or disagree (58%) 0.12 <.00010 1,851

5. Anthropologists should understand key concepts about the relationship among race, genetics and health.

Strongly agree or agree (79%) 0.051 .03 1,869

6. Health professionals should understand key concepts about the relationship among race, genetics and health.

Strongly agree or agree (80%) 0.067 .0037 1,876

7. The development of medicines for targeted racial groups is a necessary step toward the achievement of personalized medicine.

Strongly disagree or disagree (58%) 0.16 <.00010 1,867

8. Race should be considered in diagnosing certain conditions or diseases.

Strongly disagree or disagree (51%) 0.086 .00020 1,857

9. Genetic ancestry should be considered in diagnosing certain conditions or diseases.

Strongly agree or agree (79%) 0.14 <.00010 1,882

10. Race should be considered in treating certain conditions or diseases.

Strongly disagree or disagree (53%) 0.083 .00030 1,850

11. Genetic ancestry should be considered in treating certain conditions or diseases.

Strongly agree or agree (77%) 0.14 <.00010 1,885

Statements about social and societal issues Common response Correlation

1. Commercial genetic ancestry testing provides a good assessment of a person’s ancestry.

Strongly disagree or disagree (39%) 0.28 <.00010 1,804

2. Genetic ancestry testing is purely recreational. Strongly disagree or disagree (33%); Strongly agree or agree (33%)

20.23 <.00010 1,811

3. Genetic ancestry testing does not warrant all the critique it is receiving from the anthropology community.

Strongly disagree or disagree (43%) 0.23 <.00010 1,779

(continues)

WAGNER ET AL. | 321

TABLE 2 (continues)

Statements about science Common response Correlation

4. Genetic ancestry testing is considered by the industry’s consumers as purely recreational.

Strongly disagree or disagree (48%) 0.052 .030 1,776

5. Consumers value genetic ancestry testing for non-medical reasons.

Strongly agree or agree (73%) 0.078 .0010 1,780

6. Commercial genetic ancestry testing in the U.S. is subject to specific, federal regulation.

Strongly disagree or disagree (39%) 0.0073 .76 1,699

7. Commercial genetic ancestry testing in the U.S. should be subject to specific, federal regulation.

Strongly agree or agree (53%) 20.054 .024 1,760

8. Criticisms of genetic ancestry testing are overstated compared to the actual risks and limitations of the tests.

Strongly disagree or disagree (30%); Strongly agree or agree (16%)

0.20 <.00010 1,747

9. Genetic ancestry testing should not be used in U.S. criminal investigations.

Strongly agree or agree (49%) 20.19 <.00010 1,777

10. Genetic ancestry testing should be used by U.S. law enforcement when evaluating conflicting eyewitness descriptions.

Strongly disagree or disagree (61%) 0.15 <.00010 1,783

11. Genetic ancestry testing should be considered when agencies place children in foster and adoptive families.

Strongly disagree or disagree (82%) 0.061 .0094 1,810

12. Genetic ancestry testing should be used by universities to verify racial or ethnic identity of applicants.

Strongly disagree or disagree (90%) 0.070 .0030 1,821

13. Genetic ancestry testing reinforces biological conceptions of race.

Strongly agree or agree (50%) 20.25 <.00010 1,785

14. Genetic ancestry testing undermines biological conceptions of race.

Strongly disagree or disagree (36%); Strongly agree or agree (28%)

0.18 <.00010 1,785

Common statements Common response Correlation

1. Races don’t exist. Strongly agree or agree (59%) 20.059 .011 1,854

2. No races exist now or ever did. Strongly agree or agree (53%) 20.078 .00080 1,840

3. Race has no biological basis. Strongly agree or agree (71%) 20.16 <.00010 1,853

4. Race is biologically meaningless. Strongly agree or agree (73%) 2.016 <.00010 1,867

5. Race has no genetic basis. Strongly agree or agree (65%) 20.16 <.00010 1,852

6. Race has no biological influence on health. Strongly agree or agree (49%) 20.15 <.00010 1,832

Note. Left Column: Statements about Race used in Survey. Survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements using a five- point Likert Scale (1 5 strongly agree; 5 5 strongly disagree). Statements were organized into four themes: science, medicine, society, and common statements. Middle Column: Red shading indicates general disagreement, blue shading indicates general agreement, and green shading indicates respondents are divided. Dark shading indicates the level met or exceeded 75% of responses (super-majority). Right Column: Spearman Correlation Coefficients between familiarity with genetic ancestry inference and individual responses to statements are shown with p values at 95% confidence interval and number of observations. Bold font denotes statistically significant correlations.

322 | WAGNER ET AL.

the views of all anthropologists or those of any specific subfield. Strati-

fied sampling of anthropologists in the main subfields using targeted

recruitment of specialized professional organizations or AAA sections

would have been preferred for drawing comparisons among the sub-

fields and reducing sampling error. Generalizability is less of a concern

for assessment of views of cultural anthropologists, who constitute an

overwhelming majority in the AAA and are adequately represented in

the surveyed population.3 However, there are many reasons to expect

significant self-selection bias in sampling the AAA membership or

meeting attendees to assess views of biological anthropologists on any

issue and, specifically, race. For example, the 2010 AAA Executive

Board decision to remove references to the word “science” from its

long-range plan statement and the perceived marginalization of anthro-

pologists in subfields rooted in science undoubtedly influenced

whether—in 2012 when this survey was administered—anthropologists

aligned themselves with or distanced themselves from the AAA (e.g.,

Glenn, 2010; Lende, 2010a, 2010b; Wood, 2010). While more than 50

years ago Wolf (1964) described anthropology as “the most scientific

of the humanities and the most humanistic of the sciences,” the 2010

incident renewed debates over whether anthropology is or values sci-

ence and drew renewed attention to waxing and waning rifts between

subfields. AAA members and AAA meeting attendees who self-identify

as biological anthropologists might hold considerably different perspec-

tives on race from self-identifying biological anthropologists outside of

that sampling frame. This potential source of selection bias error pre-

vents robust comparative analyses between subfields; nevertheless,

these data provide an important glimpse of recent perspectives on race

held by anthropologists generally.

3 | RESULTS

A total of 3,286 participants completed the survey. Participant charac-

teristics are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Eighty-two percent (82%,

N 5 1,918) of the respondents were professional anthropologists as

opposed to students (N5 423, 18%). We limit our discussion to per-

spectives of professionals in order to facilitate a more direct compari-

son to the previous work by Lieberman and Reynolds (1978). Cultural

anthropologists outnumber other subfields in this survey (with cultural

anthropologists representing 54% of the professional anthropologists),

and academics outnumber those in other sectors (representing 84% of

the professional anthropologists). A total of 888 respondents provided

free text written comments, some of which we have qualitatively ana-

lyzed and reported elsewhere.4

Table 2 (middle column) provides a summary of the reported levels

of agreement and disagreement with statements on race. Only six of

the 53 statements reflect undecided perspectives or lack of general

consensus among professional anthropologists (including, e.g., whether

race influences health and whether genetic ancestry testing under-

mines biological conceptions of race). Fourteen statements evoked uni-

fied responses from a super-majority, with professional anthropologists

(a) rejecting the idea that humans can be subdivided into biological

races; the idea that races are biologically determined; the existence of

discrete boundaries among races; and the use of genetic ancestry

when making child placement or college admission decisions and (b)

accepting the existence of biological variation; overlapping trait distri-

butions; the superiority of genetic ancestry over race as a proxy for

TABLE 3 Survey participant characteristics

Professional experience, N (%) N %

Archaeological Anthropologist 342 12.36

Cultural Anthropologist 1,032 37.28

Linguistic Anthropologist 108 3.90

Medical Anthropologist 235 8.49

Physical/Biological Anthropologist 201 7.26

Anthropology Student or Trainee 440 15.90

Other 410 14.81

Work Environment, N (%)

Academic 2,208 81.06

Government 141 5.18

Private Industry 375 13.77

Place of Residence, N (%)

Within the U.S. 2,190 80.49

Outside of the U.S. 531 19.51

Sex, N (%)

Female 1,700 62.41

Male 1,024 37.59

Age (Years)

Mean 44.7 (SD515.4)

Range Range 19–100 (IQR532,57)

Race (U.S. Census Categories), N (%)

American Indian or Alaska Native 68 3.00

Asian 70 3.09

Black, African American 97 4.29

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6 0.27

White 1,688 74.59

Other 334 14.76

Ethnicity (U.S. Census Categories), N (%)

Hispanic/Latino 204 9.02

Non-Hispanic/Latino 2,057 90.98

Note. Due to item non-response, number of respondents does not always sum to N 5 3,286. Most items with responses are N 5 2,724.

3In 1998, it was reported that 70% of AAA membership was comprised of

cultural anthropologists. 4See Footnote 2.

WAGNER ET AL. | 323

genetic relationships between peoples; the importance of understand-

ing the relationship among race, genetics and health; and the need to

take genetic ancestry into account when diagnosing and treating cer-

tain conditions. Informal analysis of the data did not reveal any noticea-

ble differences in perspectives between subfields.

Comparing our results directly with those of Lieberman and

Reynolds (1978), we see a sizable shift in agreement with the

statement “No races exist now or ever did.” As shown in Table 5,

while only a minority of respondents (17%) agreed with that state-

ment in 1978, a majority of respondents (53%) agreed with that

statement in 2013. Agreement with this statement is consistent

across subfields. Given the academic and public discourses on

genetic ancestry testing and concerns about its potential reifica-

tion of race, a separate analysis was performed to determine

whether familiarity with genetic ancestry testing (i.e., a combined

testing item that is the sum of the three items—having obtained a

genetic ancestry test, interest in getting one, or used genetic

ancestry inference in research—with possible scores 0, 1, 2, and 3)

was correlated with levels of agreement with the statements

about race. Familiarity with genetic ancestry testing was signifi-

cantly correlated with 43 of the 53 statements (81%), as shown in

the right column of Table 2. While a closer examination of per-

spectives of biological anthropologists not affiliated with AAA or

attending AAA meetings is needed, our data (including those

shown in Table 6) suggest biological anthropologists and particu-

larly those with familiarity with genetic ancestry testing might be

more willing to acknowledge that race—not understood as a

biologically-defined category but, rather, as a socially-defined cat-

egory and as a lived experience of structural and institutional rac-

ism—can have important effects on health.

To reexamine Lieberman and Reynolds (1978) analysis of lumpers

and splitters within the context of overdogs and underdogs, we exam-

ined four privilege groups (white males, white females, non-white

males, and non-white females) with regard to their agreement with the

four verbatim statements previously noted. Chi-square tests for the

four contingency tables yielded two significant results as shown in

Tables 7 and 8 (non-significant results are shown in Tables 9 and 10).

There is a significant difference (p 5 .0109) between privilege groups’

agreement with the statement that “variability exists but does not con-

form to discrete categories,” with white males and females generally

TABLE 4 Survey participant characteristics: professionals only

Professional experience, N (%) N %

Archaeological Anthropologist 342 17.83

Cultural Anthropologist 1,032 53.81

Linguistic Anthropologist 108 5.63

Medical Anthropologist 235 12.25

Physical/Biological Anthropologist 201 10.48

Work Environment, N (%)

Academic 1,596 83.78

Government 90 4.72

Private Industry 219 11.50

Place of Residence, N (%)

Within the U.S. 1,499 79.44

Outside of the U.S. 388 20.56

Sex, N (%)

Female 1,156 61.00

Male 739 39.00

Age (years)

Mean 47.4 (SD 5 14.6)

Range 21–100 (IQR 5 35,60)

Race (U.S. Census Categories), N (%)

American Indian or Alaska Native 40 2.57

Asian 40 2.57

Black, African American 51 3.28

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 3 0.19

White 1,182 75.96

Other 240 15.42

Ethnicity (U.S. Census Categories), N (%)

Hispanic/Latino 141 9.04

Non-Hispanic/Latino 1,418 90.96

Note. Due to item nonresponse, the number of professional respondents does not always sum to N 5 1,918.

TABLE 5 Comparison of current results with those reported by Lieberman and Reynolds (1978)

Statement

Percent of respondents in agreement from Lieberman and Reynold’s (1978) data

Percent of respondents in agreement from our 2013 data

Net change (1978–2013)

“No races exist now or ever did” 17% 53% 136%

“Biological variability exists but this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races”

79% 89% 110%

Note. Data drawn from Table 1 (displaying levels of agreement by 141 respondents classified as lumpers, intermediate lumpers, intermediate splitters, and splitters) of Lieberman and Reynolds (1978).

324 | WAGNER ET AL.

appearing less likely to be splitters than non-white males and females.

There is also a significant difference (p 5 .0199) with the privilege

groups’ agreement with the statement “no races exist now or ever did,”

with white males and females—but particularly white males—less likely

to be lumpers than non-white males and females.

4 | DISCUSSION

Our data indicate there has been a “dramatic rejection” of race con-

cepts among professional anthropologists regardless of subfield. We

observed consensus that there are no human biological races and

TABLE 6 Comparison of levels of agreement with statements between biological and other types of anthropologists and between those with and without experience with genetic ancestry inference

Statement

Percent of BIO ANTH respondents in agreement

Percent of NON-BIO ANTH respondents in agreement

Percent of respondents WITH EXPERIENCE in agreement

Percent of respondents WITHOUT EXPERIENCE in agreement

“No races exist now or ever did” 47% 53% 54% 49%

“Race has no biological influence on health” 37% 50% 41% 51%

TABLE 7 Chi-square table for “Biological variability exists but this variability does not conform to the discrete packages labeled races”

Frequency row percentage Lumpers Splitters Intermediate Total

Non-white females 200 12 20 232

86.21 5.17 8.62

Non-white males 117 13 3 133

87.97 9.77 2.26

White females 668 34 29 731

91.38 4.65 3.97

White males 392 20 23 435

90.11 4.60 5.29

Total 1,377 79 75 1,531

Note. N 5 1,531; item non-response 5 387; Chi-square statistic DF 5 6, value 16.5953, p 5 .0109.

TABLE 8 Chi-square table for “No races exist now or ever did”

Frequency row percentage Lumpers Splitters Intermediate Total

Non-white females 132 59 34 225

58.67 26.22 15.11

Non-white males 72 33 24 129

55.81 25.58 18.60

White females 364 214 134 712

51.12 30.06 18.82

White males 184 148 85 417

44.12 35.49 20.38

Total 752 454 277 1,483

Note. N 5 1483; item non-response 5 435; Chi-square statistic DF 5 6, value 15.0501, p 5 .0199.

TABLE 9 Chi-square table for “Boundaries between what have been called races are completely arbitrary, depending primarily upon the wishes of the classifier”

Frequency row percentage Lumpers Splitters Intermediate Total

Non-White Females 175 30 23 228

76.75 13.16 10.09

Non-White Males 92 24 18 134

68.66 17.91 13.43

White Females 507 120 104 713

69.36 16.42 14.23

White Males 287 74 76 437

65.68 16.93 17.39

Total 1061 248 221 1530

Note. N51530; Item non-response 5 388; Chi-Square Statistic DF 5 6, value 10.1147, p 5 0.1199.

TABLE 10 Chi-square table for “So-called racial characteristics are not transmitted as complexes”

Frequency row percentage Lumpers Splitters Intermediate Total

Non-White Females 141 15 64 220

64.09 6.82 29.09

Non-White Males 77 15 35 127

60.63 11.81 27.56

White Females 479 48 172 699

68.53 6.87 24.61

White Males 291 33 98 422

68.96 7.82 23.22

Total 988 111 369 1468

Note. N51468; Item non-response 5 450; Chi-Square Statistic DF 5 6, value 7.5398, p 5 0.2738.

WAGNER ET AL. | 325

recognition that race exists but as lived social experiences that can

have important effects on health. As such, anthropologists agree that it

is important to understand the relationships among race, genetics, and

health.

The data also revealed a correlation between familiarity with

genetic ancestry testing (gauged as personal or professional experience

with or interest in genetic ancestry testing) and perspectives on race;

however, causal connections are not decipherable with data available.

In addition, the data confirm the persistence of privilege effects on per-

spectives of race: while the four varying groups of privilege examined

share similar perspectives on the arbitrariness of boundaries and trans-

mission of racial characteristics, perspectives on the existence of

human races and variation conforming to discrete categories differ

between groups of privilege, with overdogs (here, white males and

white females) generally more likely to be splitters rather than lumpers

compared to underdogs (here, non-white males and non-white

females). This distinction has serious power and equity implications

given the distribution of privileged splitter perspectives across the sub-

fields and their influence on the direction of research programs, fund-

ing allocations, training, and public understandings of race. These

findings reinforce previous calls (e.g., Brodkin, Morgen, & Hutchinson,

2011; McGranahan & Rizvi, 2016; Yelvington et al., 2015) for anthro-

pology to be more cognizant of the privileged spaces within its study

and practice, to be vigilant in its efforts to eliminate racial biases, to

become more inclusive, and to promote solidarity within the discipline

as well as outside of it.

While here we used quantitative analysis to revisit the framework

of elite splitters and marginalized lumpers, we have elsewhere pro-

posed a more nuanced interpretation of anthropologists’ current views

on race.5 Based on our studies, anthropologists are more aptly describ-

able as “squatters” (i.e., those who maintain race is not biologically

meaningful), “shifters” (i.e., those who maintain race is not biologically

meaningful but is a social reality), and “straddlers” (i.e., those who rec-

ognize the significance and relevance of both biologically informed and

sociocultural conceptualizations of race). Because of anthropology’s

influence on concepts and understanding of race and its position as

“the most scientific of the humanities and the most humanistic of the

sciences,” anthropologists have an opportunity and moral responsibility

to take aggressive steps to mitigate racial biases in society wherever

they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts to normal-

ize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior. Accordingly,

anthropologists should critically examine how squatters, shifters, and

straddlers affect ways in which research on human variation is con-

ducted and communicated as well as the impact these views have on

popular views of race and effectiveness at alleviating experiences of

racism. For example, a laudable effort to improve public understanding

of race and the “new anthropological synthesis on race” as recognized

by Yolanda Moses is the “Race: Are we so different?” project (AAA).

Yet even those behind the project recognized early on the limitations

of “whiteness” (e.g., core museum staffs continue to be dominated by

white males) (Garfinkle & Goodman, 2007).

Racial inequalities persist in and out of the academy and are

“deeply woven into the fabric of our social institutions” such that rac-

ism is found in individual and collective biases and prejudices as well as

in the organizational behaviors that continue “to index race and pro-

mote racially unequal outcomes” (Brodkin et al., 2011, p. 547). New

mechanisms to combat disparate impacts are gaining support, under-

scoring the urgency with which anthropologists must take stronger

public stances on race and racism in its modern forms. One of these is

the recently issued Final Rule (DHHS, 2016) for Section 1557 of the

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which has an overarching

goal to eliminate racial (and other) disparities in health programs and

activities and provides, for the first time, a private right of action for

not only intentional discrimination but also actions with discriminatory

effects. Because (1) the Final Rule, which took effect July 18, 2016,

contains a new and broad definition of “national origin” and (2) the

Final Rule is intended to apply to research as well as delivery of health-

care (DHHS, 2016; at 31385), it is incumbent upon anthropologists to

be leaders in a better public understanding of race, in the robust ascer-

tainment of the sources of these disparate impacts, and in the delibera-

tive design of appropriate remedial actions to correct them.

In addition, as ancestry and other concepts are increasingly used

to frame human differences, anthropologists should revise official posi-

tion statements on race—e.g., the most recent statements by the AAA

(AAA, 1998) and American Association of Physical Anthropologists

(AAPA, 1996) from which “ancestry” is wholly absent—to ensure their

continued relevance and preempt the public’s dismissal of terminologi-

cal shifts as simply semantics or “political correctness.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors thank Dr. Michael Babyak for statistical consultation. JKW’s

contribution was funded by Grant No. 4R00HG006446-03 from the

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). JHY’s contri-

bution was funded by Grant No. K99HG007076 from the NHGRI.

CDR’s contribution was funded by the Greenwall Foundation and

Grant No. R01HG006295 from the NHGRI. The University of Wash-

ington IRB determined this study (“Race, Ancestry, and Genetics Sur-

vey,” Protocol #44090) exempt. JKW, JHY, MB, and CDR designed

the survey. JHY and TH administered the survey. JKW and CDR

analyzed the data. All authors contributed to manuscript preparation.

Data to be archived by MB and CDR.

REFERENCES

American Anthropological Association. (2016) Race: Are we so different?

http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html

American Anthropological Association. (1998) AAA Statement on Race.

Retrieved from http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/

Content.aspx?ItemNumber52583

American Association of Physical Anthropologists. (1996). AAPA State-

ment on Biological Aspects of Race. 101, 569–570. Retrieved from http://www.physanth.org/about/position statements/biological-

aspects-race/5See Footnote 2.

326 | WAGNER ET AL.

Begley, S. (2016, February 4). Should biologists stop grouping us by race?

STAT. Retrieved from http://www.statnews.com/2016/02/04/

should-geneticists-move-beyond-race/

Brodkin, K., Morgen, S., & Hutchinson, J. (2011). Anthropology as white

public space? American Anthropologist, 113, 545–556.

Carmill, M. (1998). The status of the race concept in physical anthropol-

ogy. American Anthropologist, 100, 651–660, 659.

Cartmill, M., & Brown, K. (2003). Surveying the race concept: A reply to

Liberman, Kirk, and Littlefield. American Anthropologist, 105, 114– 115.

Coop, G., Eisen , M. B., Nielsen, R., Przeworski, M., & Rosenberg, N.

(2014, August 8). Letters: ‘A Troublesome Inheritance.’ New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/books/

review/letters-a-troublesome-inheritance.html?_r50

Department of Health and Human Services, 81 FR 31376-31473 (issued

May 18, 2016).

Dobbs, D. (2014, July 10). The fault in our DNA: ‘A Troublesome Inheri- tance’ and ‘Inheritance’ New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/a-troublesome-inheritance-

and-inheritance.html

Edgar, H. J. H., & Hunley, K. (2009). Race reconciled?: How biological

anthropologists view human variation. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology, 139, 1–4. DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20995

Garfinkle, R., & Goodman, A. H. (2007). A conversation about the exhibit

RACE: Are we so different. Museums and Social Issues, 2, 117–131. Retrieved from http://sites.hampshire.edu/agoodman/files/2013/03/

Garfinkle-and-Goodman-Museums-and-Soc-Issues.pdf

Glenn, D. (2010, November 30). Anthropologists debate whether

‘science’ is a part of their mission. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Anthropologists-Debate-

Whether/125571/

Goodman, A. H. (2013). Bringing culture into human biology and biology

back into anthropology. American Anthropologist, 115, 359–373.

Lende, D. (2010a, December 1). Anthropology, Science, and Public

Understanding [Web log post]. Neuroanthropology PLOS Blogs.

Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/12/

01/anthropology-science-and-public-understanding/

Lende, D. (2010b, December 10). Anthropology, science, and the AAA

long-range plan: What really happened [Web log post]. Neuroanthro-

pology PLOS Blogs. Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanth-

ropology/2010/12/10/anthropology-science-and-the-aaa-long-range-

plan-what-really-happened/

Lieberman, L., & Reynolds, L. T. (1978). The debate over race revisited:

An empirical investigation. Phylon, 39, 333–343.

Lieberman, L., & Reynolds, L. T. (1996). Race: The deconstruction of a

scientific concept. In LT Reynolds and L Lieberman (Eds.), Race and

other misadventures: Essays in honor of Ashley Montagu in his ninetieth

year (pp.142–173). Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

McGranahan, C., & Rizvi, U. Z., Eds. (2016, May 2). Decolonizing anthro-

pology: Decolonizing anthropology: A conversation with Faye V.

Harrison, Part I. Savage minds. http://savageminds.org/2016/05/02/

decolonizing-anthropology-a-conversation-with-faye-v-harrison-part-i/

#more-19634

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat.

119 (2010).

Smedley, A. (1993). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a

worldview. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Wade, N. (2014). A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human his-

tory. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Wolf, E. R. (1964). Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wood, P. (2010, November 29). American association rejecting science?

The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle-

com/blogs/innovations/anthropology-association-rejecting-science/

27936

Yelvington, K. A., Winn, A. R., Wells, E. C., Stuesse, A., Romero-Daza, N.,

Johnson, L. C., . . . Casta~neda, H. (2015). Diversity dilemmas and

opportunities: Training the next generation of anthropologists. Ameri-

can Anthropologist, 117, 387–392.

Yudell, M., Roberts, D., DeSalle, R., & Tishkoff, S. (2016). Taking race out

of genetics. Science, 351, 564–565.

WAGNER ET AL. | 327