THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND POSTWAR RACIAL SCIENCE: THROUGH THE
LENS OF GENETIC DETERMINISM, POPULATION GENETICS, AND THE SOCIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF RACE
Introduction
The eugenics movement attempted to apply heredity to humans, advocating that
reproduction be controlled to ensure that only desirable traits were transmitted to the next
generation. By the early 20th century, eugenics had permeated legal and social policies in a
number of countries, especially the United States and Europe, underpinning racial hierarchies
with sterilization laws and immigration restrictions. The eugenics movement was framed as a
scientifically grounded endeavor aimed at enhancing humanity (Sinnott and Dunn, 1925.) This
movement also intersected with industrialization, urbanization and changing labor demands
which constructed some populations as genetically inferior and in need of regulation. Their
campaign was supported heavily by private foundations and government institutions, embedding
racial science into legal structures and public policy (Allen 1997). Those with eugenic tendencies
argued for differential rates of reproduction by promoting white Anglo-Saxon people and
controlling the reproductive freedoms of marginalized populations. These policies
disproportionately impacted racial minorities, immigrants, the poor, and people with disabilities,
legitimizing their exclusion with scientific rhetoric. Allen (1997) state that as the movement
grew powerful, its ideas began to take root in laws controlling marriage, reproduction and public
health, solidifying institutional discrimination. After World War II, the world was shocked to
discover Nazi efforts to carry out eugenics programs, this spurred a global reckoning and,
eventually, a formal rejection of eugenics as a matter of scientific debate. Racial science,
however, did not disappear; instead, it evolved into the genetics research that kept many of the
tenets of eugenics under new terms and paradigms (Livingstone & Dobzhansky, 1962). Whereas
the first wave of eugenics was defined by overtly racist policies, the second wave was
characterized by the vaguer, but no less pervasive, doctrines of genetic determinism.
These postwar iterations of racial science sustained much of the eugenic paradigm of
thought with the scaffolding of genetic determinism. This view implied that human
characteristics, from intelligence to social behavior, were largely determined by genetic
inheritance, in many ways dismissing the importance of environment and social systems. Genetic
determinism became entrenched in the public discourse through intelligence testing, studies of
criminality, and medical research, and arguments about racial hierarchy endured, even as
criticisms among scientists were growing in late 20th century (Allen, 1997). The emergence of
population genetics would later serve as a foil to these deterministic assertions, focusing on the
flux of genetic variation between populations. Population genetics showed that the genetic
variation within so-called racial groups was greater than that between these groups and that the
variation was spread out along a continuum, having no objectively defined biological differences
(Livingstone and Dobzhansky 1962). And racial categories persisted in medical and biological
sciences, shaping the research of disease susceptibility and pharmaco-genetics. Race as a
scientific category was entrenched by educational materials such as biological textbooks that
represented racial groupings in ways that suggested biological validity (Morning, 2008). By
echoing trashy racial ideas, which genetic research was already challenging, the inclusion of
genetic determinism in scientific curricula imbued trashy racists with the legitimacy of scientific
merits. And while reductive race-based categories were loosened by population genetics, genetic
determinism became ensconced in new fields. From behavioral genetics to biotechnology, thus
maintaining its grip on discussions of intelligence, crime and public health. That tension between
scientific rejection and societal persistence of race-based determinism was an important part of
the postwar context for racial science.
Postwar raciology and genetic determinism are still contributing factors to the social
construction of race even today, as shown by the questions and answers of the everyday social
practice that is genetics. In doing so, they present different but related models of the
development of race science in the later 20th century. Genetics was initially couched in more
scientific terms but its use often served to justify existing social structures (Sinnott & Dunn,
1925). Despite scientific evidence against biological classifications of race (Livingstone &
Dobzhansky, 1962), the idea of race as biological fact lingered in public understanding. Using
racial classifications in genetics-based medical research and forensic science are just two
examples of how entrenched these classifications are, despite their failing on biological grounds
(Morning, 2008). Overcoming these contradictions, therefore, requires a multidisciplinary
perspective incorporating genetics but also sociology and history to help deconstruct racially
explanatory theories. The eugenics movement, as Allen (1997) writes, shows the perils that arise
when genetic descriptions are generalized to social problems. Science, in turn, is embedded in
political and economic processes, and race science is itself a product of these processes as well.
According to Morning (2008), seeing how these protocols work provides a more critical lens on
current controversies about genetics, race and social policy.
II. A Genetic Determinism That Postwar Science Has Left in Its Wake
For example, genetic determinism continued to flourish in scientific and public discourse
long after eugenics was officially denounced, revealing the durability of racialized
hereditarianism ideas. Although genetics after the war moved away from overt eugenic policies,
the idea that genes determined intelligence and behavior and determined social trajectory
remained firmly entrenched. The move away from eugenics did not abolish eugenics
assumptions, but, according to Joseph (2022), rather rebranded them in terms of a new genetic
conceptions. The field of behavioral genetics continued to focus on inherited traits as the key
factor behind behavioral differences explaining social stratification, and hence a justification of
race and class. Such persistence was especially apparent in research on intelligence and mental
illness. Tthe genetic essentialism of the day rendered social inequities as biologically
predetermined not structurally created (Swenson, 2015). Even as population genetics undermined
the idea of distinct racial groups, scientific narratives still tended to adhere closely to the idea of
genetic predisposition as a primary force in human development. These perspectives fit within
wider political and economic agendas that were interested in justifying inequities in education,
employment and the criminal justice system through biological rationales. According to Joseph
(2022), critiques of the deterministic view of heredity were mounting, but it remained highly
influential in research on human behavior and susceptibility to disease, informing policy debates
and public perceptions of race. The postwar era did not witness a rejection of genetic
determinism, but instead a transformation in which scientific establishments replaced blatant
racial hierarchies with less overt forms of genetic essentialism.
Hereditarian arguments were routinely employed to justify assertions about intelligence,
criminality, and behavioral disparities, further entrenching racial hierarchies in scientific and
political discussions. Initial intelligence studies also aimed to find a genetic basis for cognitive
ability, often employing shoddy methodology to validate racially charged conclusions.
According to Dunnage (2017), such arguments were reminiscent of the 19th century
criminologists' theory which connected hereditary traits to deviant behavior and moral
deficiency. Mid-20th century intelligence research continued this trend, with studies claiming
that racial differences in IQ-test results were caused by genetics rather than social or
environmental issues. Radick (2020) says these attributions helped justify discriminatory policies
in fields such as education, employment, and criminal justice by portraying social inequalities as
based on biological differences instead of rooted in systemic discrimination. And, as behavioral
genetics extended to theories about aggression, impulsivity, and criminality, it deepened the
cycle of hereditary explanations for social deviance. Then, in the fields of eugenics and social
Darwinism, genetic determinism was used to justify preventing certain populations, particularly
those considered inferior or unfit from accessing resources and opportunities by generalizing that
the disparities were results of inherited characteristics. According to Dunnage (2017),
throughout, as scientific critiques revealed methodological problems with these studies, their
power continued, to shape public policy, and legal debate. This persistence of the legacy of
hereditarian reasoning is contributing to racial hierarchies by cosmogenesis biological
explanations within larger narratives of inequality.
Genetic determinism shaped postwar policies around immigration, education and social
mobility, perpetuating race and class-based discrimination. Policymakers often appealed to
genetic arguments to justify restrictive immigration laws, claiming that certain populations
placed the biological foundation of national stability at risk. Riley (2021) assert that immigration
debates were steeped in hereditary theories, which were used to justify selective admission
policies that favored "Genetically desirable" groups. These concepts contributed to education
policy, such as the creation of intelligence tests and tracking systems that racially discriminated
against minorities by placing them in lower academic strata (Morning, 2008). By conceiving of
intelligence as a stable, heritable characteristic, schools soused social stratification, crippling
upward mobility for marginalized communities. Likewise, economic policies were shaped by a
genetic determinism, whereby welfare programs attracted criticism of purportedly incentivizing
people with hereditary dispositions to poverty and dependency (Swenson, 2015). The assumption
that social outcomes were biologically determined shaped discussions on government assistance
programs, criminal justice policies, and housing policies, and it led to discriminatory practices.
While scientific progress challenged these notions with greater and greater frequency, genetic
determinism held fast in the political lexicon, informing popular conceptions of race and the
immune systems that unravel it. This striking persistence of these notions in the sphere of policy-
making is a marker of how postwar racial science continued to shape institutional and socio-
economic barriers via biological rationalizations.
Critiques of genetic determinism (the idea that genes are the main determinants of human
traits and behaviors) also emerged in the mid-to-late 20th century, questioning the assumption
that genes were the root cause of everything we were, and pointing to environmental and social
influences on our capacities and behavior. Studies in population genetics showed that genetic
variation did not correspond with racial categories, which would undermine the bedrock of
hereditarianism arguments. Livingstone and Dobzhansky (1962) highlighted the biological
arbitrariness of such racial categories, pointing out that genetic diversity exists along a
continuum, not along fixed racial units. These results all ran counter to what the earlier claims
asserted, that intelligence, behavior and health are, in large part, inherited. Moreover,
sociological and anthropological studies have pointed out the importance of structural
inequalities (e.g. poverty, educational access, or systemic discrimination) in determining social
outcomes (Fobia, 2016). This “genetic determinism,” the idea that genes played an outsized role
in determining everything from intelligence to moral behavior, was fundamentally flawed, critics
contended, as it ignored the complex and interdependent roles of genes and environment, and, in
doing so, oversimplified how humans developed, and too easily “reproduced (existing)
discriminatory narratives”. Epigenetics rose to prominence in the 1990s as another complicating
biology that upturned deterministic models (Radick, 2020), showing how environmental factors
influenced gene expression and somewhat undermining simplistic hereditarian claims. Even with
these critiques, however, genetic determinism remained a dominant force, as opposition to the
role of environment within many of these environments continued. As objections to biological
determinism prevailed, its legacy lived on through the very inquiry into genetics that it sought to
obviate, highlighting the difficulty of ridding scientific exploration of the powerful lenses of
inherited racial differences imbibing scientific inquiry throughout this period of recent history.
Many significant ethical issues presented by contemporary genetic determinism affect
multiple domains, including genomics, behavioral genetics, and personalized medicine.
Advances in genetics have prompted fears about its potential to be misused to enforce racial
myths. Despite strong evidence that race lacks biological validity, genomic studies continue to
reconstitute race as a biological category Joseph (2022). In precision medicine, on the other
hand, racial categories are proxy measures for genetic risk factors that lead to the production of
race-based treatments that do not disaggregate genetic differences between individuals. Morning
(2008) indicate that such practices perpetuate outdated racial categories and may exacerbate
health disparities by overlooking larger socioeconomic determinants of disease. So have
behavioral genetics been accused of accommodating genetic hypotheses for social behaviors,
such as intelligence and mental illness (Swenson, 2015). Such concerns are also relevant in
contexts of forensic genetics, whereby genealogical genetic profiling has been applied to the
investigation of crimes (arguably bringing further ethical questions regarding racist attitudes
towards law enforcement into play) (Dunnage, 2017). If genetic determinism is still a principle
in these realms, it shows why oversight of genetics research is important, and why the use of
genetic testing must always be considered carefully. How this narrative is presented in the
documentary, makes the viewer grapple with the consequences of genetics being used in
medicine, criminology, and public policy, so as to reinforce racially prejudiced beliefs.
These case studies illustrate vividly the ways the idea of genetic determinism continues
to permeate the scientific conversation, above all in the debates around racialized medicine, the
study of intelligence and forensic science. In medicine, that assumption resulted in painful
inequities in a diagnosis and treatment for individuals considered different races. As Riley
(2021) articulates, disease vulnerability literature tends to focus on biological, rather than social
factors, which effectively reinforces racial essentialism while ignoring structural inequalities.
That problem has been particularly acute with medical guidelines, which for years have included
guidance on how to adjust estimates of kidney function and pain levels based on a patient’s race,
despite growing evidence that those adjustments lack a sound scientific basis. A prominent
example of this ongoing trend is in forms of the intelligence research where disputes surrounding
cognitive ability continue to be informed by and appeal to forms of inherited theory that
continue to be broadly rejected by the weight of evidence. Evident, Radick (2020 found that
these theories are formulated similarly, and they continue to drive the debate over education and
socioeconomic mobility today, effectively cementing the biases into society. Genealogical
profiling in forensic science has enabled racist suspect profiling and raised concerns about the
re-entrenchment of discriminatory policing practices through these types of data analytical
methods. But the undertaking of predicting how your body will manifest itself, given your
genetic ancestry, is a threat, it seems, to legitimize racial classifications that have no biological
basis for them. These examples demonstrate the extent to which genetic determinism is still
influential in scientific and policy discussions, and, in turn, how both biological and social
scientists think about human differences, including race (Dunnage, 2017). Solving these
challenges will require a more nuanced view of genetics, one that grounds genetic knowledge in
historical, social and environmental contexts, rather than reproducing retrograde models of
determinism.
III. Population Genetics and the Scientific Rejection of Biological Race
Population genetics arose as a scientific answer to racial essentialism, which posited that
ancient, unchanged racial categories existed. Old ideas about race assigned immutable groups to
humans based on surface traits like skin color. These assumptions shaped social hierarchies and
scientific discourse for centuries. In this respect, Spencer (2015) states that population genetics
deconstructed these rigid categories; such as, through evidence of genetic exchange, which do
not validate definitive racial demarcations. It focused on gene frequency distributions within and
between populations, which contradicted racial essentialism. Genetic traits do not cluster neatly
into racial categories; they exist along gradients, scientists discovered. This change in
understanding meant that biological race was no longer a useful classification system (Provine,
2015). The research showed a smooth tapestry of genetic variation patched together by
migration, adaptation and genetic drift rather than distinct racial groups. Those findings
undermined belief in race as biologically grounded or scientifically valid. These advancements
coexisted with the historical biases of racial classification systems. There were deep social and
political roots for belief in racial typologies that population genetics confronted head-on.
Benedict and Mead (2019), emphasized that in order to dismantle these classifications, we also
need societal reckoning, not just scientific evidence. Just as genetic research was, despite
obstacles, producing scientific evidence countering racial essentialism. In fact, population
geneticists supplanted stale racially-based paradigms with models showing human genetic
diversity was fluid not static. Provine (2015) state that this paradigm shift paved the way for the
continued scientific denial of race as a biological determinant.
Population geneticists Theodosius Dobzhansky and Richard Lewontin were instrumental
in destroying racial essentialism. Dobzhansky emphasized that evolutionary processes, and not
fixed racial categories, drive genetic diversity. He claims that genetic variation within a single
population is greater than between populations, thus nullifying the concept of distinct racial
groups (Spencer, 2015). His work on the fruit fly showed genetic variation occurs on a
continuum, not in discrete units — a principle which was later applied to human populations.
This evidence directly challenged racism classification systems that ascribes genetic uniformity
within racial groups. Furthering the groundwork laid by Dobzhansky, Lewontin collected
quantitative data strengthening the notion that race has no biological basis. His analysis of
genetic variation in human populations showed that most of the variation was between
individuals within populations, and not between populations (Saini, 2019). This directly
contradicted the prevailing wisdom at the time that racial categories corresponded to real, inborn
genetic differences. Lewontin’s findings revolutionized our understanding of human genetic
differences and demonstrated that genetic variation does not fall into clean racial categories. His
ideas influenced genetics, but also anthropology and larger discussions around society (Provine,
2015). Some critics responded by pointing out that genetic clustering still might reflect ancestral
differences, but they missed the point. Lewontin made the point that human genetic diversity
does not fit racial classifications because race is itself a social construct, not a biological reality.
An alternative and more compelling view of Leviticus forms in the theory of clinal
variation, which explains human genetic diversity in terms of what we can achieve through
groups of people that do not necessarily translate into races. While ethnic classifications often
treat populations as immobile and rigidly defined, the process of clinal variation demonstrates
that genetic variation is distributed continuously in geographic space. According to Spencer
(2018), human populations form a continuous gradient of genetic variation formed by the forces
of migration, adaptation, and gene flow. This is a challenge to racial essentialism in that the
genetic traits do not correspond with social-formed racial groups. Genetics also elucidates the
clines in traits that gradually begin to differ between populations, rather than the sharp lines of
division that define races. Hollywood pushed genetic characteristics like skin color, blood type
and enzyme activity into geographical gradients, which were modern evolutionary pressures
instead of racial ones (Sinnott & Dunn, 1925). These patterns work against racial typologies that
would put people into fixed genetic groups. Racial categories simplify bio-genetic relations,
which are fluid and represent a continuum of human diversity. Instead, clinal models reinforce
that genetic variation does not map onto social constructions of racial identities that are
constructed by navigating the environments in which people live. As Saini (2019) pointed out,
racial categories help to erase a more complicated picture of genetic inheritance, which
resonates with antiquated ideas of what science has to say. It has mistaken genetics allowed for
the perpetuation of popular racial myths in the face of unarguable evidence for continuous
variation. These clinal models were the backbone of what has emerged in population genetics as
a vision of human genetic diversity, a vision that had the merit of not being based on a racial
framework.
The Human Genome Project (HGP) offered strong evidence for the lack of biological
validity of race. When we sequenced the entire human genome, we discovered that genetic
variation within populations is far greater than the variation between groups. So humans share
about 99.9 percent of their DNA (Spencer, 2015), making race a biologically worthless
classification. These findings buttressed earlier studies that race does not correlate with
meaningful biological divides. Clinal patterns of genetic variation, rather than racial barriers,
were confirmed by scientists in the early 1970s. However, there was a mistake in the
interpretation of genomic data by some researchers who attempted to justify racial differences
with genetic ancestry markers (Saini, 2019). The studies linking genetic variation to racial
identity often do not take into account the complexity of population history and migration.
These misapplications of genomic research sustained racialized narratives in the face of both
overwhelming scientific consensus against biological race and its misapplication on the ground.
The HGP’s results changed the paradigm in medical genetics as well, demonstrating the risks of
racialization for health care outcomes (Benedict & Mead, 2019). Genetic data that could have
implications for treatment in medicine, is often concealed, at least, along racial lines. Population
genetics offers a more stable framework that is based on ancestry and environmental, not racial
labels. Although the findings went public in popular media and in resounding science, the
Aitken-Margulies group reasserted that race is not a sound genetic category. Therefore, its
discoveries shape genetics, medicine and social policy today, as they focus attention on
population-level genetic diversity.
Population genetics critiques racialized biomedical science for showing that there is no
genetic basis for race. Medical research has long relied on racial categories to explain
differences in health, but that is wrong. As stated by Provine (2015), genetic variation shows no
respect for the divisions we create based on race but occurs within populations. Such reliance on
race in biomedical research may produce erroneous inferences because genetic traits are
determined by environmental and ancestry around the individual, rather than the race of the
individual. Race is wrongly used as a genetic marker in forensic science as well. Some forensic
models try to estimate the race of a person based on their DNA, assuming distinct genetic
signatures for race (Saini 2019). Yet, these models oversimplify genetic variation by treating it as
categorical, a mistake that overlooks its continuous nature in human diversity. Studies have
demonstrated that ancestry, rather than race, gives a more accurate framework for genetic
analysis. According to Benedict and Mead (2019) continuing to classify people into different
religious and ethnic categories in medicine and forensic science only serves to perpetuate
obsolete biological assumptions. So, population genetics, too, confirms that human genetic
diversity does not map to racial classifications and that we need to start thinking in terms of
ancestry-based approaches. The solution: Biomedical research need to embrace population-level
analysis to make its findings more precise, and to avoid perpetuating misconceptions about race.
Forensic science also should improve its methods to account for genetic realities instead of
relying on often faulty racial categories. Dismissing race in genetics enhances the precision of
science and ethical research conduct.
Recent advances in population genetics challenges some of these myths by shifting the
focus away from races towards ancestry, and highlighting the fact that individuals cannot be
assigned to discrete genotypic races; rather they are all unique genetic hybrids, and as such
genetic variation can be great within these arbitrary racial groups. Ancestry testing is the newest
trend that lets people track their ancestry through their genetics. Genetic ancestry, as opposed to
racial categories, gives a more accurate representation of human lineages. As Spencer (2018)
has noted, with direct-to-consumer genetic testing, complex ancestral backgrounds have emerged
that do not recognize the boundaries of race. These findings support the idea that human
populations are a continuum, not different racial groups. The populations genetics research is
relevant to research of health disparities, since it holds the potential to interrogate genetic risk
factors without resorting to racial categories. Studies have shown race-based medicine leads to
misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment (Benedict & Mead, 2019). Genetic studies not only
continue to celebrate heritage but also the influence from the environment to enhance health
outcomes. By identifying specific genetic markers that vary from one population to the next, this
allows scientists to tailor medical treatment methods without employing racial stereotyping.
Advances in biomedical research also clarify the shortcomings of racial designations. And, as
the emerging research is revealing, the human races are far more concerned with genetic
adaptation to local environments than any contribution each human race offers (Saini 2019).
Genetics genetics population genetics one more personalized medicine and treating not by broad
racial or social categories but by genetic profile. This move marks a significant split from fait
accompli racial tropes in science as it overlooks race in genetics allows more precise research
practices and equitable medical interventions. The practice of population genetics, as it has
evolved, has countered myths about race while bringing greater accuracy in science and
medicine.
IV. Science and Society of Race Social Construction
Race was once thought of as a biological fact, but modern scholarship suggests it is
actually a social construct shaped by historical and institutional forces. Humans were classified
by scientists into terms of races according to external character, like skin color, skull size, or
genetic inheritance. These groups were believed to indicate biological differences. As
Livingstone and Dobzhansky (1962) noted, population genetics would later come to show that
there was no genetic basis to these racial categories as human variation exists along a continuous
spectrum rather than in discrete groups. But racial classifications still played a role in
institutions, informing ideas around identity and intergroup differences. This persistence was
aided by scientific research,a field where maintaining racial categories in studies helped
reinforce the perception that race corresponded to real genetic differences (Rayner, 2016).
Government and academic institutions had similarly used these classifications,” embedding
them in policies, census data and legal frameworks. In the academic literature, a slow
transformation from biological to social understandings of race led scholars to challenge the
ways in which racial categories were historically created and sustained. The label race is known
to be a social construct which had helped researchers to question the narratives on which such
injustices were justified for the longest time. Where biological race models were despised to loss
within the domain of genetics, the racial hierarchies were not erased but secondary seamed
throughout scientific and depoitional discourse.
How race is taught in schools has shaped what the world looks like. School curricula and
biology textbooks have long presented race as a biological fact or a socially constructed idea.
Textbooks, however, have remained consistent in their characterization of racial groups,
continuing to propagate outdate genetic understandings even while increasingly suggesting there
is no genetic basis for race (Morning, 2008). These educational materials often did not integrate
findings from population genetics, leading students to perceive race as a qualitatively important
biological attribute. Consequently, incorrect ideas about race and genetics were passed down
from generation to generation. Much of this oversight was, in fact, undertaken by scientific
institutions that influenced the content of textbooks and controlled how race was framed in
biological education (Russell, 2016). They would maybe situate race within the framework of
evolutionary theory, but also by using genetic data to organize human populations in ways that
were out of sync with contemporary genetic studies. This educational enfolding of racial
categories fortified not just scientific understanding but also shaped policy in health care, the
criminal justice system and public classification systems. The production of scientific knowledge
is never neutral, Collins (2015) argued, and is shaped by historical and political contexts. Simply
addressing the effect of textbooks on perceptions of race requires a conscious overhaul of race in
the teaching of science. By deconstructing racial classifications in education, scholars and
practitioners can approach a more accurate and socially responsible accounting of human
variation.
Racial science did not emerge in a vacuum; it was actively debated on the economic and
political front with ramifications on immigration, intelligence, and public health policy. In the
course of the 20th century, racial classifications were used by governments to justify restrictive
immigrant laws and labor controls. According to Beck (2020), race has been often invoked in
political discourse to delineate, define, and characterize perceived social threats, which
contribute to exclusionary policies that predominantly target marginalized populations. Research
into intelligence also contributed to these divisions; in the mid-20th century, studies attempted
to establish linkages between race and cognitive ability. Morning (2008) also demonstrated how
racialized intelligence theories drove education policy, constraining access to resources and
influencing academic tracking systems that negatively impacted minority students. The same
pattern occurred with public health initiatives, which divided populations into racial categories
to organize interventions. Jenkins (2017) noted how in epidemiological studies health disparities
were often ascribed to genetic difference, rather than to the social and economic conditions that
had produced them. Scientific, economic, and political interests converged to make race an
inescapably central means of organizing access to resources, mobility and social standing. These
frameworks of institution were largely supervised over racial hierarchies, making it urgent that
we critically pay attention to how these have been preserved and justified in the present.
Yet, despite the scientific consensus that the concept of biological race should be
dismissed at this point, racial categories continue to be used in medical and public health
studies. When scrutinizing disease risks, treatment outcomes and health disparities, medical
studies tend to categorize patients by race. Livingstone and Dobzhansky (1962) demonstrated
that genetic variation did not fit into racial pigeon holes, and that these had no predictive power
regarding genetic differences. Still, it is routine in biomedical research to use race as a proxy for
genetic ancestry. For example, this stance translates into specific practice that affects drug
development and clinical decision-making routines. Papers published in the past have shown
that the remaining use of racial categories in medicine undermines equitable outcomes for
healthcare (Russell, 2016). Some medical researchers counter that race-based classifications are
helpful in identifying health risks prevalent in certain populations. But critics argue that the
practice further entrenches outdated racial essentialism by issuing structural socioeconomic and
environmental determinants. In medical research, racial categories persist because, as Rayner
(2016) remarked, institutional structures tend to prioritize efficiency over scientific credibility.
Due to historical precedents and regulatory policies, these categories are further solidified.
Researchers should argue for precision medicine that takes individual genetic variation into
account and does not rely on broad racial buckets to define who is at risk for what. Racial
categories in health care are still in widespread use, according to Russell (2016), but often they
do little besides reinforce stereotypes that are centuries old and baked into existing medical
research, this article suggests, emphasizing the need for interdisciplinary approaches.
Ethical issues in racialized medicine, ancestry genomics, and pharmaceutical
development were koi fish in the pond. Science dumps its alternative medicine into a drug and
finds a way to use it, the mukhang gwapo is washed away. Genetic testing companies, for
example, have turned ancestry genomics into a massive business, classifying people by racial
categories even though science shows race cannot serve as a reliable genetic marker. Messy
science in the age of genomics, Morning (2008) found that commercial ancestry tests use
reference populations that oversimplify the complex history of human genetic diversity,
propagating instead of reflecting the reality of our shared genetic heritage, while at the same time
reinforcing racial stereotypes. These tests have even helped shape the construction of people’s
racial identities, supporting the sense that there is some biological basis to race. They have been
introduced in pharmaceutical development to treat health disparities, adding another layer of
race-based treatments on top of a multi-faceted and complex system (Collins, 2015). Even if
genetics has a role, racially-specific medications assume genetic distinctions between racial
groups, while studies point towards cropping the environmental and socioeconomic factors as the
larger determinants of disease prevalence compared to discrete genetics (Jenkins 2017). Ethics
looms large in forensic genetics, where legislation such as the New York law called the Law of
the Dark has been criticized for enabling racial profiling in criminal landscapes. Even now, this
continued use of race in these categories reflects a wider societal tendency, wherein humans feel
a need to organize and classify themselves by racial means although we know that there is no
robust genetic evidence for the existence of racial categories. These ethical concerns need to be
addressed through a critical reevaluation of the use of race as a concept in scientific and medical
research.
Retreating from essentialist understandings of race opens possibiltities for more nuanced
apprehensions of identity and human difference. Echoing Rayner (2016), the knowledge
produced is determined by institutional structures that have generally entrenched dominant
ideologies, making it important to interrogate how race is framed through scientific material.
Incorporating social science perspectives aids researchers in exploring the ramifications of racial
classifications and their relationship to public policy, health care, and legal systems (Russell
2016). Race is a social construct and its understanding through historical and social context is
key to dismantling the racial hierarchies that genetic and medical research has emerged to
entrench. Sociological approaches are argued (Beck, 2020) to lead to understandings of racial
difference as products of structural inequalities rather than genetic differences. From critiques of
the history of human variation and the legacy of a certain racial science have emerged
interdisciplinary practices of research that start to offer alternatives for studying human variance.
However, moving beyond the use of genetic and phenotypic traits in defining racial categories in
medicine and genetics will require that scientists engage in interdisciplinary collaborations.
Jenkins (20170 asserts that this is important to establish research models that are scientifically
rigorous and ethically defensible. The interdisciplinary nature of it is part of a larger move away
from deterministic models and toward embracing the complexity of race and identity and human
diversity more generally.
V. Ethical Challenges and Policy Implications of Racial Science
The legacy of racial science has resonated through to contemporary policy decisions,
including reproductive rights, criminal justice and education. Genetic arguments were
historically invoked to justify policies that curbed reproductive freedoms, especially in
marginalized communities. Referring to the eugenics movement Allen (1997) explained that it
had a direct influence on sterilization laws which disproportionately targeted racial minorities,
the poor, and those with disabilities. Such policies oriented reproduction within the realm of the
social, promoting the notion that social value was written in the genes. Race-based scientific
claims in the field of criminal justice led to the formation of profiling systems that ranked
populations in order of who was more or less likely to commit crimes (i.e. were preventative
measures to be put in place) and disproportionately criminalized certain populations. These
ideas endure in predictive policing technologies that legitimize more policing in color
communities based on past police data (Stahl et al., 2023). The fear of blacks outpacing whites
also had an impact on education policies through the belief that intelligence was genetically
governed. As Morning (2008) noted, biology textbooks sometimes framed racial differences in
cognitive ability as legitimate lines of inquiry, rationalizing biases embedded in academic
tracking and standardized testing. But these examples show how racial science, even after being
exposed as a fraud, continues to inform institutions and policies. Confronting these legacies of
history involves interrogating how race is embedded within contemporary governance and
scientific discourse.
With genetic testing and forensic genetics, as well as racial profiling, came new ethical
dilemmas, especially regarding racial bias in medicine and law enforcement. With the advent of
medical technology, genetic tests have become a routine tool to find the risk for diseases. Yet
those tests often sort individuals by race despite compelling evidence that genetic variation does
not correlate with racial categories. Livingstone and Dobzhansky (1962) established that racial
distinctions are not biological categories, but commercial genetic tests still encourage consumers
to order race-based ancestry reports. It has contributed to genetic misunderstandings and
reinforced racial essentialism. Similar problems occur in relation to forensic genetics, where
DNA databases are populated at a disproportionately high rate by genetic material derived from
minority communities (Lewis et al., 2015). These technologies, which can automate the process
of crime solving, are often accused of using race as a proxy, contributing to biased crime-
solving technologies such as predictive policing tools and forensic algorithms. Especially
worrisome is the risk of racial profiling in these systems, as flawed methodologies can perpetuate
discriminatory law enforcement practices. Ravetz, 2020). Similarly, in medicine, race-based
diagnostics have been used to develop treatments based on the assumption of genetic differences
between racial groups, even though there is increasing evidence that socioeconomic factors have
a more significant impact on health disparities. Vayena et al. (2018) state that the continued
realities of racialized science, however, in these disparate fields demonstrate the critical need for
ethical reflectivity and equitable research practices.
The use of race in contemporary medical research continues to be contentious, especially
in the context of race-based treatments and clinical trials. Frequently when conducting disease
pattern studies, researchers will categorize their subjects by race while still delving into the
nuances of whether race should even be considered a relevant classification. As noted by
Morning (2008), researchers have clung to race as a genetic marker, even though evidence
indicates that genetic diversity is greater within populations than between them. This has resulted
in the emergence of drugs that are advertised specifically for certain racial groups. An
illustrative example of these problems is provided by BiDil, a heart medication approved for use
in African American patients based on genetic arguments which had no support from the clinical
trials. According to Navalta & Stone (2020), such examples highlight how racial categorizations
in medicine can perpetuate biological determinism, instead of rectify structural health inequities.
Meanwhile, others believe that race can still be a useful way to quantify differences in health,
especially when it is used alongside other information about people's social and environmental
circumstances (Lewis et al., 2015). But race in medical research deployed absent systemic
context is a vehicle for reifying old racial narratives. The field can no longer afford to rely on
race-based medicine, and instead needs to embrace precision medicine, which uses an
individual’s unique genetic and environmental profiles to guide treatment. Such an approach
would enable a more accurate understanding of these differing effects on diagnosis and
treatment, but without succumbing to racial essentialism.
To fully grasp human diversity, an interdisciplinary lens is needed, one that fuses
genetics with sociology, history and bioethics. Racial categories are not the same as genetics; one
must understand and study from history and social contexts. As Ravetz (2020) argued, scientific
knowledge cannot be separated from broader societal structures, and so understanding race
requires a multidisciplinary approach. By incorporating sociological approaches, researchers can
explore the processes through which racial categories have emerged and persisted across various
contexts (Stahl et al., 2023). Historical analysis also explains how scientific theories on race
have changed and can reveal how earlier assumptions persist today. The evolution of approaches
to racial category use in genetics and medicine reflects a need for a bioethical grid to assess the
moral implications of underpinning research practices with equity (Vayena et al., 2018). Without
interdisciplinary creativity, the biological race will continue to be misrepresented in science
while rehashing old biases under new names. Encouraging conversation across fields enables
scholars to create more holistic models that reflect the intricacies of human variation. To get
beyond these dated racial paradigms and engender the kind of ethical and scientifically rigorous
research needed to bring about that progress, multidisciplinary approaches that embrace the
sciences, the social sciences and the humanities are required.
More oversight and regulation of racialized genetic research is merited, especially within
commercial ancestry testing and forensic realms. To sell their services, companies that provide
direct-to-consumer genetic testing frequently employ racial narratives that promise consumers
information about their ancestry. But these tests rely on reference populations that do not
accurately reflect global genetic diversity (Morning, 2008). Looking at the results, ancestry
estimates can therefore be deceptive, strengthening oversimplified racial classifications rather
than representing the complexities and migration of humans and variability in genes. The same
concerns emerge in forensic genetics with the use of DNA databases in criminal investigations.
Lewis et al. (2015) who, argued that minority populations are overrepresented in genetic samples
collected by law enforcement agencies, which enhances the danger of racial bias in forensic
profiling. DNA phenotyping (which attempts to predict a person's racial appearance from genetic
material) has increased ethical dilemmas regarding the perpetuation of stereotypes tor criminal
investigations (Navalta & Stone, 2020). Without stricter policies, these technologies could
exacerbate discrimination under the pretext of scientific neutrality. Tightening up oversight
mechanisms would ensure that genetic research is done responsibly, avoiding the misuse of
racial categories in both scientific and law enforcement contexts.
Innovations in public health science and racial bias (including fissured research agendas,
racialized scientific narratives, and racially inflected institutional practices. And one critical step
is for studies of genetic and medical risk to reconsider how race is used, to ensure that
classifications represent social, historical and environmental contexts rather than presumed
biological differences. Stahl et al. (2023) argued, ethical scientific research must counteract
against racial bias and provide study designs from an anti-discriminatory lens. Instead, other
socioeconomic and environmental factors that drive health disparities should become the focus
of public health efforts, rather than race-based interventions (Lewis et al., 2015). Moreover,
scientific communication needs to counteract racial essentialism by informing the public about
the social construction of race and the limitations of genetic imprinting of racial classifications.
Vayena et al. (2018) highlighted the necessity for ethical guidelines to prevent the entrenchment
of racial stereotypes in AI-driven medical technologies. So, be specific, be concrete, and there
are responsible parties within your environment that you can engage to help you with this
process. The scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and so forth, all need to come together early to
make sure that they are, in fact, establishing frameworks that are responsible and equitable. Such
ethical best practices and interdisciplinary dialogue within the scientific community may help
dismantle racial biases and contribute to research benefiting all populations equitably.
Conclusion
Eugenics and racial science lived on in postwar genetics, which would be shaped by the
transformation of racial ideology and power in American society. Although eugenics was
discredited in the wake of World War II, many eugenist assumptions lived on behind the scenes
of attitudes toward genetics, intelligence and human variation. Allen (1997) found that even
when eugenic policies waned, a genetic determinism remained intact, and social disparities could
be understood as the result of hereditary differences more than systemic causes. Postwar policies
were likewise shaped by racial science, especially in education, immigration, and medicine,
where race was frequently viewed as a biological given. While this emphasis and progress in
population genetics has been made, race as a "real" genetic category continued to have a hold on
discourse, it be at scientific discourse or public understanding of difference (Morning, 2008).
Racial classifications appear in textbooks, research studies and medical practices, reinforcing
how entrenched these ideas are. “Races” do not exist and Livingstone and Dobzhansky (1962)
showed that genetic variation does not support racial distinctions, but it took decades for this
scientific fact assumed among scientists to permeate the general consciousness. After all,
recognizing the importance of what he calls the “idea of race” requires that we trace the legacy
of that idea through its applications, one of which is to create a framework for a historically
informed assessment of any practice that is at least in part reliant on separating bodies.
Evidently, the understanding of the historical legacy of eugenics will enable scientists and
policymakers to look beyond the narrow cause-and-effect framework. As per Morning (2008), it
also allows them to work on dismantling the racial biases that continue to shape genetics as well
as the larger field of science.
Three scientific developments are particularly relevant in this case as genetic
determinism, population genetics, and the social construction of race, all of which worked
together to support a reversal of scientific understandings of human diversity. The three
frameworks, though divergent, provide you with interrelated windows through which to better
understand the evolution of race science and its effects (Goodman, 2000). For example, Sinnott
and Dunn (1925) outline how the early studies of genetics often emphasized heredity as the
dominant force behind human traits, which fused deterministic ideas about race and intelligence.
However, the growing field of population genetics dispelled these ideas by proving that racial
groups do not correlate. (Livingstone & Dobzhansky, 1962). This was a watershed in
discussions of race and science, scientists began to understand that human genetic variation
exists across a continuum, rather than within discrete groups. Relatedly, this social construction
of race framework highlighted that many of these racial categories were not merely reflections
of biological reality, but also social, political, and economic forces at play. According to
Morning (2008), their work has helped illuminate just how problematic racial classifications are
in the context of science. But found that in medicine, forensic genetics, and public policy, race
remains a category, reflecting cases in which old beliefs never die. Goodman (2000) says
consideration of these three areas together provides a fuller context of human variation, human
diversity, and the social implications and real-world consequences of scientific discussions about
race.
Preventing the misuse of genetics in the service of racial hierarchy is an ethical
imperative for scientists and decision-makers alike. This would be a dangerous precedent, as
discriminatory practices often wash away by hiding behind science and claiming that genetic
differences justify the differences in humans. The eugenics precedent shows what happens when
we treat genetics as the simple explanation for complex problems (Allen 1997). Scientists need
to be careful with how they interpret and communicate genetic data so they do not promote racial
essentialism. Preventing the misuse of racial classifications in medical research, forensic
applications, and public health, is also a policy decision, one that may capture administrators
and policymakers attention as well (Morning, 2008). Ethics should call for precision medicine
that focuses on genetic interspecies diversity rather than assigning people into broad racial
categories. Finally, interdisciplinary integration, such as sociology, history, and bioethics, can
help curb the social impact of genetic research (Livingstone & Dobzhansky, 1962). A better way
to approach race in a scientific context should also be an educative one. Biology textbooks and
public science communication efforts should be revised to align with the most current research
on human genetic diversity, as this is one more step in dismantling antiquated racial assumptions.
Future such commitments to ethical, evidence-based research will serve to advance genetics for
all populations equitably.
