Exploring the complex relationship between social categories and genetic reality in modern research
When you fill out a medical form, you're often asked to check a box indicating your race or ethnicity. It seems simple enough—until you stop to think about what these categories really mean. Are they describing your culture? Your family's geographic origins? Your genetic makeup? As it turns out, that simple checkbox carries tremendous complexity—and how scientists use these categories in genetics research has profound implications for medical treatments, our understanding of human history, and even how we address health disparities.
Recent genetic studies have revealed an astonishing truth: the racial and ethnic categories we use in daily life don't align neatly with our actual genetic backgrounds. In fact, one major study found that most genetic variation exists within racial groups rather than between them.
This discovery is forcing scientists to rethink fundamental approaches to research—leading to widespread consensus in some areas while exposing significant ongoing disagreements in others. The conversation matters far beyond laboratory walls—it affects how we develop medicines, diagnose diseases, and ultimately, how we understand what makes us uniquely human.
Before exploring the scientific debates, we need clear definitions. In both popular media and scientific literature, the terms race, ethnicity, and ancestry are often used interchangeably—but they represent fundamentally different concepts:
Race is primarily a socio-political construct created to categorize people based on physical characteristics like skin color, hair texture, and facial features. It's important to recognize that the biological significance of race is minimal—genetic research has consistently demonstrated that the physical traits used to define racial groups don't align with meaningful biological differences 6 7 .
Ethnicity encompasses cultural factors including shared language, religion, ancestry, and traditions. Like race, it's socially constructed but may involve a stronger element of self-identification with a particular cultural group 6 .
Ancestry refers to an individual's genetic lineage and geographic origins. This concept has gained prominence in genetics with advances in technology that allow researchers to estimate where a person's ancestors likely came from based on their DNA 3 .
The fundamental challenge in genetics research lies in recognizing that while these concepts may correlate in some contexts, they are not interchangeable. Using race as a proxy for genetic ancestry has been called "slicing soup" by one prominent geneticist—"You can cut all you want—that soup is going to stay mixed" 7 .
| Concept | Definition | How Determined | Limitations in Research |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race | Socio-political categorization based on physical characteristics | Often assigned by others or based on observation | Misinterpreted as biological; reinforces stereotypes |
| Ethnicity | Cultural identity based on shared traditions, language, religion | Typically self-identified | Cultural groups often genetically heterogeneous |
| Ancestry | Genetic lineage and geographic origins | Estimated from genetic data or family history | Still represents probabilities, not certainties |
The scientific community has long recognized problems with how population categories are used in genetics research. A comprehensive systematic review published in 2022 analyzed 121 articles containing recommendations about using race, ethnicity, and ancestry in genetics 1 . This review discovered that guidelines have been published consistently across many years and in a wide range of journals, indicating an ongoing, interdisciplinary concern about these issues.
Researchers should explicitly define the population terms they use
The rationale for using specific categories should be clearly explained
Methods for assigning individuals to categories should be transparent
Limitations regarding generalizability of findings should be acknowledged
Social and ethical implications of the research should be considered
Genetic ancestry should be distinguished from social identity
Researchers should avoid oversimplifying conclusions about group differences
One area revealed substantial fundamental disagreement: determining appropriate definitions of population categories and the specific contexts for their use 1 .
While many articles focused on the inappropriate use of race, the review found that none fundamentally problematized ancestry—suggesting that ancestry may be perceived as an uncomplicated solution to the problems raised by race, despite having limitations of its own .
One of the most definitive studies examining the relationship between self-identified race and genetic background was conducted using the All of Us Research Program database, a National Institutes of Health initiative designed to advance precision medicine by including participants from diverse populations 2 7 .
This groundbreaking research analyzed the DNA of more than 230,000 people, making it one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind.
| Aspect | Description | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Sample Size | 230,000+ participants | One of most comprehensive U.S. genetic diversity studies |
| Data Source | All of Us Research Program | Specifically designed to include underrepresented groups |
| Genetic Analysis | Principal component analysis + reference databases | High-resolution view of genetic relationships |
| Geographic Scope | Participants across all U.S. states | Enabled analysis of regional genetic variation patterns |
The findings fundamentally challenged simplistic use of racial and ethnic categories in research:
Most genetic variance exists within racial groups rather than between them. The researchers found that people who identified as being from the same racial and ethnic groups displayed numerous genetic differences 2 .
Genetic variation forms gradients rather than distinct clusters. The analysis revealed continuous gradients of genetic variation that cut across traditional racial and ethnic lines, contradicting the notion of biologically discrete racial groups 2 .
Significant state-by-state variation was evident even within the same ethnic group. For example, Hispanic/Latino participants in California, Texas, and Arizona showed high proportions of Native American ancestry, while those in New York had the highest proportion of African ancestry—patterns consistent with historical migration from different regions 2 7 .
Broad categories mask important health implications. The study found that within the socially constructed "African" category, those with West African ancestry were predisposed to higher BMI, while those with East African ancestry were predisposed to lower BMI—differences that would be missed using broad racial classifications 7 .
The researchers concluded unequivocally: "Race and ethnicity are poor proxies for genetic ancestry; therefore, biomedical research should adjust directly for ancestries estimated from genetic data rather than relying on self-identified race or ethnicity" 7 .
| Finding | Example | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Within-group diversity | 85-90% of genetic variation occurs within racial groups | Racial categories explain little about individual genetics |
| Geographic patterns | Hispanic/Latino ancestry varies significantly by U.S. state | Historical migrations shape genetic landscape |
| Health relevance | BMI predisposition differences within African ancestry | Broad categories can mask medically relevant information |
| Category limitations | Socially defined Latinos don't map neatly to genetic ancestry | Social and genetic classifications capture different realities |
Define and justify: Researchers should clearly define population categories and explain why they're necessary for the specific research question 3 .
Use precise language: Terms like race, ethnicity, and ancestry shouldn't be used interchangeably without clarification 6 .
Prioritize self-identification: When collecting data, individuals should be allowed to self-identify using well-defined categories 4 .
Include genetic ancestry estimates: When genetic factors are relevant, researchers should use genetic ancestry estimation rather than relying solely on social categories 7 .
Acknowledge complexity: Research should acknowledge the multidimensional nature of identity, including socioeconomic factors, education, and environmental influences 4 .
Diversify databases: Efforts must expand beyond European ancestry populations to ensure research benefits all groups 5 .
Discuss implications: Articles should address potential social and ethical implications of population-based genetic findings 3 .
Essential tools and approaches for conducting genetics research with appropriate attention to population descriptors
Estimates biogeographical ancestry from genetic data. Provides more objective population reference than social categories.
Identifies patterns of genetic similarity in datasets. Reveals actual genetic relationships beyond social categories.
Genomic databases from diverse global populations. Improves accuracy of ancestry estimation for all groups.
Guidelines for recording and reporting population data. Increases reproducibility and comparability across studies.
Estimates proportion of ancestry from different populations. Important for studying populations with complex migration histories.
Involving communities in research design and implementation. Ensures ethical approaches and culturally appropriate methods.
The journey to refine how genetics research accounts for human diversity is far from over. As one researcher aptly noted, we're moving toward "a subtler, more well-considered examination and articulation of relationships between race and genetic variation" 7 . This isn't merely an academic debate—it has real consequences for how we understand health and disease, develop medications, and address health disparities.
The tension between recognizing the social realities of race while rejecting its biological validity represents one of the most challenging frontiers in modern genetics. What emerges clearly from the research is that precision in our language must be matched by precision in our scientific methods. The categories we use shape the questions we ask, the analyses we conduct, and the conclusions we draw.
As genetic databases grow more diverse and analytical methods more sophisticated, we're learning to appreciate human diversity in all its complexity—not as a set of neat boxes to check, but as a continuous tapestry of variation with profound implications for medicine and our understanding of what it means to be human. The future of genetics lies not in rejecting categorization entirely, but in developing more nuanced, transparent, and responsible approaches that acknowledge both the biological and social dimensions of human diversity.
Moving beyond simplistic categories toward multidimensional approaches that respect both genetic reality and social context.
References to be populated manually based on citation requirements.