How Science Is Dismantling a Dangerous Myth
A startling truth emerges from modern genetics: Two people from Ethiopia and Namibia will be more genetically different from each other than either is from a white European or a Japanese individual 4 . Yet historically, we've lumped them together under the label "Black." This contradiction lies at the heart of one of science's most urgent reckonings: the persistent reification of race—treating a social construct as if it were biological reality—and its dangerous legacy in research and medicine.
The term "racecraft" describes the process by which societal beliefs transmute race into a seemingly natural category. Like witchcraft, it operates through unspoken cultural rituals—such as mapping racial categories onto facial features in psychological studies. Researchers often use stereotypical phenotypes (e.g., "East Asian" eyes or "African" nose shapes) as proxies for race, reinforcing the illusion that racial boundaries are biologically discrete 5 . This practice ignores immense genetic diversity within groups and historical mixing. For example:
Modern racial classification traces back to Carl Linnaeus, the 18th-century botanist who categorized humans into four "types" (Asiaticus, Americanus, Africanus, Europeaus) and assigned them behavioral traits. Africanus was labeled "lazy" and "crafty," while Europeaus was "inventive" and "governed by laws" 4 . These hierarchies became embedded in scientific discourse, enabling centuries of eugenics and discrimination.
Reification occurs when socially constructed categories (like race) are treated as immutable biological facts. In medicine, this leads to flawed practices:
In 2025, the NIH's All of Us Genomic Cohort Study analyzed 200,000+ genomes to test whether self-reported race aligns with genetic ancestry. The results shattered conventional wisdom 1 .
Diverse U.S. volunteers provided DNA and self-identified racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Used SNP microarrays to trace biogeographical ancestry (e.g., West African, Indigenous American).
Compared traits like BMI across genetic clusters within socially defined groups.
Examined how ancestry distributions vary regionally (e.g., Latinos in Florida vs. California).
| Self-Reported Race | Avg. Genetic Ancestry Variation | Key Ancestral Components |
|---|---|---|
| "Black" | 40% West African, 5–60% European | Nigerian, Congolese, British |
| "Latino" | 35% European, 30% Indigenous, 20% African | Spanish, Maya, Senegambian |
| "White" | 95% European, 5% Non-European | Irish, Italian, Levantine |
| Trait | Correlation with Social Race | Correlation with Genetic Ancestry |
|---|---|---|
| BMI | Weak (R²=0.18) | Strong (R²=0.73) |
| Diabetes Risk | Moderate (R²=0.32) | High (R²=0.89) |
Crucially, BMI patterns defied racial groupings: West African ancestry correlated with higher BMI, while East African ancestry correlated with lower BMI—even among individuals who identified as "Black" 1 . This highlights how social categories obscure medically relevant genetic diversity.
To avoid reifying race, researchers use precise molecular tools that replace broad racial proxies with measurable biological variables. Below are key reagents and methods:
| Reagent/Method | Function | Example Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| SNP Microarrays | Detects ancestry-informative markers | Mapping biogeographical ancestry 1 |
| PCR Cellular Reagents | Amplifies DNA without cold storage | Field-deployable genetic analysis |
| CRISPR Guide RNAs | Targets specific gene variants | Studying trait prevalence across populations |
| Fehling's Reagent | Tests for glucose in urine | Diabetes screening (avoids race-based diagnostics) 2 |
| SDS-PAGE Gels | Separates proteins by size | Validating enzyme expression in cellular reagents |
Innovations like cellular reagents—dried bacteria engineered to express enzymes like Taq polymerase—enable portable, low-cost DNA analysis. This democratizes precision medicine in resource-limited settings .
Even well-intentioned studies can be weaponized. The NIH's All of Us paper faced political censorship; after authors stated "race is a social construct," an HHS review blocked their communications 1 . Meanwhile, conservatives misrepresented the study to argue for "more granular racial categories"—a false compromise that still biologizes race 1 .
Leading geneticists like Charles Rotimi (NIH) argue: "Race is the wrong way to think about disease risk. We must characterize people individually" 1 . Key shifts include:
A Cultural Shift
As historian Jonathan Kahn notes, studies like All of Us provide "a template to disentangle socially volatile concepts from biology" 1 . This isn't "woke science"—it's rigorous science dismantling centuries of bias.
Race has biological consequences (through racism's impact on health) but no biological basis. By retiring racial reification, science can finally address health disparities at their roots—in social injustice, not imagined genetic hierarchies.