Return of the race myth?
By Osagie K. Obasogie,
New Scientist
| 07. 01. 2009
As the 20th-century world recoiled from the horrors of Nazi Germany and the eugenics movement, we learned how economic, political and social circumstances produced the racial differences that science had once claimed to be "natural". Race came to be recognised as a social construct - an aspect of social choices rather than a reflection of biological differences between racial groups.
The constructionist thesis gained popularity after the second world war and encouraged advances in civil and human rights for racial minorities. And with the Human Genome Project finding in 2000 that all humans are more than 99 per cent alike, many thought genomics would put the final nail in the race coffin.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral. Shortly after the HGP's finding, several research projects began focusing on mapping this less than 1 per cent of human genetic variation onto social categories of race.
This small variation reflects millions of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), some of which may loosely correlate with geography. Yet the resilience of linking such differences and disparities to biological mechanisms...
Related Articles
By Darren Incorvaia, Fierce Biotech | 07.16.2026
Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., the Nobel Laureate best known for co-inventing the CRISPR system that has become the foundation for gene editing, is dipping her toes into a new, buzzy field: AI-powered protein design.
In a new paper, published today...
By Risa Cromer, The Conversation | 07.17.2026
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...