How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics

Feminist retroviruses to white Sharia: Gender "science fan fiction" on 4Chan

This article demonstrates-based on an interpretive discourse analysis of three types of memes (Rabid Feminists, Women's Bodies, Policy Ideas) and secondary thread discourse on 4chan's "Politically Incorrect" discussion board-two key findings: (1) the existence of a gendered hate based scientific discourse, "science fan fiction," in online spaces and (2) how gender "science fan fiction" is an outcome of the male supremacist cosmology, by producing and justifying resentment against white women as being both inherently untrustworthy (politically, sexually, intellectually) and dangerous. This perspective-which combines hatred and distrust of women with white nationalist anxieties about demographic shifts, racial integrity, and sexuality-then motivates misogynist policy ideas including total domination of women or their removal. 4chan users employ this discourse to "scientifically" substantiate claims of white male supremacy, the fundamental untrustworthiness of white women, and to argue white women's inherent threat to white male supremacist goals.

Race science without racists: how bigoted paradigms persist in allergy research

In the wake of the murder of George Floyd and the massacre in Buffalo, the editorial boards of the prominent scientific publication companies formally apologized for their journals' historical role in advancing race science and promised to improve their standards. However, flowery commentaries cannot undo the consistent pattern of endorsing biologic differences between ethnic groups, even when discussing diseases or traits that are not considered politically charged. In this report, an exemplar is made of a recent publication claiming to identify phenotypes of atopic dermatitis that are distinct between European Americans, Asians, and African Americans. The insufficiency of the evidence and logic underlying these claims are discussed. Although devoid of malice, numerous publications continue to demonstrate how claims of biological differences between races is mainstreamed in modern scientific publications. Overall, the goal of this work is to challenge the scientific community, particularly the publication companies, to evaluate how assumptions of innate biologic disadvantage have clouded assessments of racial disparities in disease beyond the topics that are more stereotypical of race science.

Typological thinking in human genomics research contributes to the production and prominence of scientific racism

Public genomic datasets like the 1000 Genomes project (1KGP), Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), and the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study are valuable public resources that facilitate scientific advancements in biology and enhance the scientific and economic impact of federally funded research projects. Regrettably, these datasets have often been developed and studied in ways that propagate outdated racialized and typological thinking, leading to fallacious reasoning among some readers that social and health disparities among the so-called races are due in part to innate biological differences between them. We highlight how this framing has set the stage for the racist exploitation of these datasets in two ways: First, we discuss the use of public biomedical datasets in studies that claim support for innate genetic differences in intelligence and other social outcomes between the groups identified as races. We further highlight recent instances of this which involve unauthorized access, use, and dissemination of public datasets. Second, we discuss the memification, use of simple figures meant for quick dissemination among lay audiences, of population genetic data to argue for a biological basis for purported human racial groups. We close with recommendations for scientists, to preempt the exploitation and misuse of their data, and for funding agencies, to better enforce violations of data use agreements.

The Landscape of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing in Reproductive Health Contexts: An Analytical Framework of Stakeholders and Their Competing Motivations

We propose a theoretical framework that identifies (a) the different categories of stakeholders and (b) the normative values that drive their attitudes toward direct-to-consumer genetic testing, with an emphasis on the reproductive health contexts. We conducted a literature search using varied combinations of search terms, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, decision-making, reproductive health, and policy. Using a grounded theory approach to existing literature and in combination with a narrative review, we present a systematic framework of five categories of stakeholders (i.e., genome-driven stakeholders, industry-driven stakeholders, history-driven stakeholders, value-driven stakeholders, and social justice-driven stakeholders) that shape the public's discourse. Moving beyond the dialectical ethics that have governed the public discourse, we also identify the normative values and interests that motivate different stakeholders' attitudes and decision-making through theoretical sampling under the grounded theory. We investigate the competing and conflicting values within the same category of stakeholders. For example, despite being industry-driven stakeholders, medical professionals' attitudes are driven by concerns about standards of care; in contrast, health insurance companies' concerns are centered on profit. We further explore the tensions between these stakeholders that impact their strategic alliances and pose challenges to the practices of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Finally, we examine how these stakeholders and their corresponding values may shape future development and policies of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the context of reproductive health.

Considerations, Caveats, and Suggestions for the Use of Polygenic Scores for Social and Behavioral Traits

Polygenic scores (PGS) are increasingly being used for prediction of social and behavioral traits, but suffer from many methodological, theoretical, and ethical concerns that profoundly limit their value. Primarily, these scores are derived from statistical correlations, carrying no inherent biological meaning, and thus may capture indirect effects. Further, the performance of these scores depends upon the diversity of the reference populations and the genomic panels from which they were derived, which consistently underrepresent minoritized populations, leading to poor fit when applied to diverse groups. There is also inherent danger of eugenic applications for the information gained from these scores, and general risk of misunderstandings that could lead to stigmatization for underrepresented groups. We urge extreme caution in use of PGS particularly for social/behavioral outcomes fraught for misinterpretation, with potential harm for the minoritized groups least likely to benefit from their use.

Advancing Diversity in Behavior Genetics: Strategies for Incorporating Undergraduates into Student-Driven Research

Undergraduate research experiences are crucial for fostering the next generation of behavior genetics researchers. However, incorporating undergraduates into research can be challenging for faculty mentors. In this article, we provide strategies for successfully integrating undergraduates into behavior genetics research based on our experiences mentoring undergraduates in our lab. These strategies include: (1) Practicing reflexivity, specifically an ongoing self-examination and critical self-awareness of personal biases, beliefs, and practices; (2) Implementing an Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) centered approach; (3) empowering students through clear expectations; (4) Providing focused training and mentorship; (5) Aligning research projects with student interests; (6) Assigning meaningful tasks; and (7) Facilitating professional development opportunities. By following these strategies, faculty mentors can cultivate a supportive and inclusive research environment that empowers undergraduates for successful careers in behavior genetics research.

Getting it right: Teaching undergraduate biology to undermine racial essentialism

How we teach human genetics matters for social equity. The biology curriculum appears to be a crucial locus of intervention for either reinforcing or undermining students' racial essentialist views. The Mendelian genetic models dominating textbooks, particularly in combination with racially inflected language sometimes used when teaching about monogenic disorders, can increase middle and high school students' racial essentialism and opposition to policies to increase equity. These findings are of particular concern given the increasing spread of racist misinformation online and the misappropriation of human genomics research by white supremacists, who take advantage of low levels of genetics literacy in the general public. Encouragingly, however, teaching updated information about the geographical distribution of human genetic variation and the complex, multifactorial basis of most human traits, reduces students' endorsement of racial essentialism. The genetics curriculum is therefore a key tool in combating misinformation and scientific racism. Here, we describe a framework and example teaching materials for teaching students key concepts in genetics, human evolutionary history, and human phenotypic variation at the undergraduate level. This framework can be flexibly applied in biology and anthropology classes and adjusted based on time availability. Our goal is to provide undergraduate-level instructors with varying levels of expertise with a set of evidence-informed tools for teaching human genetics to combat scientific racism, including an evolving set of instructional resources, as well as learning goals and pedagogical approaches. Resources can be found at https://noto.li/YIlhZ5. Additionally, we hope to generate conversation about integrating modern genetics into the undergraduate curriculum, in light of recent findings about the risks and opportunities associated with teaching genetics.

'Dysgenic fertility' is an ideological, not a scientific, concept. A Comment on: 'Stability and change in male fertility patterns by cognitive ability across 32 birth cohorts' (2023), by Bratsberg & Rogeberg

Recently Bratsberg & Rogeberg (2023) presented an analysis in Biology Letters of how cognitive ability is associated with fertility in Norwegian men. Our concern relates to the theoretical framework of this paper. The analysis is framed around the concept of 'dysgenic fertility', which is treated throughout as a scientific theory, but 'dysgenic fertility' is not science, it is an ideological concept.

Scientific supremacy: How do genetic narratives relate to racism?

Recent research suggests that contemporary American society is marked by heightened hostile racial rhetoric, alongside increasing salience of White nationalists who justify an ideology of racial hierarchy with claims of biological superiority. Media coverage of such genetics research has often emphasized a deterministic (or causal) narrative by suggesting that specific genes directly increase negative outcomes and highlighting reported genetic differences between racial groups. Across two experimental studies, we examine the effect of the media's portrayal of scientific findings linking genes with negative health and behavioral outcomes on measures of racism. We find that deterministic genetic attributions for health and behavioral outcomes can lead to more negative racial out-group attitudes. Importantly, we also investigate potential interventions in the presentation of genetic science research. Our research has implications for understanding racial attitudes and racialized ideology in contemporary American politics, as well as for framing scientific communication in intergroup contexts.

Toward an evolutionary ecology of (in)equality

Inequality is increasingly recognized as a major problem in contemporary society. The causes and consequences of inequality in wealth and power have long been central concerns in the social sciences, whereas comparable research in biology has focused on dominance and reproductive skew. This theme issue builds on these existing research traditions, exploring ways they might enrich each other, with evolutionary ecology as a possibly unifying framework. Contributors investigate ways in which inequality is resisted or avoided and developed or imposed in societies of past and contemporary humans, as well as a variety of social mammals. Particular attention is paid to systematic, socially driven inequality in wealth (defined broadly) and the effects this has on differential power, health, survival and reproduction. Analyses include field studies, simulations, archaeological and ethnographic case studies, and analytical models. The results reveal similarities and divergences between human and non-human patterns in wealth, power and social dynamics. We draw on these insights to present a unifying conceptual framework for analysing the evolutionary ecology of (in)equality, with the hope of both understanding the past and improving our collective future. This article is part of the theme issue 'Evolutionary ecology of inequality'.

Guidelines for genetic ancestry inference created through roundtable discussions

The use of genetic and genomic technology to infer ancestry is commonplace in a variety of contexts, particularly in biomedical research and for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. In 2013 and 2015, two roundtables engaged a diverse group of stakeholders toward the development of guidelines for inferring genetic ancestry in academia and industry. This report shares the stakeholder groups' work and provides an analysis of, commentary on, and views from the groundbreaking and sustained dialogue. We describe the engagement processes and the stakeholder groups' resulting statements and proposed guidelines. The guidelines focus on five key areas: application of genetic ancestry inference, assumptions and confidence/laboratory and statistical methods, terminology and population identifiers, impact on individuals and groups, and communication or translation of genetic ancestry inferences. We delineate the terms and limitations of the guidelines and discuss their critical role in advancing the development and implementation of best practices for inferring genetic ancestry and reporting the results. These efforts should inform both governmental regulation and self-regulation.

Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often-ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science-including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes-can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. SBG research that compares individuals within a group according to a "sensitive" phenotype requires extra attention to responsible conduct and to responsible communication about the research and its findings. SBG research (1) on sensitive phenotypes that (2) compares two or more groups defined by (a) race, (b) ethnicity, or (c) genetic ancestry (where genetic ancestry could easily be misunderstood as race or ethnicity) requires a compelling justification to be conducted, funded, or published. All authors agree that this justification at least requires a convincing argument that a study's design could yield scientifically valid results; some authors would additionally require the study to have a socially favorable risk-benefit profile.

Thinking Structurally: A Cognitive Framework for Understanding How People Attribute Inequality to Structural Causes

To make accurate causal inferences about social-group inequalities, people must consider structural causes. Structural causes are a distinct type of extrinsic cause-they are stable, interconnected societal forces that systematically advantage some social groups and disadvantage others. We propose a new cognitive framework to specify how people attribute inequality to structural causes. This framework is rooted in counterfactual theories of causal judgment and suggests that people will recognize structural factors as causal when they are perceived as "difference-making" for inequality above and beyond any intrinsic causes. Building on this foundation, our framework makes the following contributions. First, we propose specific types of evidence that support difference-making inferences about structural factors: within-group change (i.e., observing that disadvantaged groups' outcomes improve under better societal conditions) and well-matched between-group comparisons (i.e., observing that advantaged group members, who have similar baseline traits to the disadvantaged group, experience more favorable societal conditions and life outcomes). Second, we consider contextual, cognitive, and motivational barriers that may complicate the availability and acceptance of this evidence. We conclude by exploring how the framework might be applied in future research examining people's causal inferences about inequality.

Data sharing and community-engaged research

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Developmental behavioral genetics research on school achievement is missing vulnerable children, to our detriment

Gene-environment processes tell us how genetic predispositions and environments work together to influence children in schools. One type of gene-environment process that has been extensively studied using behavioral genetics methods is a gene-by-environment interaction. A gene-by-environment interaction shows us when the effect of your context on a phenotype differs depending on your genetic predispositions, or vice versa, when the effect of your genetic predispositions on a phenotype differs depending on your context. Developmental behavioral geneticists interested in children's school achievement have examined many different contexts within the gene-by-environment interaction model, including contexts measured from within children's home and school environments. However, this work has been overwhelmingly focused on WEIRD samples children, leaving us with non-inclusive scientific evidence. This can lead to detrimental outcomes when we overgeneralize this non-inclusive scientific evidence to racialized groups. We conclude with a call to include racialized children in more research samples.

Recommendations for Sustainable Ancient DNA Research in the Global South: Voices From a New Generation of Paleogenomicists

Paleogenomics - the study of ancient genomes - has made significant contributions, especially to our understanding of the evolutionary history of humans. This knowledge influx has been a direct result of the coupling of next-generation sequencing with improved methods for DNA recovery and analysis of ancient samples. The appeal of ancient DNA studies in the popular media coupled with the trend for such work to be published in “high impact” journals has driven the amassing of ancestral human remains from global collections, often with limited to no engagement or involvement of local researchers and communities. This practice in the paleogenomics literature has led to limited representation of researchers from the Global South at the research design and subsequent stages. Additionally, Indigenous and descendant communities are often alienated from popular and academic narratives that both involve and impact them, sometimes adversely. While some countries have safeguards against ‘helicopter science’, such as federally regulated measures to protect their biocultural heritage, there is variable oversight in others with regard to sampling and exportation of human remains for destructive research, and differing requirements for accountability or consultation with local researchers and communities. These disparities reveal stark contrasts and gaps in regional policies that lend themselves to persistent colonial practices. While essential critiques and conversations in this sphere are taking place, these are primarily guided through the lens of US-based heritage legislation such as the Native American Graves and Protection Act (NAGPRA). In this article, we aim to expand the scope of ongoing conversations by taking into account diverse regional contexts and challenges drawing from our own research experiences in the field of paleogenomics. We emphasize that true collaborations involve knowledge sharing, capacity building, mutual respect, and equitable participation, all of which take time and the implementation of sustainable research methods; amass-and-publish strategy is simply incompatible with this ethos.

Half a century later and we're back where we started: How the problem of locality turned in to the problem of portability

In the 1970s, Lewontin sparked a debate about a problem of locality, by making the case that any given heritability estimate is local to the original population and environment studied, and could not be generalized to other populations and environments. Nearly 50 years later, a new problem of portability has emerged: the predictive accuracy of polygenic scores diminishes when applied to populations whose characteristics are different from the original population sample. This paper briefly reviews the nature of each problem and analyzes their similarities and differences in three areas: 1) conceptual underpinnings, 2) causal explanations, and 3) practical, social, and political implications. Although conceptually and methodologically different from the problem of locality in important respects, the problem of portability facing contemporary genomics today should come as no surprise, as it is an inevitable outcome of the kinds of problematic inferences detailed by Lewontin nearly half a century ago.

Ending genetic essentialism through genetics education

Genetic concepts are regularly used in arguments about racial inequality. This review summarizes research about the relationship between genetics education and a particular form of racial prejudice known as genetic essentialism. Genetic essentialism is a cognitive form of prejudice that is used to rationalize inequality. Studies suggest that belief in genetic essentialism among genetics students can be increased or decreased based on what students learn about human genetics and why they learn it. Research suggests that genetics education does little to prevent the development of genetic essentialism, and it may even exacerbate belief in it. However, some forms of genetics education can avert this problem. In particular, if instructors teach genetics to help students understand the flaws in genetic essentialist arguments, then it is possible to reduce belief in genetic essentialism among biology students. This review outlines our knowledge about how to accomplish this goal and the research that needs to be done to end genetic essentialism through genetics education.

Race, Ethnicity, and the Scarr-Rowe Hypothesis: A Cautionary Example of Fringe Science Entering the Mainstream

In 2020, Pesta et al. published an article entitled "Racial and Ethnic Group Differences in the Heritability of Intelligence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" in the journal Intelligence. The authors framed their analysis as an examination of the Scarr-Rowe hypothesis, which holds that the heritability of intelligence varies as a function of socioeconomic status. Pesta et al. concluded that the heritability of intelligence does not differ across racial and ethnic groups in the United States. They claimed their results challenge the Scarr-Rowe hypothesis and support the hereditarian position that mean differences in IQ among racial and ethnic groups are attributable to genetic differences rather than environmental disparities. In this commentary, we outline severe theoretical, methodological, and rhetorical flaws in every step of Pesta et al.'s meta-analysis. The most reliable finding from Pesta et al. is consistent with the Scarr-Rowe hypothesis and directly contradicts a hereditarian understanding of group differences in intelligence. Finally, we suggest that Pesta et al. serves as an example of how racially motivated and poorly executed work can find its way into a mainstream scientific journal, underscoring the importance of robust peer review and rigorous editorial judgment in the open-science era.

The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform

In 1992, Norm Sauer called for a language shift in which practitioners would move away from the socially loaded term "race" and replace it with the less provocative term "ancestry." While many heeded the call and moved towards ancestry in their research and reports, the actual approach to research and analysis did not change. In response to this change, there was a large growth in ancestry estimation method development in the early decade of the 2000s. However, the practice of ancestry estimation did not adequately incorporate evolutionary theory in interpretation or trait selection and continued with little critical reflection. In the past decade, there has been an increase in ancestry validation methods with little critique of the "race" concept or discussion of modern human variation or reference samples. To advance, forensic anthropologists need to reckon with the practice of ancestry estimation as it is currently practiced. We are calling for another reform in the axiom focusing on evolutionary theory, population history, trait selection, and population-level reference samples. The practice needs to abandon the terms ancestry and race completely and recalibrate to an analysis of population affinity. Population affinity is a statistical approach based on the underlying population structure that would allow the understanding of how microevolutionary forces act in concert with historical events (e.g., colonization, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, etc.) to shape modern human variation. This is not to be confused with geographic ancestry that all too often can be perceived as interchangeable with social race and as an affirmation of the biological concept of race. It is time to critically evaluate the social and scientific implications of the current practice of ancestry estimation, and re-frame our approach to studying and analyzing modern human variation through a population structure approach.

Application of the community dialogues method to identify ethical values and priorities related to pharmacogenomics

Given the expansion of genetics in medicine, there is a growing need to develop approaches to engage patients in understanding how genetics affects their health. Various qualitative methods have been applied to gain a deeper understanding of patient perspectives in topics related to genetics. Community dialogues (CD) are a bi-directional research method that invites community members to discuss a pertinent, challenging topic over the course of a multi-week period and the community members openly discuss their positions on the topic. Authors discuss the first application of the CD method to the topic of pharmacogenetics testing. Additional CD are needed to engage diverse participant populations on this topic to improve genetics literacy, enhance physician engagement and drive policy change.