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 Regrettably, these datasets have often been developed and studied in ways that propagate outdated racialized and typological thinking, leading to fallacious reasoning among some readers that social and health disparities among the so-called races are due in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 Effect of Biracial Status and Color on Crystallized Intelligence in the U.S.-Born African–European American Population

The relationship between biracial status, color, and crystallized intelligence was examined in a nationally representative sample of adult Black and White Americans. First, it was found that self-identifying biracial individuals, who were found to be intermediate in color and in self-reported ancestry, had intermediate levels of crystallized intelligence relative to self-identifying White (mostly European ancestry) and Black (mostly sub-Saharan African ancestry) Americans. The results were transformed to an IQ scale: White (M = 100.00, N = 7569), primarily White–biracial (M = 96.07, N = 43, primarily Black–biracial (M = 94.14 N = 50), and Black (M = 89.81, N = 1381). Next, among self-identifying African Americans, a statistically significant negative correlation of r = −0.102 (N = 637) was found between interviewer-rated darker facial color and vocabulary scores. After correction for the reliability of the measures, this correlation increased to r = −0.21. Corrections for the validity of color as an index of African ancestry would raise this correlation to around r = −0.48. This association among self-identifying African Americans was not accounted for by confounding factors, such as region of residence and interviewer race, or by parental socioeconomic status and individual educational attainment. In the multivariate models, the standardized betas for color and crystallized intelligence among African Americans ranged from β = −0.112 to β = −0.142. Based on the coefficients from the multivariate analysis, it was further found that cognitive ability was a significant mediator in the context of color and education, while education was not in the context of color and cognitive ability. It is concluded that these results further substantiate the statistical relation between intelligence and biogeographic ancestry in African and European American populations.

The Effect of Biracial Status and Color on Crystallized Intelligence in the U.S.-Born African–European American Population

The relationship between biracial status, color, and crystallized intelligence was examined in a nationally representative sample of adult Black and White Americans. First, it was found that self-identifying biracial individuals, who were found to be intermediate in color and in self-reported ancestry, had intermediate levels of crystallized intelligence relative to self-identifying White (mostly European ancestry) and Black (mostly sub-Saharan African ancestry) Americans. The results were transformed to an IQ scale: White (M = 100.00, N = 7569), primarily White–biracial (M = 96.07, N = 43, primarily Black–biracial (M = 94.14 N = 50), and Black (M = 89.81, N = 1381). Next, among self-identifying African Americans, a statistically significant negative correlation of r = −0.102 (N = 637) was found between interviewer-rated darker facial color and vocabulary scores. After correction for the reliability of the measures, this correlation increased to r = −0.21. Corrections for the validity of color as an index of African ancestry would raise this correlation to around r = −0.48. This association among self-identifying African Americans was not accounted for by confounding factors, such as region of residence and interviewer race, or by parental socioeconomic status and individual educational attainment. In the multivariate models, the standardized betas for color and crystallized intelligence among African Americans ranged from β = −0.112 to β = −0.142. Based on the coefficients from the multivariate analysis, it was further found that cognitive ability was a significant mediator in the context of color and education, while education was not in the context of color and cognitive ability. It is concluded that these results further substantiate the statistical relation between intelligence and biogeographic ancestry in African and European American populations.