Micah Reed HysongFor centuries, race has been used to classify and divide people, often under the false belief that it is rooted in biology. But does science actually support the idea of distinct human races? Modern genetics tells a different story—one that challenges long-held assumptions and reveals race as a social construct rather than a biological fact.
Race: A Changing Idea
If race were based on biology, it would stay the same everywhere and throughout history. But that’s not the case. In the past, different societies have defined race in very different ways. For example, in 19th-century America, Irish immigrants were not considered to be White, but instead a separate, inferior race. In the early 1900s, Jewish people in Europe and the U.S. were classified as a separate race and faced discrimination based on supposed biological differences. In apartheid-era South Africa, officials used peculiar assessments, like sticking a pencil in someone’s hair to see if it would stay, to determine a person’s race.
These shifting definitions show that race is not a fixed, objective biological reality but a fluid concept shaped by historical, cultural, and political forces.
What Does Modern Science Say?
Genetic research continues to confirm what many historians and sociologists already knew: race is a social construct, not a biological fact. Not only do all humans share 99.9% of their DNA, but there is also more genetic diversity within racial groups than between them!
So, what about ancestry? While race is used as a social label, genetic ancestry can be used to trace where someone’s ancestors lived thousands of years ago. But ancestry does not neatly align with racial categories. For example, Black Americans have about 30% European ancestry on average, and American populations who self-identify as Middle Eastern/North African are more genetically similar to European ancestry reference populations than African reference populations.
Some genetic traits are more common in certain ancestral groups because of adaptation to environmental pressures. For example, populations with ancestry closer to the equator tend to have more melanated skin to protect against higher UV exposure. Another example is the Duffy-Null variant, a genetic trait that provides protection against malaria and is associated with lower white blood cell counts. This variant is particularly common among individuals whose ancestors lived in regions where malaria was prevalent, such as sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Oceania, and South America. However, despite its high frequency in some populations and rarity in others, race remains an unreliable predictor of who carries the Duffy-Null variant or experiences its associated effects on blood cell counts.
In reality, human genetic variation exists on a continuum, without clear-cut boundaries between populations. Attempting to divide this diversity into distinct groups based on a few physical traits oversimplifies the complexity of human genetics and is not supported by scientific evidence.
How Scientists got it Wrong
If we have scientific evidence that race isn’t based on genetics, why do so many people still believe it is? The answer lies in history.
Race was created to divide people and justify inequality. In the past, some scientists used biased research approaches and flawed experiments to try to “prove” that certain racial groups were superior to others. These racist ideas were used to justify slavery, colonization, and discrimination. Even today, the false belief that race is biological continues to influence medicine, criminal justice, and other areas of life.
But modern genetics makes it clear: racial categorization is not a biological reality. It is a story we’ve been told for centuries, but one that science is desperately trying to rewrite.
Peer Editor: Erin McNell
Art by: davide bonazzi/salzmanart
