We begin with a typology of Americans’ understanding of the links between genetic inheritance and racial or ethnic groups. The typology has two dimensions: one running from genetic determinism to social construction, and the other from technology optimism to technology pessimism. Construing each dimension as a dichotomy enables four distinct political perspectives on the possibilities for reducing racial inequality in the United States through genomics. We then use a new public opinion survey to analyze Americans’ use of the typology. Survey respondents who perceive that some phenotypes are more prevalent in one group than another due to genetic factors are disproportionately technology optimists. Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to hold that set of views, as are self-identified blacks, whites, and Latinos. The article discusses the findings and speculates about alternative interpretations of the fact that partisanship and group identity do not differentiate Americans in their views of the links between genetic inheritance and racial inequality.
BantonMichael. 1998. Racial theories. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BinderAmy. 2002. Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and creationism in American public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BlissCatherine. 2012. Race decoded: The genomic fight for social justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
ByrdW. CarsonHugheyMatthew. 2015. Overview of special issue on “Race, racial inequality, and biological determinism in the genetic and genomic era.”The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
5.
CarneyDanaJostJohnGoslingSamuelPotterJeff. 2008. The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology29 (6): 807–40.
6.
CrowJames. 2002. Unequal by nature: A geneticist’s perspective on human differences. Daedalus: 131 (1): 81–88.
7.
de CrévecoeurJ. Hector St. John. 1782/1981. Letters from an American farmer and sketches of eighteenth-century America. New York, NY: Penguin Classics.
8.
DusterTroy. 2003. Backdoor to eugenics. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
EggerM.SmithG. D.1998. Bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal316 (7124): 61–66.
10.
EpsteinSteven. 2007. Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
FredricksonGeorge. 1987. The black image in the white mind: The debate on Afro-American character and destiny, 1817–1914. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
12.
FullwileyDuana. 2007. The molecularization of race: Institutionalizing human difference in pharmacogenetics practice. Science as Culture16 (1): 1–30.
13.
GarretsonJeremiahSuhayElizabeth. 2014. How motivated reception of scientific communication polarizes the public: Biological attributions for homosexuality and the politics of gay rights. Working Paper. Washington, DC: American University, Department of Government.
14.
GauchatGordon. 2012. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77 (2): 167–87.
15.
GoodmanAlanHeathDeborahLindeeM. Susan, eds. 2003. Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
GrantMadison. 1916. The passing of the great race; or, the racial basis of European history. New York, NY: C. Scribner.
17.
GuoGuangFuYilanLeeHedwigCaiTianjiHarrisKathleen MullanLiYi. 2014. Genetic bio-ancestry and social construction of racial classification in social surveys in the contemporary United States. Demography51 (1): 141–72.
18.
HazlettAbigailMoldenDanielSackettAaron. 2011. Hoping for the best or preparing for the worst: Regulatory focus and preferences for optimism and pessimism in predicting personal outcomes. Social Cognition29 (1): 74–96.
19.
HerrnsteinRichardMurrayCharles. 1996. The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.
20.
HirschmanAlbert. 1991. The rhetoric of reaction: Perversity, futility, jeopardy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
HochschildJenniferSenMaya. Forthcoming. Americans’ attitudes on racial or genetic inheritance: Which is more predictive? In Reconsidering race: Social science and racial categories in the age of genomics, eds. SuzukiKazukovon VacanoDiego. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
KahnJonathan. 2012. The troubling persistence of race in pharmacogenomics. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics40 (4): 873–85.
23.
KorichevaJulia. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: A burden or a blessing in disguise?Oikos102 (2): 397–401.
24.
KyzasPanayiotisDenaxa-KyzaDespinaIoannidisJohn. 2007. Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. European Journal of Cancer43 (17): 2559–79.
25.
LevinAlbertWangYunWellsKarenPadhukasahasramBadriYangJamesBurchardEstebanWilliamsL. Keoki. 2014. Nocturnal asthma and the importance of race/ethnicity and genetic ancestry. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine190 (3): 266–73.
26.
LijphartArend. 1977. Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
27.
MiguelE.CamererC.CaseyK.CohenJ.EsterlingK. M.GerberA.GennersterR.GreenD. P.HumphriesM.ImbensG.. 2014. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science343 (6166): 30–31.
28.
MontaguAshley. 1942/1997. Man’s most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
29.
MooneyChris. 2005. The Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.
30.
MooreDavid. 2015. The developing genome: An introduction to behavioral epigenetics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
MorningAnn. 2011. The nature of race: How scientists think and teach about human difference. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
32.
National Institutes of Health. 2002. Strategic research plan and budget to reduce and ultimately eliminate health disparities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from http://www.nimhd.nih.gov/documents/VolumeI_031003EDrev.pdf.
33.
RischNeilBurchardEstebanZivEladTangHua. 2002. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: Genes, race, and disease. Genome Biology3 (7): comment2007.1–comment2007.12.
34.
RobertsDorothy. 2011. Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: New Press.
35.
RosenthalRobert. 1979. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86 (3): 638–41.
36.
RotimiCharles. 2004. Are medical and nonmedical uses of large-scale genomic markers conflating genetics and “race”?Nature Genetics36 (11): 543–47.
37.
SankarPamelaChoMildredConditCelesteHuntLindaKoenigBarbaraMarshallPatriciaLeeSandra Soo-JinSpicerPaul. 2004. Genetic research and health disparities. JAMA291 (24): 2985–89.
38.
ShiaoJiannbin LeeBodeThomasBeyerAmberSelvigDaniel. 2012. The genomic challenge to the social construction of race. Sociological Theory30 (2): 67–88.
39.
SIGMA Type 2 Diabetes Consortium. 2014. Sequence variants in Slc16a11 are a common risk factor for type 2 diabetes in Mexico. Nature506 (February): 97–101.
40.
SimonsRonaldLeiMan KitBeachStevenBrodyGenePhilibertRobertGibbonsFrederick. 2011. Social environment, genes, and aggression: Evidence supporting the differential susceptibility perspective. American Sociological Review76 (6): 883–912.
41.
SternbergRobertGrigorenkoElenaKiddKenneth. 2005. Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist60 (1): 46–59.
42.
SuhayElizabethJayaratneToby. 2012. Does biology justify ideology? The politics of genetic attribution. Public Opinion Quarterly77 (2): 497–521.
43.
UrbanD.HobanT.1997. Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology. Scientometrics40 (2): 299–331.
44.
WadeNicholas. 2014. A troublesome inheritance: Genes, race and human history. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
