“Yet the Problem Remains”: Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research

After the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post-war population geneticists sought to establish rhetorical distance from the Nazi's state-led campaigns, without abandoning their belief that actively shaping the population's genetics would produce a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well-intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting "genes matter" without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioethics
Published
2026-03-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70102
Primary Topic
Medical History and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

“Yet the Problem Remains”: Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research

Christopher Donohue, Ian A. Myles
Bioethics
Medical History and Research
article

“Yet the Problem Remains”: Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research

Christopher Donohue, Ian A. Myles
article en

Abstract

After the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post-war population geneticists sought to establish rhetorical distance from the Nazi's state-led campaigns, without abandoning their belief that actively shaping the population's genetics would produce a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well-intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting "genes matter" without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.

Bioethics
National Institutes of Health (US), University of California, Irvine (US), National Human Genome Research Institute (US), Irvine University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Medical History and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.