No well-meaning researcher expects their work to be used to justify violence. But after the racist massacre of 10 black people in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, on May 14, one of us experienced just that. We join other researchers in condemning any use of genetics to justify racism or hatred.
In a confusing 180-page text published on the Internet just before the shooting, it seems that the shooter from Buffalo writes in such a way as to imitate an academic monograph. He cites recent developments in human molecular genetics to falsely claim that there are innate biological differences between races in an attempt to confirm his hateful view of the white world. While the misuse of science to support intolerance is not new, this latest crime is another call to awaken geneticists and the scientific community as a whole to consider how we implement and transmit science - and how we can do these things better.
Let’s correct the science record first. In his document, Sagittarius distorts many scientific studies, including the findings of a genetic study from 2018, co-authored by one of us (Vedov), to try to “prove” that whites have a genetic intellectual advantage over blacks. The study from 2018, quoted by the shooter, aimed to find genetic variations related to the years of completed schooling and knowledge. He collected DNA from a million people of predominantly European estimated genetic origin and attempted to identify genetic variants correlated with outcomes such as years of schooling and cognitive performance. It is important that the genetic variants identified in this study, as well as any genomic study of complex outcome, depend on time and context. At other times, place and social structure, different sets of variants could appear to be statistically related. Genes do not determine one individual to complete fewer years of schooling than another or one person to score higher on a cognitive performance test than another. A 2018 study concluded that the environment plays a significant role in shaping these outcomes.
The Sagittarius document vaguely extracts data from a 2018 study, combining it with another genetic study to present statistical artifacts to substantiate the shooter’s false claims. If the initial study was instead done on a million individuals of estimated African genetic origin, then based on his wrong exercise, the shooter could conclude that blacks have a genetic intellectual advantage over white people. Even if we leave aside the inaccurate and dangerous fusion of genetic origin and race, the Sagittarius argument is just a bad, completely wrong science. There is absolutely no evidence that there are genetic differences in cognitive performance between racial, ethnic or genetic groups of ancestors.
Although the 2018 genomic study makes no claim about genetic differences between racial groups, or any group in that sense, the results of the study do not prevent others from constructing alternative realities. The buffalo shooter is one of many people who have appropriated genetic studies; he probably did not come to his own interpretation of vacuum research. Instead, it is part of a long, dark and violent history. Genetics has been used over and over again in the service of white supremacy. Failure to place the Sagittarius document in this broader context makes it too easy for the scientific community to point the finger elsewhere.
All of us scientists could view the 2018 study as nothing more than an unfortunate choice of weapon for a domestic terrorist driven by delusions instead of facts. However, this allows for a level of moral separation that will no longer diminish it. We live in an age of mistrust, misinformation and deep polarization. Researchers cannot assume that the rigor and repeatability of their research will withstand this storm, or lead to a unified interpretation. As difficult as it may be, and it will certainly be challenging, scientists need to consider their moral responsibility as the producer of this research. Otherwise, we are left with the delusion that science can speak for itself.
Ethical scientific research requires a delicate weighing of risks and benefits. When this measurement occurs, the risks to the individual are included in the equation, but broader risks to society are rare. The scientific community is encouraged to leave the responsibility to existing regulations and audit committees to carry out these calculations. Any research involving human participants must be approved by the Institutional Review Board (RBI), and researchers working with human subjects in the U.S. are subject to federal policies such as the Common Rule. However, these safeguards alone cannot ensure that research maximizes benefits and minimizes harm. There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that explicitly affect the social risks of research. In fact, RBIs are prohibited from considering broader social impacts, focusing only on individual-level risks.
Most genomic studies do not go through extensive assessments of potential risks and benefits. These studies use deidentified genomic data - meaning data that is not related to a name or other recognizable characteristic - and are therefore not considered research on human subjects. These studies do not usually require RBI approval, nor are they subject to the general rule. Although there is minimal direct risk for individual participants who donate their DNA to these studies, the results and communication of what comes from their DNA can clearly affect real people in the real world.
We are not advocating academic censorship here. Scientists cannot and should not be expected to anticipate every possible risk or misuse of their research. That burden is too great for one community. Yet, as the killer’s document illustrates, minimizing one’s responsibility to mitigate social risks in relation to a research group does not make those risks go away.
Scientists who are funded by taxpayer dollars have the task of discovering the truth and innovating in order to support the prosperity of all people. To achieve this goal, it is time to rethink how we weigh the risks and benefits of research. For example, what if we encouraged future generations of scientists to prioritize the social risks of their work in the same way that they have a scientific impact? What if funding agencies, which help guide the flow of research by deciding when and what to fund, routinely require researchers to develop plans to mitigate potential societal risks? And what if we taught genetics in schools in a way that reflects real human variation, instead of erroneously reflecting determinism?
Complications of scientific interpretation can have unintended consequences. The cost of continuing as it is is simply too high.
This is an article about opinion and analysis, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those Scientific American.