Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32986847›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of physical anthropology2021

How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics.

Aaron Panofsky, Kushan Dasgupta, Nicole Iturriaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of physical anthropology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Principles and Policy Recommendations for Comprehensive Genetic Data Governance.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · 2025
    Article
  8. Impediments to countering racist pseudoscience.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Geneticization of Education and Its Bioethical Implications.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2024
    Article
  13. How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science.The Hastings Center report · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Feminist retroviruses to white Sharia: Gender "science fan fiction" on 4Chan.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024
    Article
  16. Slavery and Its Afterlives in US Psychiatry.American journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  17. The Legal Uncertainties of Sociogenomic Polygenic Scores.Harvard journal of law & technology · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aaron PanofskyUCLA Institute for Society and Genetics, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7666-2359
Kushan DasguptaUCLA Institute for Society and Genetics, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Nicole IturriagaMax Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Gottingen, Niedersachsen, Germany.

Funding

Appropriation, Adaptation, and Political Mobilization of Genomics Research R21HG010258 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI PANOFSKY, AARON · 2018 to 2019
$429k
NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG010258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur aim in this study was to understand how genetics ideas are appropriated and mobilized online toward the political projects of White nationalism and the alt right. Studying three different online venues, we investigated how genetics is used to support racial realism, hereditarianism, and racial hierarchy. We analyzed how these ideas are connected to political and metapolitical projects. In addition, we examined the strategies used to build authority for these interpretations.

methodsWe analyze three online venues in which genetics has been mobilized to advance racial realism and hereditarian explanations of racial differences. These were (a) the use of genetic ancestry tests in online nationalist discussions, (b) blogs and other venues in which the human biodiversity ideas are articulated, (c) activities surrounding the OpenPsych collection of online journals. Ethnographic and interpretive methods were applied to investigate scientific and political meanings of efforts to mobilize genetic ideas.

resultsWe found that White nationalists use genetic ancestry tests to align White identity with ideas of racial purity and diversity, educating each other about genetics, and debating the boundaries of Whiteness. "Human biodiversity" has been mobilized as a movement to catalog and create hereditarian ideas about racial differences and to distribute them as "red pills" to transform online discourse. The OpenPsych journals have allowed amateur hereditarian psychologists to publish papers, coordinate activity, and legitimate their project at the academic margins.

conclusionsThese various appropriations of genetics aim to further racial realism and hereditarian explanations of racial social and behavioral differences. Beyond these substantive aims, on a "metapolitical" level, they serve to reframe concepts and standards for political and scientific discussion of race, challenge structures of academic legitimacy and expertise, and build a cadre of ideological foot soldiers armed with an argumentative toolkit. As professional anthropologists and geneticists aim to accurately communicate their science and its implications for understanding human differences to the public, they must contend with these substantive claims and metapolitical contexts.

Indexed as

Anthropology, PhysicalHuman GeneticsRacismScienceWhite PeopleBiodiversityHumansPolitical Systemsalt-right ideologypublic understanding of scienceracescientific racism

Identifiers

PMID32986847
PMCPMC9909835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.