Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707931›Full record

ArticleThe Hastings Center report2024

Confronting the "Weaponization" of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere.

Aaron Panofsky, Kushan Dasgupta, Nicole Iturriaga, Bernard Koch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Hastings Center report, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Impediments to countering racist pseudoscience.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Aaron Panofsky
Kushan Dasgupta
Nicole Iturriaga
Bernard Koch

Funding

Appropriation, Adaptation, and Political Mobilization of Genomics Research R21HG010258 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI PANOFSKY, AARON · 2018 to 2019
$429k
Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement 2124685NHGRI NIH HHS R21 HG010258the Carnegie Corporationthe National Science Foundation 1322299the UCLA Initiative for the Study of Hatethe University of California
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomics research is regularly appropriated in social and political contexts to publicly legitimize unjust and malicious political views, policies, and actions. In recent years, there have been high-profile cases of mass shooters, public intellectuals, and political insiders using genomics findings to convince audiences that deadly force and coercive policies against racial minorities are warranted. To create a just genomics, geneticists must consider what makes their research so attractive and adaptable for the legitimization of unjust ends and what they can do to counter such appropriations. We offer insights and recommendations drawing from our research into the many ways online white nationalist and far-right political movements mobilize genetics research to promote their racist, sexist, antisemitic, and homophobic views. First, geneticists should identify and change routine research practices that feed eugenic thinking. Second, geneticists should adopt creative extra-scholarly communication efforts to counter the use of their field's research that occurs in nonscholarly spaces. Third, we identify permissive epistemological and professional practices within the genetics field that have enabled such unjust appropriations to thrive, and we recommend strategies for institutional reform.

Indexed as

PoliticsRacismEugenicsGenetic ResearchGenomicsHumansbioethicscounterscienceepistemic cultureeugenicsevidentiary culturegenomicsmisappropriationmisinformationpropagandascience communicationscientific racismweaponization

Identifiers

PMID39707931
PMCPMC11784919

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.