ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2025
Impediments to countering racist pseudoscience.
Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EHS editorial 2025.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- Erratum: Impediments to countering racist pseudoscience - CORRIGENDUM.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although virtually all academics who study human 'race' agree that it is a social construct, members of the general public still commonly regard 'race' as a biological property (i.e. they think that 'races' are genetically distinct). Even though empirical data from genetics and other fields do not support biological conceptions of race, this erroneous viewpoint is widely held, suggesting that there are impediments to effective communication of the relevant science. Here, we suggest five such impediments: (1) belief in genetic determinism, together with an over-reliance on an essentialist view of human groups, (2) overly simplistic interpretation of biological inheritance, (3) belief in the naturalistic fallacy and the associated naturalization of non-biological variation among racialized groups, (4) failure of the academic and educational communities to take responsibility for teaching the science of 'race' and racism, and (5) apologism towards racist founders of academic fields, including the evolutionary sciences. We address how and why each of these factors supports the spread of racism and suggest strategies for containing this spread.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.