"Yet the Problem Remains": Why Genetic Determinism Still Haunts Biomedical Research.

After the horrors of the Holocaust and the full scope and significance of eugenics campaigns were revealed to the world, many eugenicists experienced a crisis of reputation rather than a crisis of conscience. One prominent eugenicist, Robert Cook, who for many years was editor of the Journal of Heredity from 1922 to 1965, encapsulated the sentiment when he stated, “The adoption by Adolf Hitler of a programme of ‘race purification’ based on superficial and perverted derivatives from the naive concepts of the early eugenic enthusiasts understandably engendered opposition to any programme of eugenic reform. Yet the problem remains.” []. The “eugenic enthusiasts” of the post‐war period 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 an improved body politic where the ‘fit’ would be more numerous, and the ‘less fit’ nonexistent. This commentary will outline some specific ways the biomedical research community recapitulates the genetic determinism which was instrumental to eugenics after WWII. We argue that the habits of detrimentally reducing historical, social, environmental, and biochemical complexities has remained an unintended contributor to the weaponization of genetics research against underprivileged groups. The practices outlined limit the ability of well‐intentioned geneticists to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetics, which harms both the public and those in the academic field. We conclude that the harms to both the public and academia we present should prompt discussion about the ethics of continuing any genetic assessments which can be racialized and exploited by extremist actors. Before delving further, we acknowledge the deep roots of medical racism in the United States and point the reader to the works which demonstrate how the dynamics of race within the context of genetics are uniquely harmful [, , ]. These authors point out that, unlike other biologic research fields, the use of genetics to support racial determinism for disparities predates the molecular insights which are now ubiquitous (due to ancestry sites, lay reports on genetic studies, and popular media). However, while there are numerous examples of racial and ethnic biases in biomedical research [], bias is different in kind from weaponization. Bias is often unconscious, even if still malicious. Weaponization has a specifically purposeful component which makes its harms less ambiguous when assessing whether the acting agent can be held responsible. When research causes unintentional harm through fostering implicit bias, mitigations may be achieved by education, communication, or updated guidelines. Examples include recent campaigns to remove racial biases in renal function calculations [] or in pain management []. In contrast, when research is weaponized, researchers have a greater responsibility to articulate a favorable cost‐benefit analysis and to prevent future weaponization of their work. Thus, given the continued risk of weaponization, the greater accessibility of genetic research heightens the need to grapple with the historical perils of conjoining genetics to explain differential outcomes in behavior and health.