Search

The molecularization of race thesis suggests geneticists are gaining greater authority to define human populations and differences, and they are doing so by increasingly defining them in terms of U.S. racial categories. Using a mixed methodology of a content analysis of articles published in Nature Genetics (in 1993, 2001, and 2009) and interviews, we explore geneticists' population labeling practices. Geneticists use eight classification systems that follow racial, geographic, and ethnic logics of definition. We find limited support for racialization of classification. Use of quasi-racial "continental" terms has grown over time, but more surprising is the persistent and indiscriminate blending of classification schemes at the field level, the article level, and within-population labels. This blending has led the practical definition of "population" to become more ambiguous rather than standardized over time. Classificatory ambiguity serves several functions: it helps geneticists negotiate collaborations among researchers with competing demands, resist bureaucratic oversight, and build accountability with study populations. Far from being dysfunctional, we show the ambiguity of population definition is linked to geneticists' efforts to build scientific authority. Our findings revise the long-standing theoretical link between scientific authority and standardization and social order. We find that scientific ambiguity can function to produce scientific authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We hypothesize that individuals who self-identify with one racial group but are routinely perceived by observers as “looking like” another racial group may experience negative outcomes associated with this stressful situation. Since American Indians experience very high rates of misclassification, we use them as our case in point. Drawing from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, our analyses compare young American Indian adults who are perceived as another race by an observer to those who are correctly classified, using several indicators of psychological distress: depression, suicidal thoughts, use of psychological counseling services, suicide attempts, and fatalism. We also investigate differences in racial attitudes and behaviors, such as belonging to an ethnic solidarity organization or believing it is important to have a committed relationship with someone of the same race. The evidence suggests that, on the whole, misclassified American Indians have higher rates of psychological distress. We conclude by discussing our findings and their wider implications, especially in the context of an increasingly heterogeneous and multiracial society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]