Kampourakis Kostas, Fux Michal
Section of Biology and IUFE, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Brain and Cognitive Science Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2025 May 16;47(2):25. doi: 10.1007/s40656-025-00670-w.
Millions of people have now taken DNA ancestry tests, with many of them looking for information about their origins or even their ethnic identity. However, what these tests can only do is allow for a probabilistic estimate of a person's similarity to a reference group. This is often based on research in population genetics that study human genetic variation by identifying ancestry informative markers, that is, DNA markers that are found more often in one population rather than others. Whereas these markers are not the criteria for membership in a group, they can serve as indicia for it. However, a confusion of indicia for criteria can emerge supported by a particular form of intuitive thinking, psychological essentialism. It consists of a set of interrelated beliefs: (a) Particular categories distinguish between fundamentally different kinds of people; (b) The boundaries that separate these categories are strict and absolute; (c) These categories have internal homogeneity and differ fundamentally from one another; (d) All this is due to internal essences that make the members of each category what they are. When our genome or DNA are perceived to be these essences and when this kind of thinking is applied to social categories such as race and ethnicity, a view that we call "sociogenetic essentialism", it can be highly problematic as it can form the basis for discrimination and exclusion. We argue that the use and reference to ancestry informative markers, unless clearly explained, may be misinterpreted due to a sociogenetic essentialist bias as confirming the genetic basis of social groups.
如今,数以百万计的人进行了DNA血统检测,其中许多人在寻找有关自己起源甚至种族身份的信息。然而,这些检测所能做到的只是对一个人与参考群体的相似性进行概率估计。这通常基于群体遗传学的研究,该研究通过识别祖先信息标记来研究人类遗传变异,也就是说,这些DNA标记在一个群体中比在其他群体中更常见。虽然这些标记不是一个群体成员身份的标准,但它们可以作为该群体的标志。然而,在一种特定形式的直观思维——心理本质主义的支持下,可能会出现将标志混淆为标准的情况。它由一组相互关联的信念组成:(a)特定类别区分本质上不同类型的人;(b)区分这些类别的界限是严格和绝对的;(c)这些类别具有内部同质性,彼此之间存在根本差异;(d)所有这一切都是由于内在本质,这些本质决定了每个类别的成员的本质。当我们的基因组或DNA被视为这些本质,并且这种思维方式应用于种族和民族等社会类别时,我们称之为“社会基因本质主义”的观点可能会带来很大问题,因为它可能成为歧视和排斥的基础。我们认为,除非有清晰的解释,否则对祖先信息标记的使用和提及可能会因社会基因本质主义偏见而被误解,从而被视为证实了社会群体的遗传基础。