Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41865260›Full record

ArticleBioethics2026

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

Christopher R Donohue, Ian A Myles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Christopher R DonohueOffice of Research, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Ian A MylesEpithelial Therapeutics Unit, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Funding

National Institutes of Health, Intramural
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post-war population geneticists 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 a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well-intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting "genes matter" without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEugenicsGenetic DeterminismGenetics, PopulationHolocaustHumansNational Socialism

Identifiers

PMID41865260
PMCPMC13460397

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.