LLike many of us, I was disheartened to learn a few weeks ago that Donald Trump would be returning to the White House. This time he was helped by the world’s richest man and professional spaceship crusher, Elon Musk. Among the many charming aspects of their partnership is a penchant for some very unsavory opinions about genetics. Trump is an enthusiast lawyer of the “racehorse theory,” which he shares with white supremacists; the belief that he is personally superior and that this is rooted in his “good genes”. It’s a crazy idea, but it directly informs his toxic views on immigration, where he argues that the country must be protected from “bad genes » foreigners.
Meanwhile, Musk has his own equally confusing view of genetics, imbued with a characteristic messianic complex. Like some of his fellow tech moguls, he is determined to “save humanity” by produce as many offspring possible, convinced that our future depends on it. This could all be laughable if Trump and Musk now wield more power than they ever had before. The common thread in their rhetoric is genetic determinism: the idea that who you are and what you can achieve depends on your DNA. Nothing else matters.
The problem is that genetic determinism, with its strange fixation on the “master molecule,” is unfortunately omnipresent. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, they called it “secret of life“. In 2000, President Bill Clinton said that sequencing the human genome was akin to learning “the language in which God created life.” Of course, science always has the potential to be so exciting; I don’t want to kill anyone in the scientific buzz. But I fear that in all this excitement we may forget that DNA does not define us.
This language has leaked far beyond the world of science, to marketing that praises cars.with adventure in their DNA“, or a discussion about a football club “DNA” – it has become synonymous with everything from “characteristics” to “values”. The omnipresence of rhetoric that confuses DNA and identity risks fueling certain insidious ideas. This is the language that Musk and Trump thrive on, passing off exclusionary policies as rational, science-based decisions. Because if genes are essential, why bother with policies aimed at fighting inequality? Why waste time and resources solving social problems when we are all just a product of our genetic code?
In debates around genetics and social policy, it is easy for the language of genetic determinism to draw you into a misguided “nature versus nurture” debate. You know this debate: maybe she was born with it; perhaps it is due to the pervasive conditions of social inequality? But this debate completely misses the bigger picture: it should not be seen as a binary choice. The truth is that humans are born with genes that require the right environment to thrive. It’s not one or the other, but a complex interaction between the two that determines who someone becomes. We have a nature that needs to be nourished. Good science accounts for this complexity, rather than reducing it to a simplistic binary.
In addition to making it more difficult to advocate for progressive social policies, genetic determinism has also long been used to justify violence, particularly by the far right. In 2022, a gunman in Buffalo, New York cited genetics to explain his decision. racist mass shooting. The shooter took various scientific ideas, including genetics, but also environmentalism, and mixed them with white supremacist conspiracies such as the “great replacement theory.”
The prospect that real-world violence may once again emerge from a distorted interpretation of genetic science is not just a theoretical concern; it is a dangerous reality. So how can we prevent genetics from being used as a weapon? It’s not just about calling out dubious interpretations of science: in some ways, that’s the easy part. The most difficult question concerns emotions. Why are people – often motivated by anger or fear – likely to co-opt genetics to justify their reactionary political ideologies?
In trying to answer this question, it is important to note that science is not only a selection of facts, but also a form of culture. As such, it is the subject of “cultural poaching,” as sociologist Michel de Certeau puts it – of unauthorized borrowing and recontextualization of ideas. Take for example “survival of the fittest”. When Charles Darwin and other evolutionary scientists used this phrase, they had a clear idea of what they meant by “fittest” and were referring to an organism’s adaptation to its environment. But in wider culture, the idea has taken on a life of its own, that “fittest” is just a synonym for “best” or “strongest” – the phrase is often used to give to sectarian ideas a scientific veneer.
There is evidence that some on the far right follow particular academic fields and spread misinterpretations of academic research papers as soon as they become available. Rightly wary of this kind of activity, some scientists are now publishing journal articles discuss how to prevent the co-optation of genetics by extremists, while science ethics organizations such as Ceramic provide resources for the same purpose.
With figures like Trump and Musk wielding enormous power and the keyboard warriors of the “alt-right” helping them spread misinformation, genetic science has been forced to the front lines. As uncomfortable as it may be, it is more urgent than ever for people working in this field to ask themselves: “How could my work be poached and what can I do to stop it?”
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of no more than 300 words by email for publication in our mail section, please Click here.