1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 46, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 46, 2020

Why Sociology Matters to Race and Biosocial Science

Abstract

Recent developments in genetics and neuroscience have led to increasing interest in biosocial approaches to social life. While today's biosocial paradigms seek to examine more fully the inextricable relationships between the biological and the social, they have also renewed concerns about the scientific study of race. Our review describes the innovative ways sociologists have designed biosocial models to capture embodied impacts of racism, but also analyzes the potential for these models normatively to reinforce existing racial inequities. First, we examine how concepts and measurements of difference in the postgenomic era have affected scientific knowledges and social practices of racial identity. Next, we assess sociological investigations of racial inequality in the biosocial era, including the implications of the biological disciplines’ move to embrace the social. We conclude with a discussion of the growing interest in social algorithms and their potential to embed past racial injustices in their predictions of the future.

Keyword(s): algorithms, biosocial, postgenomic, race, social brain, social inequality
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903
2020-07-30
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/46/1/annurev-soc-121919-054903.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abu El-Haj N. 2007. The genetic reinscription of race. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:283–300
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander M. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness New York: New Press
  3. Allen AM, Thomas MD, Michaels EK, Reeves AN, Okoye U et al. 2019. Racial discrimination, educational attainment, and biological dysregulation among midlife African American women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 99:225–35
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice Boston: Addison-Wesley
  5. Amodio DM. 2014. The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15:10670–82
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Andrews L, Metzl JM. 2016. Reading the image of race: neurocriminology, medical imaging technologies and literary intervention. The Edinburgh Companion to the Critical Medical Humanities A Woods, A Whitehead 242–59 Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica May 23. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Aroke EN, Joseph PV, Roy A, Overstreet DS, Tollefsbol TO et al. 2019. Could epigenetics help explain racial disparities in chronic pain. J. Pain Res. 12:701–10
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Asbury K, Plomin R. 2013. G is for Genes: The Impact of Genetics on Education and Achievement Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 1st ed..
  10. Barnes JC. 2018. A constructivist view of race in modern criminology. J. Crim. Justice 59:81–86
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Beaver KM. 2009. Biosocial Criminology: A Primer Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1st ed..
  12. Beaver KM, Barnes JC, Boutwell BB 2014. The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors. Psychiatr. Q. 85:3257–65
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Benjamin R. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code New York: Wiley
  14. Best LE, Byrd WC. 2015. All marked up in the genetic era: biomarkers as ‘floating signifiers’ in genetic and genomic research. Advances in Medical Sociology: Genetics, Health, and Society 16 BL Perry 45–69 Bingley, UK: Emerald
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bliss C. 2012. Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  16. Bliss C. 2013. The marketization of identity politics. Sociology 47:51011–25
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Bliss C. 2018. Social by Nature: The Promise and Peril of Sociogenomics Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  18. Boen C. 2019. Death by a thousand cuts: stress exposure and black-white disparities in physiological functioning in late life. J. Gerontol. B In press. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz068
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bolnick DA, Fullwiley D, Duster T, Cooper RS, Fujimura JH et al. 2007. The science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science 318:5849399–400
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bonham VL, Callier SL, Royal CD 2016. Will precision medicine move us beyond race. New Engl. J. Med. 374:212003–5
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Bonilla-Silva E. 2006. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd ed..
  22. Bor J, Venkataramani AS, Williams DR, Tsai AC 2018. Police killings and their spillover effects on the mental health of black Americans: a population-based, quasi-experimental study. Lancet 392:10144302–10
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brockie TN, Heinzelmann M, Gill J 2013. A framework to examine the role of epigenetics in health disparities among Native Americans. Nurs. Res. Pract. 2013:410395
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Brosch T, Bar-David E, Phelps EA 2013. Implicit race bias decreases the similarity of neural representations of black and white faces. Psychol. Sci. 24:2160–66
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Browne S. 2015. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  26. Burt CH, Simons RL. 2014. Pulling back the curtain on heritability studies: biosocial criminology in the postgenomic era. Criminology 52:2223–62
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Byrd WC, Ray VE. 2015. Ultimate attribution in the genetic era: white support for genetic explanations of racial difference and policies. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 661:212–35
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Caplan JM, Kennedy LW. 2016. Risk Terrain Modeling: Crime Prediction and Risk Reduction Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  29. Carrier N, Walby K. 2014. Ptolemizing Lombroso: the pseudo-revolution of biosocial criminology. J. Theor. Philos. Criminol. 6:11–45
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cheney-Lippold J. 2017. We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves New York: NYU Press
  31. Chow-White PA, Green SE. 2013. Data mining difference in the age of big data: communication and the social shaping of genome technologies from 1998 to 2007. Int. J. Commun. 7:556–83
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Chung E, Cromby J, Papadopoulos D, Tufarelli C 2016. Social epigenetics: a science of social science. Sociol. Rev. Monogr. 64:1168–85
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Clarke AE, Mamo L, Fosket JR, Fishman JR, Shim JK 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, Health, and Illness in the U.S Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  34. Conley D, Fletcher J. 2017. The Genome Factor: What the Social Genomics Revolution Reveals About Ourselves, Our History, and the Future Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  35. Daniels J. 2013. Race and racism in Internet studies: a review and critique. New Media Soc 15:5695–719
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Daniels J. 2018. The algorithmic rise of the “alt-right. .” Contexts 17:160–65
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Domingue BW, Belsky DW, Conley D, Harris KM, Boardman JD 2015. Polygenic influence on educational attainment: new evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. AERA Open 1:31–13
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Du Bois WEB. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  39. Duster T. 2004. Selective arrests, a DNA forensic database, and phrenology. DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice D Lazer 315–34 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Duster T. 2005. Race and reification in science. Science 307:57121050–51
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Duster T. 2006a. Behavioral genetics and the link between crime, violence, and race. Wrestling with Behavioral Genetics E Parens, AR Chapman, N Press 150–75 Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Duster T. 2006b. Lessons from history: why race and ethnicity have played a major role in biomedical research. J. Law Med. Ethics 34:3487–96
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Duster T. 2015. A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine. Br. J. Sociol. 66:11–27
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Eberhardt JL. 2005. Imaging race. Am. Psychol. 60:2181–90
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Eubanks V. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor New York: St. Martin's
  46. Fallin M, Whooley O, Barker KK 2018. Criminalizing the brain: neurocriminology and the production of strategic ignorance. BioSocieties 3:438–62
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Farahany N, Chodavadia S, Katsanis SH 2019. Ethical guidelines for DNA testing in migrant family reunification. Am. J. Bioethics 19:24–7
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ferguson AG. 2019. The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement New York: NYU Press
  49. Freese J. 2018. The arrival of social science genomics. Contemp. Sociol. 47:5524–36
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Freese J, Shostak S. 2009. Genetics and social inquiry. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:107–28
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fujimura JH, Bolnick DA, Rajagopalan R, Kaufman JS, Lewontin RC et al. 2014. Clines without classes: how to make sense of human variation. Sociol. Theor. 32:3208–27
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Fujimura JH, Rajagopalan R. 2011. Different differences: the use of ‘genetic ancestry’ versus race in biomedical human genetic research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41:15–30
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Fullwiley D. 2007. The molecularization of race: institutionalizing human difference in pharmacogenetics practice. Sci. Cult. 16:11–30
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Fullwiley D. 2008. The biologistical construction of race ‘admixture’ technology and the new genetic medicine. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:5695–735
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Garvie C, Moy LM. 2019. America under watch: facial surveillance in the United States Rep., Georgetown Law Cent. Priv. Technol Washington, DC: https://www.americaunderwatch.com
  56. Gilman SL, Thomas JM. 2016. Are Racists Crazy? How Prejudice, Racism, and Antisemitism Became Markers of Insanity New York: NYU Press
  57. Goosby BJ, Heidbrink C. 2013. Transgenerational consequences of racial discrimination for African American health. Sociol. Compass. 7:8630–43
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Goosby BJ, Malone S, Richardson EA, Cheadle JE, Williams DT 2015. Perceived discrimination and markers of cardiovascular risk among low-income African American youth. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 27:4546–52
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hackman DA, Farah MJ. 2009. Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13:265–73
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Hao K. 2019. Police across the US are training crime-predicting AIs on falsified data. MIT Technology Review Feb. 13. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612957/predictive-policing-algorithms-ai-crime-dirty-data/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Harris KM, McDade TW. 2018. The biosocial approach to human development, behavior, and health across the life course. RSF 4:42–26
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Heinemann T, Lemke T. 2014. Biological citizenship reconsidered: the use of DNA analysis by immigration authorities in Germany. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 39:4488–510
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Herd P, Freese J, Sicinski K, Domingue BW, Harris KM et al. 2019. Genes, gender inequality, and educational attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84:61069–98
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hochschild J, Sen M. 2015. Genetic determinism, technology optimism, and race: views of the American public. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 661:1160–80
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hughes BL, Camp NP, Gomez J, Natu VS, Grill-Spector K, Eberhardt JL 2019. Neural adaptation to faces reveals racial outgroup homogeneity effects in early perception. PNAS 116:2914532–37
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kahn J. 2012. Race in a Bottle: The Story of BiDil and Racialized Medicine in a Post-Genomic Age New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  67. Kahn J. 2017. Race on the Brain: What Implicit Bias Gets Wrong About the Struggle for Racial Justice New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  68. Kubota JT, Banaji MR, Phelps EA 2012. The neuroscience of race. Nat. Neurosci. 15:7940–48
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Kubota JT, Phelps EA. 2015. Exploring the brain dynamics of racial stereotyping and prejudice. Brain Mapping: An Encyclopedic Reference 3 AW Toga 241–46 Amsterdam: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kuzawa CW, Sweet E. 2009. Epigenetics and the embodiment of race: developmental origins of US racial disparities in cardiovascular health. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 21:12–15
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Landecker H, Panofsky A. 2013. From social structure to gene regulation, and back: a critical introduction to environmental epigenetics for sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:333–57
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Larregue J, Rollins O. 2019. Biosocial criminology and the mismeasure of race. Ethn. Racial Stud. 42:121990–2007
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Lazer D. 2015. The rise of the social algorithm. Science 348:62391090–91
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Lazer D, Radford J. 2017. Data ex machina: introduction to big data. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:19–39
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Lee C. 2009. “Race” and “ethnicity” in biomedical research: How do scientists construct and explain differences in health?. Soc. Sci. Med. 68:61183–90
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Lee C, Voigt TH. 2020. DNA testing for family reunification and the limits of biological truth. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 45:3430–54
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lee H, Wildeman C, Wang EA, Matusko N, Jackson JS 2014. A heavy burden: the cardiovascular health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. Am. J. Public Health 104:3421–27
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lee SS-J. 2012. Waiting on the promise of prescribing precision: race in the era of pharmacogenomics. Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision of DNA, Race, and History K Wailoo, A Nelson, C Lee 164–80 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Lee SS-J. 2013. Race, risk, and recreation in personal genomics: the limits of play. Med. Anthropol. Q. 27:4550–69
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Lee SS-J. 2015. The biobank as political artifact: the struggle over race in categorizing genetic difference. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 661:143–59
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Lewis TT, Aiello AE, Leurgans S, Kelly J, Barnes LL 2010. Self-reported experiences of everyday discrimination are associated with elevated C-reactive protein levels in older African-American adults. Brain Behav. Immun. 24:3438–43
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Lukachko A, Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM 2014. Structural racism and myocardial infarction in the United States. Soc. Sci. Med. 103:42–50
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Mansfield B, Guthman J. 2015. Epigenetic life: biological plasticity, abnormality, and new configurations of race and reproduction. Cult. Geogr. 22:13–20
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Martschenko D, Trejo S, Domingue BW 2019. Genetics and education: recent developments in the context of an ugly history and an uncertain future. AERA Open https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418810516
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  86. Massey DS, Wagar BM, Donnelly L, McLanahan S, Brooks-Gunn J et al. 2018. Neighborhood disadvantage and telomere length: results from the Fragile Families Study. RSF 4:428–42
     [Google Scholar]
  87. M'charek A. 2008. Silent witness, articulate collective: DNA evidence and the inference of visible traits. Bioethics 22:9519–28
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Meloni M. 2017. Race in an epigenetic time: thinking biology in the plural. Br. J. Sociol. 68:3389–409
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Meloni M, Williams S, Martin P 2016. The biosocial: sociological themes and issues. Sociol. Rev. Monogr. 64:17–25
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Miroff N. 2019. Homeland Security to test DNA of families at border in cases of suspected fraud. Washington Post May 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/homeland-security-to-test-dna-of-families-at-border-in-cases-of-suspected-fraud/2019/05/01/8e8c042a-6c46-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Molina M, Garip F. 2019. Machine learning for sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:27–45
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Morin-Chassé A, Suhay E, Jayaratne TE 2017. Discord over DNA: ideological responses to scientific communication about genes and race. J. Race Ethn. Politics 2:2260–99
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Morning A. 2014. Does genomics challenge the social construction of race. Sociol. Theory 32:3189–207
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Morris A. 2015. The Scholar Denied: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  95. Müller R, Hanson C, Hanson M, Penkler M, Samaras G et al. 2017. The biosocial genome?. EMBO Rep 18:101677–82
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Murray C. 2020. Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class New York: Twelve
  97. Nakamura L. 2007. Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  98. Nakamura L, Chow-White P 2011. Race After the Internet New York: Routledge
  99. Nelson A. 2008. Bio science: genetic genealogy testing and the pursuit of African ancestry. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:5759–83
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Nelson A. 2016. The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation After the Genome Boston: Beacon, 1st ed..
  101. Nelson A, Tu TLN, Hines AH 2001. Technicolor: Race, Technology, and Everyday Life New York: NYU Press
  102. Noble KG, Houston SM, Brito NH, Bartsch H, Kan E et al. 2015. Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and adolescents. Nat. Neurosci. 18:5773–78
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Noble SU. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism New York: NYU Press
  104. Obasogie OK. 2009. Playing the Gene Card? A Report on Race and Human Biotechnology Oakland, CA: Cent. Genet. Soc.
  105. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366:6464447–53
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Ossorio P, Duster T. 2005. Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. Am. Psychol. 60:1115–28
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Panofsky A, Bliss C. 2017. Ambiguity and scientific authority: population classification in genomic science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:159–87
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Panofsky A, Donovan J. 2019. Genetic ancestry testing among white nationalists: from identity repair to citizen science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 49:5653–81
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Phelan JC, Link BG, Feldman NM 2013. The genomic revolution and beliefs about essential racial differences: a backdoor to eugenics. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78:2167–91
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Pitts-Taylor V. 2016. The Brain's Body: Neuroscience and Corporeal Politics Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  111. Pitts-Taylor V. 2019. Neurobiologically poor? Brain phenotypes, inequality, and biosocial determinism. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 44:4660–85
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Qu Y, Galván A, Fuligni AJ, Telzer EH 2018. A biopsychosocial approach to examine Mexican American adolescents’ academic achievement and substance use. RSF 4:484–97
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Reardon J. 2012. The democratic, anti-racist genome? Technoscience at the limits of liberalism. Sci. Cult. 21:125–47
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Roberts DE. 2010. Race and the new biocitizen. What's the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference I Whitmarsh, DS Jones 259–76 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Roberts DE. 2011. Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century New York: New Press
  116. Roberts DE. 2012. Debating the cause of health disparities—implications for bioethics and racial equality. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 21:3332–41
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Roberts DE. 2013. Law, race, and biotechnology: toward a biopolitical and transdisciplinary paradigm. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:149–66
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Roberts DE. 2018. The ethics of biosocial science. The Tanner Lectures in Human Values 37 M Matheson 99–142 Salt Lake City: Univ. Utah Press
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Roberts DE. 2019. Digitizing the carceral state. Harv. Law Rev. 132:61695–728
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rollins OE. 2018. Risky bodies: race and the science of crime and violence. Living Racism: Through the Barrel of the Book T Rajack-Talley, DR Brooms 97–119 Lanham, MD: Lexington
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Rollins OE. 2020. Conviction: The Neuroscientific Quest to Unlock the Violent Brain Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press. In press
  122. Ronquillo J, Denson TF, Lickel B, Lu Z-L, Nandy A, Maddox KB 2007. The effects of skin tone on race-related amygdala activity: an fMRI investigation. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2:139–44
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Roth WD, Ivemark B. 2018. Genetic options: the impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. Am. J. Sociol. 124:1150–84
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Rothstein R. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America New York: Liveright
  125. Sampson RJ, Winter AS. 2016. The racial ecology of lead poisoning: toxic inequality in Chicago neighborhoods, 1995–2013. Du Bois Rev 13:2261–83
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Sankar P. 2010. Forensic DNA phenotyping: reinforcing race in law enforcement. What's the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference I Whitmarsh, DS Jones 49–61 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Sankar P, Kahn J. 2005. BiDil: race medicine or race marketing?. Health Aff 22:Suppl. 1W5–45564
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Schnittker J, Massoglia M, Uggen C 2011. Incarceration and the health of the African American community. Du Bois Rev 8:1133–41
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Sewell AA. 2016. The racism-race reification process: a mesolevel political economic framework for understanding racial health disparities. Sociol. Race Ethn. 2:4402–32
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Sewell AA. 2017. The illness associations of police violence: differential relationships by ethnoracial composition. Sociol. Forum. 32:S1975–97
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Sewell AA, Jefferson KA, Lee H 2016. Living under surveillance: gender, psychological distress, and stop-question-and-frisk policing in New York City. Soc. Sci. Med. 159:1–13
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Shiao JL, Bode T, Beyer A, Selvig D 2012. The genomic challenge to the social construction of race. Sociol. Theory 30:267–88
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Shim JK, Alam SR, Aouizerat BE 2018. Knowing something versus feeling different: the effects and non-effects of genetic ancestry on racial identity. New Genet. Soc. 37:144–66
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Shim JK, Darling KW, Lappe MD, Thomson LK, Lee SS-J et al. 2014. Homogeneity and heterogeneity as situational properties: producing—and moving beyond?—race in post-genomic science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44:4579–99
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Silva D. 2018. DNA tests for separated families slammed by immigration advocates NBC News, July 5. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dna-tests-separated-families-slammed-immigration-advocates-n889161
  136. Skinner D. 2020. Race, racism and identification in the era of technosecurity. Sci. Cult. 29:77–99
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Smart A, Tutton R, Martin P, Ellison GTH, Ashcroft R 2008. The standardization of race and ethnicity in biomedical science editorials and UK biobanks. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38:3407–23
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Sparrow R. 2020. Robotics has a race problem. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 45:4538–60
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Terbeck S, Kahane G, McTavish S, Savulescu J, Cowen PJ, Hewstone M 2012. Propranolol reduces implicit negative racial bias. Psychopharmacology 222:3419–24
     [Google Scholar]
  140. US FBI (Fed. Bur. Investig.) 2017. FBI's vision of Rapid DNA Press Release, Sept. 20. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/rapid-dna-executive-summary-9-25-17-final.pdf/view
  141. Wang S, Dorsey TH, Terunuma A, Kittles RA, Ambs S, Kwabi-Addo B 2012. Relationship between tumor DNA methylation status and patient characteristics in African-American and European-American women with breast cancer. PLOS ONE 7:5e37928
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Williams DR, Lawrence JA, Davis BA 2019. Racism and health: evidence and needed research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 40:105–25
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Williams DR, Mohammed SA. 2013. Racism and health I: pathways and scientific evidence. Am. Behav. Sci. 57:81152–73
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Wright JP, Morgan MA. 2015. Human biodiversity and the egalitarian fiction. The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality KM Beaver, JC Barnes, BB Boutwell 55–74 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Yaylaci Ş, Roth WD, Jaffe K 2019. Measuring racial essentialism in the genomic era: the Genetic Essentialism Scale for Race (GESR). Curr. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00311-z
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. Youdell D. 2016. A biosocial education future. Res. Educ. 96:152–61
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Yudell M, Roberts D, DeSalle R, Tishkoff S 2016. Taking race out of human genetics. Science 351:6273564–65
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Zou J, Schiebinger L. 2018. AI can be sexist and racist—it's time to make it fair. Nature 559:7714324–26
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Zuberi T. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  150. Zuberi T, Patterson EJ, Stewart QT 2015. Race, methodology, and social construction in the genomic era. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 661:1109–27
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054903
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error