Like so many of us, I was dispirited to wake up a few weeks ago to learn that Donald Trump would be back in the White House. This time he was aided by the world’s richest man and professional spaceship-crasher, Elon Musk. Among the many charming aspects of their partnership is a fondness for some highly unsavory views on genetics.
Trump is an enthusiastic advocate of “racehorse theory,” which he shares with white supremacists. It is the belief that he is personally superior and that this is rooted in his “good genes.” It is a vapid idea, but it directly informs his toxic views on immigration, on which he says the country needs to be shielded from the “bad genes” of outsiders.
Meanwhile, Musk has his own equally baffling take on genetics, infused with a characteristic messiah complex. Like some of his fellow technology moguls, he is determined to “save humanity” by producing as many offspring as possible, convinced that the future depends on it. That might all be laughable were it not Trump and Musk now wielding more power than they ever have before.
Illustration: Mountain People
The shared thread running through their rhetoric is genetic determinism — the idea that who you are, and what you can achieve, is all down to your DNA. Nothing else matters.
The problem is that genetic determinism, with its odd fixation on the “master molecule,” is annoyingly pervasive. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, they hailed it as the “secret of life.” In 2000, then-US president Bill Clinton declared that sequencing the human genome was like learning “the language in which God created life.”
Of course, science always carries the potential to be this thrilling. I do not want to kill anyone’s science buzz, but I worry that in all the excitement, people forget that DNA does not define us.
Such language has leaked far outside the world of science, to marketing that raves about cars “with adventure in their DNA,” or a discussion of a soccer club’s “DNA” — it has become a synonym for everything from “characteristics” to “values.” The ubiquity of rhetoric that conflates DNA and identity risks propping up some insidious ideas.
That is the language Musk and Trump thrive on, making exclusionary policies look like rational decisions grounded in science, because if genes are everything, why bother with policies aimed at tackling inequality? Why waste time and resources addressing social problems when we are all just products of our genetic code?
In debates surrounding genetics and social policy, it is easy for the language of genetic determinism to lure people into an ill-advised “nature versus nurture” debate. You know this debate: Maybe she is born with it; maybe it is the pervasive conditions of social inequality?
However, this debate misses the bigger picture entirely: It should not be seen as a binary choice. The truth is, humans are born with genes that require a good environment to thrive. It is not either/or, but a complex interaction between the two that determines who someone becomes. People have a nature that requires nurture. Good science accounts for that complexity, rather than reducing it to a simplistic binary.
Along with making it harder to argue for progressive social policies, genetic determinism also has a long history of being used to justify violence, particularly by the far right. In 2022, a gunman in Buffalo, New York, cited genetics as part of his rationale for a racially motivated mass shooting. He took various scientific ideas, most notably from genetics, but also environmentalism, and blended them with white supremacist conspiracies such as the “great replacement theory.”
The prospect that real-world violence might once again emerge from a warped interpretation of genetic science is not just a theoretical concern; it is a dangerous reality.
So how do we stop genetics from being weaponized? It is not just about calling out dodgy interpretations of the science — in some ways, that is the easy part. The harder question involves emotions. Why are people — often driven by anger or fear — liable to co-opt genetics to justify their reactionary political ideologies?
In trying to answer this question, one important thing to note is that science is not just a selection of facts, but also a form of culture. As such, it is subject to “cultural poaching,” as the sociologist Michel de Certeau put it — an unauthorized borrowing and re-contextualizing of ideas.
For example, take “survival of the fittest.” When Charles Darwin and other evolutionary scientists used that phrase, they had a specific idea of what they meant by “fittest,” and were referring to how well-adapted an organism is to its environment. In wider culture, the idea has taken on a life of its own, whereby “fittest” is just a synonym for “best,” or “strongest” — the phrase is often deployed to give bigoted ideas a scientific veneer.
There is evidence that some on the far right are tracking particular academic fields and broadcasting flawed interpretations of academic research papers as soon as they are available. Rightly wary of this kind of activity, some scientists are publishing journal articles discussing how to stop genetics being co-opted by extremists, while science ethics organizations such as CERA provide resources to the same end.
With figures such as Trump and Musk wielding huge power, and the “alt-right” keyboard warriors helping them spread disinformation, genetic science has been forced to the front line. As uncomfortable as it might be, it is more urgent than ever for people working in the field to ask: “How might my work be poached, and what can I do to stop it?”
Jonathan Roberts is a genetic counselor and academic who researches health inequalities and the accessibility of genetic testing.
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS