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.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The saga of Sarah Dzafce, the disgraced former Miss Finland, is far more significant than a mere beauty pageant controversy. It serves as a potent and painful contemporary lesson in global cultural ethics and the absolute necessity of racial respect. Her public career was instantly pulverized not by a lapse in judgement, but by a deliberate act of racial hostility, the flames of which swiftly encircled the globe. The offensive action was simple, yet profoundly provocative: a 15-second video in which Dzafce performed the infamous “slanted eyes” gesture — a crude, historically loaded caricature of East Asian features used in Western
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
RSS