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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS