ASRXXX10.1177/0003122416685812American Sociological ReviewPanofsky and Bliss 6858122017

American Sociological Review 2017, Vol. 82(1) 59–87­ Ambiguity and Scientific © American Sociological Association 2017 DOI: 10.1177/0003122416685812 Authority: Population journals.sagepub.com/home/asr Classification in Genomic Science

Aaron Panofskya and Catherine Blissb

Abstract The molecularization of race thesis suggests geneticists are gaining greater authority to define human populations and differences, and they are doing so by increasingly defining them in terms of U.S. racial categories. Using a mixed methodology of a content analysis of articles published in Nature Genetics (in 1993, 2001, and 2009) and interviews, we explore geneticists’ population labeling practices. Geneticists use eight classification systems that follow racial, geographic, and ethnic logics of definition. We find limited support for racialization of classification. Use of quasi-racial “continental” terms has grown over time, but more surprising is the persistent and indiscriminate blending of classification schemes at the field level, the article level, and within-population labels. This blending has led the practical definition of “population” to become more ambiguous rather than standardized over time. Classificatory ambiguity serves several functions: it helps geneticists negotiate collaborations among researchers with competing demands, resist bureaucratic oversight, and build accountability with study populations. Far from being dysfunctional, we show the ambiguity of population definition is linked to geneticists’ efforts to build scientific authority. Our findings revise the long-standing theoretical link between scientific authority and standardization and social order. We find that scientific ambiguity can function to produce scientific authority.

Keywords genetics, race, ethnicity, geography, standardization, ambiguity, authority

One of the most commented upon puzzles of genetics shows race not to be a scientific con- the postgenomic era is the paradox of race. cept, and that “precise racial boundaries” can- When President Clinton held a press confer- not be legitimated scientifically. Yet this appar- ence on June 26, 2000, to announce the ent consensus was soon broken. Geneticists completion of the first draft of the sequence of the human genome, the main message he and scientific leaders Francis Collins and aUniversity of California, Los Angeles Craig Venter chose to emphasize was that of bUniversity of California, San Francisco universal human similarity: “in genetic terms, all human beings, regardless of race, are more Corresponding Author: Aaron Panofsky, UCLA Institute for Society and than 99.9 percent the same” (quoted in Bliss Genetics, 3360 Life Sciences Building, 2012:1). Venter, Collins, and other leading Los Angeles, CA 90095-7221 scientists strongly stated that contemporary E-mail: [email protected] 60 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Neil Risch, Noah Rosenberg, and others linguistic group (such as Bantu) contrasted argued that genetic data could map global against a political state (French) and an eth- genetic variation in ways that closely approx- nic label (Druze) in the same genetic study, imate common sense ideas of race, that without any awareness that they refer to genetic data could accurately assign most entirely different kinds of belonging. When individuals to a racial group, and that racial geneticists have queried the construction of differences would be important to account for their samples, they tend to place an uncom- in genetic studies of diseases (Risch et al. fortable emphasis on ‘purity of ancestry’, 2002; Rosenberg et al. 2002). Debate contin- denying the realities of human history, with ues to rage about these various claims and all its murky interbreeding and complexity. also whether race is indeed a genetically valid Looking for admixture, after all, presup- concept, and thus whether race can legiti- poses a primordial state without it. mately inform the application of genetics to medicine, pharmacology, and forensics. Marks notes that genetics researchers seem to The postgenomic resurgence of racial uncritically compare population categories debate has spawned two lines of social sci- that are apples and oranges and make unwar- ence commentary that are in tension with ranted assumptions about the origins and each other. The first notes the simultaneous composition of those populations. Studies of racialization of biomedical science and the geneticists note that when asked plainly to molecularization of race. Race-based knowl- define what they mean by “race,” geneticists edge has gained salience in genetics and bio- often find themselves surprised to be unable medicine, due to movements to foster greater to provide a clear answer (Bliss 2012; inclusion of women and minorities in medical Fujimura and Rajagopalan 2011; Fullwiley research (Epstein 2007), scientists’ own 2008; Lee et al. 2008). justice-oriented political commitments (Bliss Both perspectives are mobilized to criticize 2012; Fullwiley 2008), and markets for race- the potential reification of race, the former targeted genealogical and pharmaceutical from the perspective of essentialism, and the products (Kahn 2012; Pollock 2012). The latter from the fear that lack of a coherent race concept is being reconceived in molecu- concept of race will enable folk-thinking lar terms, and again appearing as a biological about racial purity, essentialism, and differ- human essence, even as geneticists reframe ence to persist. However, the critical attention racial classification in terms of varying bio- to racial reification in genetics has led to the geographic ancestry and admixture (Duster underappreciation of two issues upon which 2006; Fujimura and Rajagopalan 2011; Gan- this article focuses. First, the focus on race has nett 2014). And even neutrally presented diverted attention from the diversity of ways genetic findings encourage essentialist under- that geneticists classify human populations. standings of race among the lay public Second, the concern with reification has led to (Phelan, Link, and Feldman 2013). the neglect of the symbolic functions of the While the first line of research emphasizes incoherence of geneticists’ classifications. the biogenetic “hardening” of race, a second, This article explores the ambiguous and less prominent line emphasizes conceptual flexible ways that geneticists classify human incoherence, or “softening,” in the ways populations and differences. We document geneticists and biomedical researchers define the scope of classificatory ambiguity with a race and classify populations in their studies. content analysis of articles from Nature As Jonathan Marks (2012) has said, Genetics, the field’s leading journal. We find that (1) over time, population labeling has Geneticists tend to take their populations as increased to near ubiquity in human genetics, ‘natural’ units in a way that troubles anthro- (2) the use of geographic, and especially con- pologists. That is why you can find a tinental, classification to label populations Panofsky and Bliss 61 has increased most, but continental classifica- Race is socially constructed and racial tion ambiguously blends racial and geo- categories are historically variable (Omi and graphic ways of conceiving populations, and Winant 1994; Smedley 1999). Calling race a (3) no standard way of classifying popula- “floating signifier,” Hall (1997) links its tions is emerging; rather, geneticists blend enduring social power to its cultural flexibil- population classification systems at the field, ity. But this has produced practical difficulties paper, and sample levels. These trends com- for geneticists. Interviews and laboratory eth- bine to increase classificatory ambiguity. We nographies reveal that geneticists are typi- then use contextual information and interview cally embarrassed that they have considerable data to make sense of these trends, showing difficulty articulating coherent definitions of (1) the “populationification” of human genet- race or racial classification, even though both ics has established connections between are deployed in their research (Bliss 2012; geneticists and their extra-scientific contexts; Fujimura and Rajagopalan 2011; Fullwiley (2) continental labeling is often a way that 2008; Lee et al. 2008). geneticists with different types of connections The science studies literature has long can collaborate and compromise with each emphasized the positive functions of stand- other; and (3) geneticists link classificatory ardization for the production of scientific polyvocality to their efforts to resist regula- authority and the coordination of scientific tion of their research by journals and funders action (Bowker and Star 1999; Mackenzie and to their desires to project accountability et al. 2013; Timmermans and Berg 2003; Tim- to study populations. We thus conclude that mermans and Epstein 2010). Indeed, much the resulting classificatory ambiguity helps research on geneticists’ recent efforts to grap- geneticists bolster their scientific authority ple with race focuses broadly on standardiza- and preserve their practical room for maneu- tion dynamics. Epstein (2007) shows how the ver in a context rife with potential pitfalls. “categorical alignment” of U.S. Census racial categories with biomedical research has helped geneticists and others connect their sci- Background And ence to the interests of multiple stakeholders, Literature thus bringing together scientific, political, Standardizing Race in Human bureaucratic, and activist forms of power. Genetics Responding to these demands, international genome projects have turned to racial classifi- A large literature traces the cultural authority cation to create the field’s mainstay DNA of genetics (Kevles 1985; Sapp 1983; Sunder biobanks, thereby producing a racialization of Rajan 2006), especially for its accounts of the field (Hamilton 2008; Reardon 2005; human origins and differences (Bliss 2012; Smart et al. 2008). Likewise, pharmaceutical Epstein 2007; Reardon 2005; TallBear 2013). companies’ efforts to target racial markets Historically, genetics has had an ambivalent (Kahn 2012; Pollock 2012), criminal justice relationship to the race concept. After WWII, agencies’ eagerness to build DNA databases geneticists largely tried to distance them- (Duster 2004), consumer ancestry companies’ selves from ideas of race, particularly the ethno-racial heritage tests (Nelson 2015), and hard-hereditarian views typical at the field’s even researchers’ justice-driven commitments origins (Barkan 1993; Panofsky 2014; to include racial minorities in research (Bliss Provine 1986; Reardon 2005). But recent 2012; Epstein 2007; Fullwiley 2008) have research shows how commercial, medical, embedded racial conceptualization, compari- criminological, governmental, and social jus- son, and classification in genetics research. tice forces have once again driven geneticists These trends imply that racial classifica- to speak directly to matters of race (Duster tion is increasing in genetics and biomedi- 2004; Epstein 2007; Fujimura and Rajagopa- cine, perhaps leading toward a standardized lan 2011; Fullwiley 2008; Nelson 2015). way of conceptualizing populations. But 62 American Sociological Review 82(1) other research highlights some geneticists’ classification have been of interest mainly ongoing discomfort with racial classification, insofar as they are entwined with racial clas- in particular its politicized and “socially con- sification. Second, classification standardiza- structed” character, and their attempts to pro- tion—the alignment of genetics classifications mote “genetic ancestry” or “biogeographic with the racial classifications of powerful ancestry” (BGA) as an alternative concept institutions—is implicated in genetics’ scien- (Fujimura and Rajagopalan 2011). Advocates tific and cultural authority. Third, classifica- of BGA—sometimes described by geneticists tory polyvocality is noted as a failure of as the “objective component of race” (Gan- standardization and thus a threat to the bene- nett 2014)—seek to understand and label fits standardization brings. This literature population samples, DNA sequences, or hap- leaves no space to consider the persistence logroups as rooted in specific geographic and even growth of classificatory polyvocal- origins, and they see this as a potential stand- ity and the potential functions of classifica- ard for the genetic description of human tory ambiguity for geneticists. populations (Parra, Kittles, and Shriver 2004; Shriver and Kittles 2004; Yudell et al. 2016). Functions of Ambiguity in Yet while BGA does transform how popula- Scientific Practice tions are represented, race and ethnicity slip into the ancestry concept, often barely Most of the literature interprets ambiguity, noticed, because of long-standing habits of polyvocality, and underlying disagreement as thought, existing technical infrastructures, a problem for science. Research on scientific and research coordination demands (Fujimura controversies shows that scientists are eager and Rajagopalan 2011). BGA is thus entan- to settle disagreements, because individual gled not only with racial conceptualization, and collective credibility are at risk as dis- but the particularly U.S. version of racial putes persist (Collins 1985; Gieryn 1999; categorization (Gannett 2014). Rudwick 1985; Shapin 1994; Shapin and Biomedical research authorities have also Schaffer 1985). Other studies argue that pub- advanced racial categorization standardiza- lic disclosure of disagreement undermines tion. Biomedical research supported by the public perceptions of scientific authority U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- (Nelkin 1992; Zehr 2000), and there is a tight vices must attempt to recruit racially diverse relationship between fields’ scientific status subjects and record recruitment according to and their degree of paradigmatic consensus U.S. census categories (Epstein 2007). This (Whitley 1984). Finally, there is an extensive does not always carry over into publication, literature on the management of ambiguous as Smart and colleagues (2008) show in their or polyvocal classification through standard- analysis of 11 leading journals’ efforts to ization—the “production of uniformities promulgate standards for the racial and ethnic across space and time, through the generation labels used in articles and the disclosure of of agreed upon rules” (Timmermans and researchers’ labeling practices. Audits of Epstein 2010:71). By disciplining ambiguity, researchers’ actual publications show ram- concealing it and constraining its spread with pant noncompliance with both substantive set categories, standardization helps quell and procedural standards (Ali-Kahn et al. potentially corrosive disagreement and coor- 2011; Caufield et al. 2009). dinate actions of scientists and others. What does this literature on race and A smaller literature, however, explores standardization efforts in genetics have to say positive functions of ambiguity for scientific about polyvocality and ambiguity in popula- practice. Levine (1985) writes that the quest to tion classification in genetics? First, the over- understand and implement rationalization in whelming focus has been on race. Other ways modern social thought has led to serious geneticists think about human population underestimation and misrecognition of the Panofsky and Bliss 63 positive functions of ambiguity, defined as an entire “epistemologically imprecise” dissensus about the meaning of concepts in domain of activity. Furthermore, where the scientific discourse. He discusses two positive boundary object idea implies an illusion of roles for ambiguity in science. The first is the conceptual agreement that helps suppress or “evocative representation of complex mean- deflect corrosive controversy among different ings . . . [that] can ignite a cluster of insights actors, the epistemic imprecision of epigenet- that in turn lead to novel explorations” (Lev- ics spurs a set of controversies that entangle ine 1985:218). Second, citing the example of researchers into activities that build the author- “multivalent” Darwinian theory, Levine ity of epigenetics as a scientific approach. (1985:218) states that ambiguity serves the The literature thus highlights two positive “bonding into a vital transgenerational com- functions of ambiguity in science. First, munity of a body of diverse enquirers holding ambiguously defined objects can enable coor- somewhat different views of what are essen- dination, especially among actors from differ- tially contested concepts.” Ambiguity can thus ent social worlds or disciplinary backgrounds. grease the gears of novelty and productivity Second, ambiguity can be cognitively and by generating ideas and solidarity. epistemically generative—the unsettled char- Others have theorized the positive role of acter of certain scientific objects can make ambiguity for coordination across research them intellectually productive. But these treat- communities. Centellas, Smardon, and Fifield ments of ambiguity have limitations. First, (2014) show how interdisciplinary collabora- they largely depend on actors’ misrecognition tion need not require agreement about crucial of ambiguity. Part of what we will demonstrate practical issues so long as there is ongoing is the explicit and acknowledged polyvocality “calibration” of practices. Star and Griesem- of population classification in human genetics. er’s (1989) boundary objects have fundamen- Second, we will show how ambiguity can help tally ambiguous conceptualizations, because coordinate actions not just between social actors from distinct social worlds understand worlds or disciplines, but also within a social them differently. Coordinated action is made world differentiated as a field with different possible, not because actors reach consensus clients and demands. Third, this positive litera- about norms and practices, but because they ture on ambiguity largely ignores issues of disregard the boundary object’s ambiguity power and authority. We show how geneticists and act as if everyone shares a definition. For use ambiguity to resist what they perceive to these researchers, unacknowledged ambigu- be excessive control by funders and journals ity helps coordinate actions of individuals and to establish accountability and good rela- from different worlds. tions with subject populations. Our study thus In a similar vein, Meloni and Testa helps reveal previously unrecognized positive (2014:433) argue that the vibrant growth of functions for ambiguity in science. and scientific interest in the emergent field of epigenetics is due largely to imprecision and flexibility in its definition. They argue that, Data And Methods “the ability to entertain multiple understand- To investigate the question of ambiguity in ings of what constitute epigenetic phenomena, the larger molecularization of race narrative, and hence multiple ways to secure epigenetic we use a mixed methodology of content evidence, is foundational to epigenetics’ rise, analysis and interviews. The former allows us both as a discipline and as a popular phenom- to answer questions about what the patterns enon.” Their analysis extends the concept of of population categorization have been over scientific “boundary objects.” On the one time, and the latter addresses how genomics hand, epigenetics is a boundary object in that researchers have understood the implications different researchers understand it differently; of these patterns and justified the practices on the other hand, it is not just an “object” but that led to them. 64 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Table 1. Classification Systems and Codes

Code Classification System Examples

1 U.S. Census (Race) White or Caucasian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, etc. (Note that the U.S. Census system combines racial and ethnic categories. We consider all of these part of the same [racialized] classification system.) 2 Continent European, African 3 Continental region Northern European, West African 4 Country Netherlands (or Dutch), Japanese 5 Country region Western United States, Sicilian, Australian state of Victoria 6 Ethnicity Bedouin, Han 7 Language Bantu speakers 8 Other Usually religion: Jewish, Druze, Amish-Mennonite

Our first data source is a content analysis of descent” (subcode: C). Because our interest is the population categories used in three years of in the classificatory system used, using nega- the field’s top journal, Nature Genetics. To tive or ancestral labels is still a way to invoke uncover trends in the use of population labels, a particular system. Table 1 summarizes the we looked at all articles published in 1993 classification system and codes. (Vols. 3–5), 2001 (Vols. 27–29), and 2009 These eight different ways scientists label (Vol. 41). In each of these years, we down- populations come from three different logics loaded and read items presenting original for conceiving the essence of group belong- research (research articles, letters, and brief ing: racial, geographic, and ethnic. Racial correspondence, but not reviews, editorials, or classification assumes that biological people- news items) and recoded population labels in hood is the principle of population similarity terms of the classificatory schemes from which and difference. Geographic classification they derive. We captured these labels for each assumes that geographic proximity is the of the following sections of each article: title; principle. And ethnicity assumes similarity abstract; introduction; methods; cases, con- and difference in terms of common culture trols, and replications; tables; figures; results; (broadly conceived here to include language and discussion and conclusion. We recorded and religion). To track how geneticists use verbatim all of the population labels used in a these different fundamental understandings, particular section of a particular article. we also aggregated the detailed coding We then coded labels in terms of the larger scheme into this three-part scheme. classificatory system of which they were a Before explaining this aggregation, we part. Thus, if a paper describes a population as have to discuss an ambiguity in the way “black” or “Latino,” we coded this as being geneticists refer to race in their data. As it part of the U.S. Census racial classificatory turns out, although regulations stipulate that system. If samples were described as “West U.S. government-funded research collect data African,” we labeled this as part of a continen- according to racial categories as defined by tal region classificatory system. All told, we the U.S. Census (Epstein 2007), results are identified eight different classificatory systems fairly infrequently reported in these terms in play in the articles we studied. We also (see Figure 1). Furthermore, census catego- sought to distinguish if a label was applied as ries reflect both a racial logic and the parochi- a direct description of the population (subcode: alism of the U.S. situation (with its particular A); a negative label, such as “not-Icelandic” ethnoracialization of the Hispanic category, (subcode: B); or “derived” from or “ancestral” and its demographically and historically spe- to, such as “British kindred” or “European cific set of categories). Panofsky and Bliss 65

More crucially, the “continent” system for although their views are not universal, they labeling populations is fundamentally more are particularly relevant to current patterns of ambiguous than the other seven ways of labe- authority in the field. ling populations.1 Continental labels blur We conducted interviews at scientists’ racial and geographic understandings of pop- localities around North America between ulation difference. When a sample is identi- April 2007 and June 2008. Thus, the views fied as “Asian,” is that a continental or racial expressed pertain to the time when scientists term? “African American” is a conventional researched and wrote the last set of articles in racial label in the United States, but when the our content analysis. The digitally recorded label “African” is applied, is this suddenly a interviews typically were between 45 and 120 geographic label? Given this ambiguity, we minutes long. They were conducted on the chose to follow Gannett (2014), who argues record, although in this article we do not iden- that continental labeling has become a stand- tify speakers. Interviews were semi-structured in, or euphemism, for racial labeling of popu- and open-ended. Questions focused on the lations.2 Thus, in our collapsed coding scheme practices and major findings of each scien- we recoded the racial and continental classifi- tist’s lab; their views of the state of the art and catory systems (Codes 1 and 2 in Table 1) as future directions of biomedical research; their race, other specifically geographic systems conceptions of race and the utility of using (Codes 3, 4, and 5) as geography, and the race in biomedical research; and their views ethno-cultural systems (Codes 6, 7, and 8) as of the relationship between the knowledge ethnicity. Despite this coding decision, we they produce and their social, political, and also attend to the basic ambiguity inherent in biomedical responsibilities. Interviews were the “continental” scheme. transcribed in full and coded. Our second data source is interviews, con- ducted at the closing period of our content analysis, which aimed to reveal the meanings, Findings motives, and coping strategies accompanying Content Analysis geneticists’ labeling practices. We inter- viewed 36 members of the professional elite To understand how members of the field have of contemporary genomics research. We actually used population categories in their selected interviewees who were widely research, we turn to the content analysis of acknowledged leaders in contemporary articles from three years of Nature Genetics. genomics, ran major laboratories (academic, With these materials we can investigate the government, or private), and published in prevalence of population classification, which prestigious venues including Nature Genet- classifications are used most, and whether ics, the subject of the content analysis. classifications in use converge toward a stan- Because we solicited interviews as part of a dard. We present three basic findings: (1) larger project on race in genomics, we made labeling the populations from which human special effort to select interviewees who had samples derive has increased to near ubiquity published or publicly commented on issues of over the study period; (2) the most common human population difference and race. Genet- way to label populations over time is geo- ics is a social field with complicated cleav- graphic, but the greatest growth is in “conti- ages, hierarchies, and competitions for status nental” labeling, which is quasi-racial and recognition (Bourdieu 2004; Panofsky 2014; nearly indistinguishable from racial classifica- Sapp 1983). Our interviewees thus represent tion practically speaking; and (3) rather than not the “average” opinion of geneticists, but standardization of labeling practices or sepa- the views of elites who currently dominate ration of labeling logics, over time scientists the terms on which “scientific capital” is most have increasingly combined classifications at profitably earned and spent in the field. Thus, the field, paper, and individual sample level. 66 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Table 2. Overview of Nature Genetics Sample

1993 2001 2009

Total items 261 316 305 Research articles 189 221 204 Non-human studies 60 (.32) 88 (.40) 84 (.41) Human studies, no population labels 67 (.35) 59 (.27) 7 (.03) Human studies with population labels 63 (.33) 74 (.33) 113 (.55)

Note: “Total items” includes non-research items like comments, editorials, and reviews. Figures in parentheses are fractions of the research articles.

Ubiquity of assigning labels to human sam- may be explained by substitution for continent- ples. Table 2 gives an overview of the number based labels. The small increase in continental- of articles in the sample. The number of pub- region labels may also be racial euphemisms, lished items in the monthly journal increased because labels like West African and North- after 1993, but stabilized just above 300 in the ern European can be synechdochic stand-ins later years, with research articles making up for racial groups. Finally, ethnic, linguistic, about two thirds of the total. Among human and religious labels are rarely used over the genetics articles, there has been a large years. increase in those that specifically label the Figure 1 looks at each classificatory possi- populations from which samples derive. In bility distinct from each other, but what hap- 1993, articles about humans were roughly pens when we collapse these eight schemes split between those that did and did not dis- into their basic definitional logics? Figure 2 close populations. By 2009, very few human shows the frequency of the use of ethnic (6, 7, studies lacked population labels (7, or 3 per- and 8), geographic (3, 4, and 5), and racial (1 cent of all research articles). Thus, the first and 2) schemes. As discussed earlier, we fol- finding is the great increase, almost to ubiq- lowed Gannett (2014) and coded continental uity, of population labeling in human research.3 labeling as implicitly racial. The biggest story in these data is the dramatic increase in the use Prevalence of geographic and conti- of racial classification by 2009. But this is nental labeling. Figure 1 looks at the fre- driven largely by the increased prevalence of quency (among articles with human continental-based population labels (category population labels) of any of the eight classifi- 2 in Table 1), rather than use of the U.S. Cen- cation schemes anywhere they might appear sus’ racial labels. Thus, another way to look at in an article. Racial classification declines this is as a dramatic increase in different kinds over the years, but we see a tremendous of geographic labeling, which are racialized or increase in the use of continental labels. Thus, racial synonyms to differing degrees. Put dif- strictly racial labeling (in the sense of U.S. ferently, racial categorization is increasing, census-type categories) decreased while con- but only by making it more ambiguously mud- tinental designations, often euphemisms for dled with continental geographic labeling. race, surpassed them. Recall also that conti- nental labeling is the most inherently ambigu- Indiscriminate combination of clas- ous—it is imprecise geographically and it sification logics. Our third finding is that muddles the race/geography distinction. The geneticists mix classification systems at the biggest change here is thus a dramatic increase level of the paper, the field, and even the sam- in ambiguous labeling. ple. A good example of what this classifica- Researchers most frequently use country tion mixing looks like in practice is found in labels for samples over time. The slight Keinan and colleagues (2009), which com- decline in country-based labeling in 2009 pares variations among the X chromosome Panofsky and Bliss 67

Figure 1. Frequency of Each Classification System among Articles with Population Labels

Figure 2. Frequency of the Three Collapsed Classificatory Systems Note: Articles that use more than one type of classification are counted in each line, thus the sum of the counts in each year is greater than the total number of articles.

and autosomes to find evidence of evolution- and ethnic). Populations represented accord- ary forces in the ancient migratory history of ing to these different systems are discussed humans. Table 3 displays the population and compared directly within various sections labels used in the various sections of the arti- of the paper, for example: “the autosome-to- cle and how we coded these labels with our X drift ratio comparing North Europeans and full and collapsed coding systems. East Asians . . . and Chinese and Japanese . . . This paper, more complicated than most are both consistent with ¾” (Keinan et al. but illustrative nonetheless, uses labels from 2009:68). These labels are used irreflexively five different classificatory systems (race, and with no discussion of the different clas- continent, continental region, country, and sificatory orders they represent. ethnicity) from each of the three logics for We also see the ambiguous character of conceiving populations (racial, geographic, particular labels and how, at times, their 68 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Table 3. Coding Example Demonstrating Multiple Classification Logics

Section Population Descriptions Population Codes Collapsed Codes

Title “out of Africa”a 0 Abstract East Asia 3a(1a) Race Europe 2a Africa 2a non-African 2b Introduction non-African 2b Race, Geo West African 3a North European 3a East Asian ancestry 3a(1a) Methods West African 3a Geo, Race, Eth North European 3a East Asian 3a(1a) European American 2a Han Chinese 6a|4a Japanese 4a African Americans 1a Nigerians 4a Tables North European 3a Geo, Race East Asian 3a(1a) West African 3a Figures West African 3a Geo, Race North European 3a East Asian 3a(1a) Results West Africans 3a Geo, Race non-Africans 2b North European 3a East Asia 3a(1a) Chinese 4a Japanese 4a Discussion West Africans 3a Geo, Race North Europeans 3a, East Asian 3a(1a) Japanese 4a aThe title uses the phrase “out of Africa,” but because this term is not referring to a population or group, we did not give it a code. logical register varies with the context in the with continental region, through comparison article. A case in point is the label “East to West African and North European popula- Asian.” In the abstract, this label is clearly tions (although racially associated, this speci- being used in the racial/continental register: fication acknowledges the good deal of “around the time of the dispersal of modern within-race or within-continent variation humans out of Africa, chromosome X experi- among, for example, West and East African enced . . . no similar patterns associated with populations). the dispersals into East Asia and Europe.” Furthermore, the methods section reveals The implication is the analysis pertains to synecdoche, whereby smaller populations major ancient population migrations that pro- defined by distinct logics are taken to be rep- duced the continental populations that are resentative of larger ones. Claims about often thought of as the three “major” racial “Africans” are thus based on a “West Afri- categories. But in the methods section, “East can” sample that is actually made up of 120 Asian” is used in a manner more consistent people from “Ibadan, Nigeria.” “European” Panofsky and Bliss 69 claims are based on a “North European” sam- were using the ambiguous “continent” clas- ple composed of 120 “European American sification). In a story where geneticists are chromosomes” from individuals of “North increasingly concerned with a conceptually European ancestry” from “Utah, USA.” Later, precise understanding of what a population is, an “African American” male sample is dis- we would expect increasing purification over cussed, although without information about time. Perhaps one system would expand its geographic origins. The point here is not toward domination, or, if geneticists are to dwell on the kinds of historically and spa- deciding that these different modes of human tially specific evidence that geneticists use belonging have their own logic and analytic to make sweeping claims about human his- utility, systems could become more distinct tory and relationships. Rather, we note the from each other. Here we have the opposite: profligate ways that different kinds of popu- increased combination of classificatory sys- lation classification systems are combined tems within articles over time. This suggests and related and the multiple meanings that that the population concept is being deployed specific labels can have depending on more ambiguously over time among geneti- context. cists and within articles. Figures 1 and 2 show the total use of clas- Figure 4 considers the classification labels sification systems but do not say anything used among all the articles studying human about how they are used together within arti- subjects (Figure 3 omitted the articles that did cles. Figure 3 shows the fraction of human not label human populations) and combines population-labeled articles that use labels the combinations that we previously sepa- somewhere in the text from each combination rated. Apart from the major shift toward labe- of the collapsed codes. For example, Keinan ling human populations, the other big shift and colleagues (2009) counts as one article revealed here is toward classificatory combi- that used the racial, geographic, and ethnic nation. In 1993 and 2001, about 20 percent of classification systems. Across the years, human research articles combined classifica- researchers used all classificatory systems tion systems, but in 2009 over 50 percent did. and all possible combinations in their articles. Population labeling has become standard The popularity of the classificatory systems practice, but no standard way of doing so has varies. Ethnicity is consistently the least pop- emerged, and researchers have combined sys- ular, and geography is overall the most popu- tems indiscriminately. lar. The increase in the use of the racial A final way to look at the combination of classificatory system between 2001 and 2009 classification systems is through the use of is due mostly to the increased use of race hybrid labels, or labels that use elements of alone (again recalling our continental cod- two different classification systems, to desig- ing), as well as its increased use in combina- nate a single population sample. In the 250 tion with geography, and there is a minor articles with human population labels in our increase in the use of all three systems. corpus, 51 used a hybrid label. The preva- These data have striking consequences for lence was essentially flat over time: 24 per- how we should view geneticists’ conceptual- cent of articles with human population labels ization of a population. In 1993 and 2001, just in 1993, 18 percent in 2001, and 20 percent in about 60 percent of articles stuck to a single 2009. Table 4 shows all the different ways classification system. Whatever system these classification systems are combined into papers were using, they were at least consist- hybrid labels in our sample, with examples of ent about what a population is—it is unam- the original population labels. biguously a racial group, a geographic group, Some of these hybrids are relatively con- or an ethnic group. But in 2009, just over 40 ventional—Han Chinese or Ashkenazi Jew, for percent of articles defined populations in a example—in that the more specific label (Han, single way (and even some of these, of course, Ashkenazi) almost always appears with the 70 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Figure 3. Percentage of Articles (with Any Population Labels) with Possible Combinations of Classificatory Systems

Figure 4. Percentage of All Human Subject Articles Combining Classification Labels other. Other hybrids seem to acknowledge the desire to specify population origins as much as diversity of multicultural countries, such as possible—the most extreme example being the “Germans of European descent” (4a|2a) or “Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians” “Utah Caucasians” (5a|1a). Others seem redun- (4a|7a). Cases like these seem to be exhibiting dant, such as “Yoruban African” (6a|2a) or what some interviewees called for (see the “White European ancestry” (1a|2c), but per- next section), that is, detail about the character haps designations like the latter represent an and collection of the sample. Some researchers implicit rejection by some geneticists of the are clearly aiming for precise descriptions, but idea that racial and continental labels are both these practices are too sporadic to represent a racial. Most of the hybrids are driven by the standardization of process. Panofsky and Bliss 71

Table 4. Examples of Hybrid Labels Used, 1993, 2001, and 2009

Hybrid Label Codes Collapsed Code Population Description Examples

1a|2c, 2a|1a, Race/Race White European ancestry, European Caucasian, 2a|1c European Caucasian ancestry 1a|4a, 1a|4b, Race/Geo Caucasian families from France, Asians (Chinese, 4a|1a, 4a|1c non-Chinese), French Caucasian, South African family of Asian origin 1a|5a, 5a|1a Race/Geo Utah Hispanics, Utah Caucasians, Southwestern American Indians 2a|4a, 2a|4c, Race/Geo Indian Asian; North American families of English 2c|4a, 2c|4c, or Welsh descent; African-Brazilian descent; 4a|2a, 4a|2c Indian Asian ancestry; Germans of European descent; Scottish schizophrenics of European descent 2c|5a Race/Geo African ancestry in the Southwest United States 3a|2c Race/Geo North Americans of predominantly European ancestry 3a|4a, 4a|3c Geo/Geo north-European British; Canadian families of northern European origin 3a|8g, 3b|8g Geo/Ethnic Middle Eastern Jews, Middle-Eastern non-Jewish 4a|5a Geo/Geo Canadians from metropolitan Toronto 4a|7a Geo/Ethnic South African Bantu speakers, Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa 4a|8g, 8g|4a Geo/Ethnic Israeli-Druze origin; Old Order Amish in the United States 5a|3c Geo/Geo Utah residents with northern and western European ancestry 6a|2a Ethnic/Race Yoruban African 6a|4a Geo/Ethnic Arab-Israelis, Arab-Bedouin families from Israel, Ashkenazi-Israeli, Han Chinese 6a|5a Geo/Ethnic Chinese Han population (Central and Southern China) 6a|8g, 6c|8g Ethnic/Ethnic Ashkenazi-Jewish, Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry

Overall, these hybrid labels show that dif- labeling occurs consistently in about one fifth ferent logics of population labeling are com- of articles, and continental labeling has bined at the sample level, not just paper and increased in the latest period from 26 to 86 field levels. Furthermore, they highlight an percent. We marked this as an increase in ironic tradeoff between labeling precision and racial categorization. But more crucially, con- conceptual ambiguity. Hybrid labels may tinental labeling is inherently ambiguous, more precisely describe the origins of a popula- mixing racial and geographic logics, and so tion sample, but they often do this by combin- the biggest change is an increase in the most ing logically distinct ways of conceptualizing ambiguous classification system. Further- population. Empirical specification may lead more, about one fifth of papers use hybrid to conceptual ambiguity. labels that may be descriptively precise but To summarize, about half of human sam- combine classification schemes in logically ples had population labels in the earlier peri- ambiguous ways. Overall, combinations of ods, but nearly all did by the end. Of the eight classification systems have become more fre- different ways to classify populations, country- quent across the field and within papers. Clari- scale geography is the most common, ethnic fication, purification, and standardization of 72 American Sociological Review 82(1) classification practices are not the trend. turning to our interview data, we interpret the Rather, combination, hybridization, and ambi- rise in population labeling in human samples guity in human population classification— as one sign of a longer-term transition within classificatory polyvocality—have increased the field of genetics. In 1990, the Human over time. Genome Project (HGP) was launched to pro- duce a reference sequence for human and comparative genetics. The HGP catalyzed Interview Data rapid technological development that made We now turn to interview and other data to DNA sequencing and whole genome assess- contextualize and explain the three basic find- ments of genetic variation outsourceable and ings of the content analysis (labeling ubiquity, relatively inexpensive. Scientifically, this primacy of racial/continental labeling, clas- meant human genetics increasingly measured sificatory ambiguity) with three further find- DNA, but instead of molecular mechanisms of ings: (1) the ubiquity of population labeling gene function, the focus was identification and has facilitated connections between geneti- comparison of DNA sequences within and cists and their extra-scientific contexts; (2) among human groups. A large proportion of scientists use continental labeling to compro- human genetics has thus become populational mise and build bridges across situational and computational, and it demands huge num- boundaries; and (3) classificatory polyvocal- bers of subjects for adequate comparisons. ity affords geneticists the ability to resist This techno-intellectual transition is linked regulation of their research by journals and to professional reorganization. First, it funders and to promote project accountability requires a much larger scale and more inte- to study populations. By reading genetics as a grated research infrastructure (in comparison social field (Bourdieu 2004) whose members to lab-based molecular genetic research). pursue different strategies for acquiring sci- Successful research depends on data from entific capital, which demands balancing many thousands of individuals and compari- relationships with each other and connections sons of far-flung populations, and these are to different contexts outside genetics, we can difficult for any one group to compile. To see the increase of population labeling as part acquire data, multi-site collaborations among of the transition from the dominance of groups have become necessary. Researchers molecular biology to the rise of human are also increasingly dependent on the good- genomics, with its emphasis on population will of study populations, and they utilize comparisons and computational methods. collective resources like biobanks and data Racial/continental labeling and mixing of repositories. Furthermore, the population classification systems are the products of push in human genetics has linked research- geneticists’ strategies for coping with some of ers to different domains of application, in the pressures and dependencies of the field’s particular, medicine, pharmaceutical develop- situation. In short, geneticists strive to achieve ment, forensics, and nascent direct-to-consumer a form of authority devoted to preserving col- genetics. lective and individual room for maneuver and The “populationification” of genetics has professional and scientific freedom. Through also been spurred and framed by a set of such activities, geneticists valorize a version political and bureaucratic forces. A long- of scientific research that emphasizes short- developing movement for a more inclusive term productivity and descriptive precision in biomedical research establishment achieved a labeling, rather than long-term consistency major success in 1993 when President Clin- and standards. ton signed the NIH Revitalization Act, which set into motion a series of reforms spurring Ubiquitous population labeling and more inclusive research and drug develop- the transformation of genetics. Before ment. Researchers were required to use OMB Panofsky and Bliss 73 census categories in their subject recruitment Nature Genetics changed course some- and data collection. These changes spurred what in June 2004, asking researchers to shift debate among scientists and science policy- from racial categorization to the measurement makers about population classification prac- of ancestry and ethnicity. An editorial, “The tices; this debate was likely a causal factor in Unexamined ‘Caucasian,’” defined ancestry the overall rise of population labeling we see as “descent, continental origins, and admix- in our quantitative data. ture” and ethnicity as the social and cultural Journal editors have sought to standardize factors that shape “phenotype, migration, and population classifications, and especially reproductive patterns” (Anonymous 2004). transparency about labeling practices (Smart This move, the editors argued, would help et al. 2008). Major journals revised their “uni- describe health inequalities better as a result form requirements” standards for manuscript of racial discrimination. Again, they asked for submission in 1997, calling for care in the use stronger disclosure of the labeling procedures of race and ethnicity because these categories researchers use to facilitate the generalizabil- “are ambiguous” (Ali-Kahn et al. 2011; ity and transferability of findings. Thereafter, Epstein 2007). Some went so far as to call the journal asked authors to report “ancestry” race “unscientific” and to inform researchers in biogeographic terms. not to use these categories without a specific Soon thereafter, the Journal of the Ameri- scientific rationale. can Medical Association issued a set of In 2000, an editorial appeared in Nature “author instructions” requiring greater clarity Genetics, the field’s leading specialist jour- and justification in the way papers used racial nal, calling on scientists to “explain why they categorization (Winker 2004). The editorial make use of particular ethnic groups or popu- demanded transparency on these matters, lations” and to consider whether their work while acknowledging that use of population was reifying race as a genetic concept (Anon- labels is pulled by many competing demands, ymous 2000). The editorial not only asked such as research questions, changing demo- researchers to clarify and rationalize their graphics, community preferences of research population labeling procedures, it suggested subjects, and funder mandates. that “race” was pseudo-biological and the We have shown how the “populationifica- field would be better off abandoning racial tion” of human genetics is linked to a set of labeling for more precise labels. scientific and professional conditions to which Journals were not of a mind about what to researchers had to adapt in the period circa do about racial classification. In 2003, Bette 2009. In contrast to strictly molecular research, Phimister, a New England Journal of Medi- the new style of research demanded multi- cine (NEJM) deputy editor (and Nature group collaborations and collective data Genetics editor until 2002), published a direc- resources; it strengthened researchers’ ties to tive tasking researchers to use racial stand- various contexts of application but also their ards: “it seems unwise to abandon the practice dependence on study populations to partici- of recording race when we have barely begun pate in research; and it led to increased over- to understand the architecture of the human sight efforts by funders and journals. We now genome and its implications for new strate- turn to interviews that reveal how geneticists’ gies for the identification of gene variants that negotiation of these demands pushed the rise protect against, or confer susceptibility to, of ambiguity through continental/racial clas- common diseases and modify the effects of sification and mixing of categories. drugs” (Phimister 2003). Following the spirit of the inclusion movement, NEJM made the Negotiating collaborations and cli- opposite call: racial categories should be used ents’ demands with geographic/conti- and tracked to better understand health and nental classification. What explains the treatment disparities. rise of geographic, and in particular, 74 American Sociological Review 82(1) continental labeling, that is, the ambiguous comments about the idea that geneticists form of racialization that mixes indistinguish- should use racial labeling as a standard clas- ably racial and geographic ways of describing sification system. He justified standard racial populations, in the last period of the content labeling as sound science: “It can’t be the analysis? Our interviews suggest that the Wild West. I mean, this is just good science. prominence of this form of labeling is linked It just makes good science sense. . . . You can to geneticists’ efforts to balance demands imagine trying to buy something, and you placed on their research by the institutional say, ‘I want a kilo of this.’ If everyone is using interests of external patrons and clients, as a different measure of a kilo, it gets crazy!” well as the necessity of multi-lab collabora- As he has done in the scientific literature, this tions. Geneticists interviewed often expressed speaker privately supports racial standardiza- skepticism about the use of strictly racial tion as important to securing minority inclu- labeling in research, yet they face many sion in research. demands to speak about racial differences. In front of this already contentious back- For many, continental labeling is a kind of drop, contemporary genetics demands collabo- compromise: an implicit way of using quasi- rations among research groups with conflicting racial labeling without speaking in a way that norms about how to label samples and classify explicitly geneticizes race. populations. As a chief developer of human Interviewees often expressed skepticism variation technology at the top privately funded about the relevance of racial classification to lab in the United States explained: genetics research. A director of one of the largest global genome projects did so in his It’s a huge collaboration with all these inter- denunciation of the federal guidelines for nal rules and paper-writing rules. They call classifying samples by race: African Americans “black” there. In those papers, I had these fights associated with I think they are ludicrous, personally! What that. I’ve tried to call African Americans does “Caucasian” mean? It’s everything “African Americans” the whole time, and from somebody living in Belfast to some- they want to call them “black” because body living in Southern Spain to somebody that’s their rulebook. living in Tunisia to somebody living in Sri Lanka. That’s a huge range of variation. Here the disagreement is less about the clas- What does “black” mean or “African Amer- sification system—both black and African ican”? There’s more variation in the average American are racial labels in the U.S. con- African village than there is in the rest of the text—but what labels to use. world outside of it combined. Negotiations about what labels or classifi- cations to use are often described as conten- Even a head official in public health, who has tious. The increasing use of geographic led several international genome projects, classification was commonly described as an characterized federal racial labeling standards agreeable way to settle these disputes. For as “based in a way that is pretty hard to example, an NIH scientist described negotia- defend.” He said the federal classification tions about the term “Caucasian”: “tends to reify the concepts that those groups are biologically different, and clearly that’s A colleague over at Hopkins . . . had used not defensible.” the term “European” . . . and then elsewhere Many interviewees were supportive of the in the paper she had used the term “Cauca- idea that geneticists should work to include sian.” And, I wrote to her as I reviewed the racial and ethnic minorities in research, and paper, and I said, “Look, you gotta pick one that closing health disparities is an important here” . . . I said, “My preference, and what I research aim, but only one, a leader of minority- have settled on, is ‘European American’ and focused genome projects, made supportive ‘African American.’ It’s descriptive.” Years Panofsky and Bliss 75

ago, [senior genomics researcher] yelled at same forensics expert explained, “Also, you me for using the term “Caucasian,” and he don’t want to allow for inappropriate generali- said, “Those are from the Caucasus! That’s zations of your results, which is what happens over in Russia!” And, I just said, “Fine, I’ll when you say ‘African’ or when [my pharma- stop using that.” And by and large, that’s cogenomics collaborator] says ‘sub-Saharan worked. African.’ I have talked with him about this many, many, many times!” Here the dispute This quote illustrates several key dynamics. was about what kind of synechdocic inferences First, the speaker describes how the conven- could be justified, and the appropriateness of tional racial label “Caucasian” makes no sense continental labeling or, indeed, the quasi-racial for most samples if it is taken as a literal geo- geography of sub-Saharan or black Africa. Not graphic description. Second, continental labe- only labels but also the legitimacy of classifi- ling has the benefits of providing a consistent cation systems for particular inferential pur- system that can describe multiple samples and poses had to be negotiated. being “descriptive,” referencing something These quotes help us understand the preva- about the physical origins of the samples. lence of geographic labeling and the growth of Third, continental labeling allows the simulta- continental labeling revealed in the content neous invoking of a U.S. racial label, African analysis. Geneticists face a complex set of American, as equivalent to a geographic label, pressures regarding population labeling. European American. Implicitly, both labels Funders and journals have tried to impose are racial and geographic; although offering controversial rules about the classification and “consistency” here, continental labeling is description of samples, and the different also ambiguous between these two forms of domains of application have their own classification. And fourth, the speaker implies demands. Furthermore, geneticists need to that continental labeling was an agreeable set- collaborate across labs with different contex- tlement of the dispute. tual demands, local practices, and epistemo- While a settlement like this suggests the logical preferences. What labels and appeal of continental labeling, it is not a uni- classification systems to use are subject to versal solution for geneticists. For one, geneti- constant negotiation. In this complex situa- cists’ work intersects extra-scientific domains tion, geographic and especially continental with different demands for classifying popula- labeling is often the “least bad” way to achieve tions. A former president of the American most ends. Geographic labels have the appear- Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) explained: ance of neutrality among scientists’ competing preferences, and continental labels, in particu- Now in the forensics world, police and so lar, allow scientists to actively trade on their forth, they use it [Caucasian] all the time. ambiguity: geneticists can evoke some of the And the New England Journal of Medicine meaning of racial labels (demanded in many prefers “white” and “black.” So, they use contexts) without committing to all of the the term “whites,” and some people would problematic aspects of racial labeling. But it is have trouble with that. So, there is no also clear that many believe continental labe- descriptor that works perfectly all the time ling to be inappropriate sometimes, so its for anyone. availability as a standard is problematic.

As researchers shuttle between forensics, med- Causes of mixing classification sys- icine, and academic population genetics, they tems. What explains our last finding in the must adapt to different domains that have their content analysis, that geneticists mix different own preferred ways of classifying populations. logical ways of defining populations? Part of Furthermore, continental labels can be too the answer is related to the points above. general when particular domains of application Some collaborations involve rationalized syn- demand particular levels of precision. As the thesis of labels, but in others, different 76 American Sociological Review 82(1) labeling schemes are simply combined in the would grab my attention too. But I’m not analysis and subsequent papers. Many pro- going to voluntarily just change the labels. jects also draw from scientific repositories where data or biological samples are pre- This scientist expressed the prevailing senti- classified. Researchers must decide whether ment that only labels derived from “what we to change or directly incorporate the preexist- can measure genetically” could be used across ing database labels with whatever labels the the field. But this would come from the com- project is using. munity working in solidarity, “because there is But geneticists have several other motiva- a scientific discussion behind it, one that you tions that affect classification mixing. First, can be involved in . . . so that is my answer to with few exceptions, leading genomics the labels from the bureaucrats.” In fact, for researchers view journals’ and funders’ efforts this scientist and many others, anything short to create substantive or procedural standards of an internal decision is unacceptable. for population classifications as bureaucratic Some of the labeling policies discussed constraints on researchers’ autonomy that earlier were specifically about procedural should be resisted. Second, researchers are standards for accurate disclosure and descrip- sharply aware of their dependence on the tion of labeling practices, rather than substan- goodwill of study populations. One way tive standards about what classifications to researchers display accountability to those use or avoid. But interviewees often neglected populations is by refusing to re-label samples. this fact and conceived of standards as sub- Thus, as researchers resist bureaucratic clas- stantive. One leader in personal genomics, sification standards and accept people’s own who serves as CSO for one of the world’s labels for their samples, the labels and clas- biggest biotech firms, stated: sifications in use proliferate. Earlier we described how many geneticists I think, better than just [bureaucratic] stan- view U.S. federal guidelines governing data dardization, we have to explain exactly collection as demanding a scientifically dubi- what they mean by any label. Do they mean ous racial classification. For many interview- people self-identified? Do they give people ees, the broader problem is bureaucratic an opportunity to give multiple labels or interference, especially by funders and jour- not? Even do they give check boxes or do nals. One chief director of oncological they have people fill in blanks? You know genomics at the National Institutes of Health those—there is not any absolutely ideal voiced a common complaint that such stand- world. Whatever label you use, you say how ards issue from “commissions” and “commit- you came up about using that label. tees” that “just sit around and make all these pronouncements.” This interviewee described frustration when Geneticists have widely divergent under- reading papers whose study authors use conti- standings of what the guidelines about labe- nental terms without further explanation. She ling and classification actually are, but they cited her then recent article with two leading nearly universally resent “bureaucrats” bioethicists, which encouraged geneticists to imposing rules on them. As one developer of define terms with as much detail as possible. a technology using “ancestry informative Notably, this geneticist asserts scientists’ markers” (AIMs) to map admixture said: autonomy by contrasting her views with bureaucratically imposed standardization, If you can convince me that one of those even though her views are very close to some labels is offensive or inappropriate, or is of the “bureaucratic” labeling policies in play. scientifically incorrect, then that is one A leading African American health expert thing. I suppose if you tell me I have to use with a highly successful personal genomics the new labels or I will lose my job that company interprets bureaucratic labeling Panofsky and Bliss 77 standards as pointing toward the abolition of the form of political goodwill among the racial labeling of samples: populations geneticists study. Scholars have noted a “participatory turn” in contemporary I don’t think that we have to get together and biomedical and genetics research, whereby have a meeting about the right label. In the scientists find themselves increasingly end, I think if you allow geneticists to do accountable to the populations they study their research, they will show through their (Joss 1999; Kelty and Panofsky 2014). Genet- research that [the racial label] is not clear. If icists have long faced charges of naïveté and you stop them, they will not. I don’t even arrogance for using politically contentious think that in this country there’s a way of labels to describe populations, and for pur- stopping people from using those labels. I porting to tell people who they “really are” or guess you could prevent further gathering of where they “really come from” (Reardon data using the racial categories, but people 2005; TallBear 2013). And the profession has will continue to use them as long as they can. gone to great lengths to cultivate a more respectful and empathetic attitude toward This scientist’s argument is that racial labels research participants. For example, a former are biologically inappropriate, but policies president of the ASHG stated that he avoids seeking to impose that fact upon geneticists terms that “incite negative feelings.” He and will fail. Only free research will lead geneti- others recounted the problematic history of cists to abandon racial categorization. Note terms like “Caucasian” and “gypsy,” taking that this scientist interprets labeling policies issue with social labels connoting population as banning race, the opposite view of the superiority or inferiority. Another transna- interviewee quoted earlier who decried the tional genome project director said: bureaucratic imposition of race, but agrees that the real problem is imposing upon geneti- I know [the label we choose] drives the way cists’ autonomy. people feel about themselves. It is important The ambiguous mixing of different ways in terms of the way people receive informa- of classifying populations is thus partly due to tion, and it is important in terms of the way geneticists’ skepticism about and resistance to people feel about wanting to participate in bureaucratic efforts to standardize population studies. classification. Although geneticists interpret these policies in different ways and some- Researchers see their responsibility as one times agree with their substance, they all see that protects both subjects’ rights and the such policies as external and largely illegiti- field’s reputation and viability with the pub- mate. Geneticists’ laissez-faire views on labe- lic. They see labeling as something that goes ling are partly a defense of their authority beyond individual studies to the well-being of over their own science. Through geneticists’ the science overall. noncompliance, these policies have largely The rise in ambiguity of population labels, withered on the vine (Ali-Khan et al. 2011; and the disinclination to pursue a strongly Caulfield et al. 2009). NIH still requires the standardized way of classifying populations, collection of data in terms of census catego- becomes an ethical resource in scientists’ ries, but efforts are often pro forma (Epstein relationships with research participants. They 2007). The research field has more success- understand effective relationships to involve fully, although mostly passively, resisted the accountability to research participants’ self- journal policies. Journals have not sought to categorizations. Some interviewees explained enforce or update them.4 that the sample population’s self-reported Mixing population classifications is more identity in the methods section of articles is a than a means for resisting external authority, good way to “give voice” to their subjects, it is also a means for cultivating authority in and thus they may avoid generating 78 American Sociological Review 82(1) alternative “objective” terms. On reconciling we documented in the content analysis is reports with subjects’ viewpoints, the global linked to these questions of public accounta- genome project leader quoted earlier insisted: bility. Geography gives the impression of being objective and apolitical and thus can be We don’t tend to re-label people. . . . [But] in seen as a way to bypass conflict with research some cases, you will sample people who populations. report to be un-admixed and turn out [to] be Geography, though, has limits in many quite mixed with surrounding groups. And circumstances. For example, the HapMap that will force us to reconsider their popula- Project distinguishes between Ibo and Yor- tion history. . . . But we are not going to uba, because they are communities that change somebody’s self-identified ethnicity. cohabitate in Ibadan, Nigeria, yet form sepa- rate social groups. For scientific and political As he explains, genetics research can often reasons, it is important in particular circum- contradict people’s own sense of their identity, stances for researchers to avail themselves of ancestry, origins, and migration. Researchers multiple classification systems, so geographic must therefore be careful how they describe standardization is not an answer to the field’s their results. The aforementioned biotech CSO dilemmas. Flexible ambiguity of classifica- expressed the common belief that geneticists tion systems and practices, even if chaotic, should adapt to their subjects’ political context helps researchers strengthen their authority and try to think in their shoes: by securing the consent of and avoiding con- flict with study populations. What I do is I imagine that somebody with that, who might get that label either for Labeling specificity as a scientific themselves or someone else, is reading it virtue. There is one more reason for these and can understand it. Are they comfortable findings, especially the classificatory ambi- with it? guity. A new definition of scientific practice emphasizing descriptive precision of popula- When asked what would constitute the tions, rather than generalizable comparison, “best descriptor” for the populations they has accompanied the changes discussed here. study, genomics researchers do not try to Geneticists’ resistance of bureaucratic stand- offer a strictly data-driven definition. Instead, ards and accountability to subject populations they all replied that the social and political help secure their scientific authority, but these interpretation of labels is important to synthe- factors also drive ambiguous mixing of clas- size with research efforts. Some promoted sifications. Researchers have also come to see geographic labels as a promising alternative. classificatory flexibility as a scientific virtue. This brings us back to our second major find- Standard categories would not fit all the cir- ing. Terms like “sub-Saharan African” and cumstances of different scientific projects, “Northern European” appear specific yet and they might make interactions among flexible, they remind observers that popula- research communities with different labeling tions are shaped by the specific environments practices difficult. Geneticists thus emphasize in which they live, and they seem less politi- precision over consistency in labeling. cally fraught than ethnic or racial labels. Echoing the precision emphasized in many Researchers are aware that geographic labels of the quotes used here, one former president often coincide with contested cultural labels of the ASHG concisely voiced a common and some—“sub-Saharan African” or “East sentiment, “I think we are always trying to Asian,” for example—can be racial euphe- sharpen our terminology, refine it, and make misms as well, but they prefer these as seem- it as accurate and descriptive as possible.” As ingly neutral. The trend toward geographic a leader of one of the most-cited studies on labeling and quasi-racial continental labeling population variation put it: Panofsky and Bliss 79

When you are trying to investigate some labeling practices, concerns scientific values of particular aspect of human variation it precision and evolving research questions. depends on either geographic variation, or Conflicting ideas about labeling present chal- ancestors of groups, or socially defined lenges to collaboration, but interviewees over- race. What is important is to identify what is whelmingly see the solution as case-by-case the concept of human variation that is rele- negotiations among collaborators. Our inter- vant to that particular situation, and to as viewees expressed almost no desire to institu- much as possible, to measure that specific tionalize collective standards, nor did they concept. express consistency as any kind of ideal in labeling. Geneticists see the problem as one of Thus, rather than commit to a standard way of pragmatic coordination, not abstract conceptu- conceptualizing populations, interviewees alization. That is, they ask, “What are the right said that researchers should create sample labels for a particular set of samples combined taxonomies based on each study’s unique for this research question given the proclivities research questions, obtain as many layers of of these researchers?” not, “What is the correct information about subjects as possible so that conceptualization of population?” many labels can be circulated about the same data, and report with classifications that are beneficial to the groups under study. A leader Discussion in public health genomics at the NIH, for This article aimed, first, to characterize genet- example, said that a detailed description icists’ human population labeling practices, would be superior to standard categories: and, second, to analyze how geneticists “Just describe what you think you have, and describe and justify these practices. Our con- what you will use it for in your study.” tent analysis of human population labels used A strong rationale for flexible, combina- in Nature Genetics articles in 1993, 2001, and tory classification can be seen in this public 2009 found (1) labeling the population ori- health genomics expert’s description of gins of human samples has become almost evolving labeling practices as his project and ubiquitous over the period, (2) geographic the questions asked develop: labeling has been most prevalent and conti- nental labeling has increased the most, but (3) At the beginning stages, I try to make sure these systems, despite their growth and preva- that everybody knows where these people lence, are not emerging as standards, rather, are really coming from. And then later on, I geneticists mix and combine different classi- can say West Africans. . . . But at some fication systems and geographic, racial, and point, when we want to describe a diaspora, ethnic logics of classification at the field, for example, which is the recent migrational article, and sample levels. We used interviews patterns, then the concept of “Africans” and and contextual information to situate these the “African diaspora”—sometimes the findings and conclude that (1) “populationifi- word “black” and just given the way we cation” is linked to changes to the genetics have defined that—captures that. profession: scaling up of research and coordi- nation among groups, increasing ties to cli- Evoking at one stage a very local label, later ents, and political demands for diversity and a broad geographic one, and finally a racial inclusion of research subjects and topics; (2) label is, for this expert, a function not of geneticists explain the prevalence of geo- changing samples but changing scientific graphic and continental labeling in terms of arguments and exposure of the project. the need to balance the coordination of To summarize, an important way geneti- research groups with different labeling norms cists justify their use of combinations of geo- and the demands of clients who often expect graphic and quasi-racial classifications, and racialized knowledge; and (3) geneticists per- the inconsistency and ambiguity in their ceive the mixing of classification logics, in 80 American Sociological Review 82(1) part, as reasonable resistance to bureaucrats’ it is being combined with other classification efforts to regulate research and as part of their systems rather than eliminating them. Differ- good faith efforts to remain accountable to ent geographic and ethnic classifications are study populations who may object to being in play within the field and within papers. relabeled. While acknowledging that the Hybrid labels that combine different classifi- ambiguous picture of population emerging catory logics in a single population are also from genetics might look problematic, frequently used. The indiscriminate mixing of researchers have advanced a definition of logically distinct classificatory systems occurs good science that favors descriptive specific- at the field level, the paper level, and the sam- ity of populations over consistency and con- ple level. Geneticists have implicitly decided ceptual coherence. that comparing populations characterized by different logics of belonging (racial group, geographic location, cultural commonality) is Molecularization of Race a routine and meaningful activity. Both science studies observers of human The literature demonstrates how the population research in genetics and critical molecularization of race and the racialization scientists within the field have warned about of genetics is driven by political commit- the racialization of genetics and the molecu- ments, technological affordances, and client larization of race. An implication of this lit- demands for racial knowledge. But ambiguity erature is the growth of racial classification in of population classification is driven largely genetics papers. At first glance, our research by a set of interactions among geneticists as provides support for this idea (Figures 2 and they adapt to their field’s dependencies on a 3). Many journals (including Nature Genet- set of internal and external conditions. Rather ics) have asked authors to use racial classifi- than collectively working to establish a stand- cations less frequently and with more ard way of classifying populations or a rubric reflection and justification. Instead, geneti- for the application of different systems, cists have used ambiguous continental, geo- geneticists negotiate arrangements locally. graphic terms without explaining their Geneticists are frequently concerned about decision within papers. This has the effect of the meaning and coherence of the classifica- implicitly expanding the use of race. Rather tion schemes and population labels they use, than strict racialization, however, we think the decision of what labels to use for particu- this trend is better understood as an increase lar populations, the difficulty of assigning in ambiguous labeling. Continental labels, individual subjects to labeled groups, and the after all, are an unclear mix of the geographic meaning of comparisons among groups thus and the racial (Gannett 2014). And their use, labeled. But ambiguity persists, in part, due to as our interviews show, is linked, at least in the positive functions classificatory polyvocal- part, to confusion and compromise among ity plays—enabling collaborations, satisfying geneticists about what can be agreed upon by clients, resisting regulation, and respecting different research groups, what is unlikely to participants. It is further promoted by the upset research participants and activists, and emergence of descriptive precision as a scien- what labels are appropriate to the science. tific value, as the addition of more kinds of In human genetics how to define popula- labels makes just what a population or a com- tions has become a fundamentally ambiguous parison is more ambiguous. matter. This implication, taking the perspec- tive of the field’s labeling practices and Ambiguity Bolstering Authority research corpus, resituates the racialization/ molecularization thesis rather than contradict- Ambiguity has received a limited treatment in ing it. Racialization is happening within a sociological theories of scientific knowledge swirling mix of classifications. Even as the production, conceived narrowly in terms of peculiar continental/racial scheme is ascending, social worlds bridging and epistemic Panofsky and Bliss 81 openness. The results of this study expand Much of the sociology of scientific knowl- sociological theories of ambiguity to include edge tends to see ambiguity as corrosive of how it functions to support scientific author- scientific authority and an embarrassment to ity. Labeling choices and self-justifications be concealed. Shapin (1994) understood an that increase ambiguity of population classifi- essential function of the laboratory and forms cation allow researchers to quell conflict and of scientific testimony to be the protection of coordinate actions within the social world of the ambiguity of experimental practice from genetics, while satisfying client demands, corrosive scrutiny. Collins (1985) understood resisting regulations, and respecting research the authority of experiment and replication to participants. All of these functions help bol- be dependent on most scientists’ temporal and ster geneticists’ scientific authority generally social distance from the ambiguity in which and their cultural authority over knowledge of “core set” researchers dwell. In this tradition, human populations and differences. ambiguity is a liability to be managed, but in Many factors have driven geneticists’ our study, ambiguity is an open issue used growing scientific authority over definitions both unwittingly and strategically in ways of human population, but the contribution of that contribute to collective authority. Our ambiguity has not been noted previously. finding that classificatory ambiguity can be a Although geneticists today acknowledge that cultural, social, and scientific resource for they live in a pre-interpreted world, for much building authority—beyond whatever embar- of the middle twentieth century they debated rassment it may evoke—is counterintuitive ways of “objectively” characterizing human and should stimulate exploration of similar populations. Only after activists advocating situations in other domains. for studied populations resisted important Our study also cautions against some of projects have geneticists become widely the more positive treatments of ambiguity in responsive to their demands. Furthermore, the literature. Star and Griesemer (1989) ambiguity may help geneticists avoid con- show how the ambiguity of boundary objects flicts with academic critics and amongst can facilitate collaborations or connections of themselves. The long history of intellectual scientists and actors from different social struggles to define race suggests that every worlds. Levine’s (1985:218) “evocative rep- classification system aspiring to universality resentation of complex meanings” and Mel- (i.e., to be the standard) is open to manifold oni and Testa’s (2014) “epistemology of the criticisms, but currently the field uses many imprecise” turn on the idea that ambiguous rather than standing behind one. Dwelling in concepts can energize scientific practice. The ambiguity about how to classify and compare story of ambiguity due to classificatory poly- populations allows geneticists to do their vocality in genetics is more ambivalent in this work without presenting a hard target for regard. criticism. Ambiguous labeling draws criti- In accordance with these ideas, ambiguity cism to geneticists’ practices and ways of allows geneticists with different data sources portraying populations, but it also presents a and ways of labeling and conceptualizing pop- critical target that is slippery and complicated ulations to work together productively. When to engage. Levine (1985) wrote that insofar as they are forced to confront differences, they ambiguity is about the concealing of one’s settle the matter locally and temporarily rather true intentions, it has no place in science. But than engaging a broader meta-methodological here the ambiguous use of classification sys- debate about standardization or a conceptual tems substitutes for a positive concept of debate about the ontology of “groups” in human population, for the time being at least, population genetics. Levine (1985:17) wrote and thus it serves geneticists’ authority as a that “toleration for ambiguity can be produc- functional consequence but not an intentional tive if it is taken not as a warrant for sloppy deception. thinking but as an invitation to deal 82 American Sociological Review 82(1) responsibly with issues of great complexity.” disagreement, and how they can implicitly Ambiguity greases the gears of scientific share a community of practice and more or activity in human genetics, but pace Levine’s less ignore those (i.e., critics) outside that optimism, does not necessarily force serious practical community. engagement of complexity. The periodic Given our association of science with reminders of geneticists’ duties to accurately rationalization and disenchantment, we nor- disclose labeling procedures, discuss the mally think of it having little place for ambi- implications of labeling decisions, and aban- guity. Ambiguity is seemingly opposed to don imprecise labels (such as race) might be good scientific knowledge, and we think of it signs of engagement of complexity (Shields as a source of deficiency and weakness in sci- et al. 2005; Yudell et al. 2016). And the fact ence. Our study demonstrates the opposite in that social scientists, public health research- human genetics. Rather than something they ers, and others have joined critical geneticists have sought to contain and minimize, ambi- in making these calls might be evidence that guity manifests in many different ways and ambiguity has opened up channels between has expanded in research on human popula- social worlds or communities with different tions. Rationalization or standardization has epistemological toolkits. But these calls— not been the route to authority in this case, but with their repetition and frustrated tone— rather dimensions of ambiguity in population along with some geneticists’ self-justifications, classification have helped human geneticists seem to us to indicate geneticists’ intransi- build authority though coordinated activity, gence, or at least the mainstream’s practical resisting oversight, and maintaining account- indifference to engaging the conceptual issues ability to clients and participants. It has been of population ambiguity, and their preference a near article of faith for the sociology of for getting on with the research. The engage- scientific knowledge that controversy, dissen- ment across intellectual social worlds, sus, disagreement, lack of coordination, lack although perhaps productive for the partici- of standards, and the like undermine scientific pants, seems confined to the margins. authority or power. Either they corrode cred- Rather than a form of ambiguity that ibility or represent breaks in networks of bridges social worlds or fuels dynamic intel- associations. But our research suggests that lectual hybridization, population labeling is the non-contentious dissensus about how to acting more like a “boundary expressing sym- represent human population functions as a bol of community,” in the sense discussed by source of contemporary geneticists’ authority Cohen (1985). For Cohen (1985:21), “sym- and increasing jurisdiction: ambiguity stands bols are effective because they are impre- for dissensus and disagreement that produce cise.” Thus, geneticists all agree that authority by providing symbolic resources for “population” is among their core concepts dispelling contentious controversy. and it must be treated carefully, but in fact there is great dissensus about exactly how Implications for Genomic Science population should be defined and treated in and Governance practice. “Population” is like a symbol in Cohen’s (1985:21) sense in that it aggregates Critics of labeling practices in genomics often perspectives and “continually transforms the frame their calls for standard labels, greater reality of difference into the appearance of transparency, and poor disclosure practices in similarity. . . . It unites them in their opposi- terms of scientific quality (Ali-Khan et al. tion both to each other, and to those ‘outside’. 2011; Caulfield et al. 2009; Yudell et al. It thereby constitutes, and gives reality to, the 2016). Indeed, the ambiguity we document community’s boundaries.” This helps us see should undermine the reliability and general- how geneticists can disagree without feeling izability of findings in genome science.5 The it necessary to engage or resolve the basic policy implication is that translational Panofsky and Bliss 83 claims of genomics should be tailored to spe- Although ambiguous population labeling cific populations under study, not some puta- may hinder generalizability, it may aid the tive general population. portability of results into domains of applica- Two major scandals of contemporary tion. Paired with racially stratified global genomics research have been the spotty repli- biobanks, “admixture-mapping” technologies cation record of claims and the “missing her- that engage in genetic “population stratifica- itability” problem, wherein genomic studies tion,” especially by continent, are proliferating have been able to identify DNA associations racialized genetic correlations to a wide variety that account for only a fraction of the variance of health and phenotypic outcomes (Bolnick that twin and family studies predict is due to et al. 2007; Fullwiley 2008). These practices and genetic causes (Manolio et al. 2009). Genetic technologies have spurred (and in turn been explanations for racial disparities in disease encouraged by) a range of race-based biotech have fared particularly poorly in reliability investments, including drugs (e.g., BiDil and and robustness tests (Ioannidis, Ntzani, and Iressa) purported to be race specific, “DNA Trikalinos 2004). These problems may be PhotoFit” software that claims to build a digi- partly due to population labeling ambiguities tal “mugshot” of African descendants from that are hindering apples to apples compari- genetic material, and DNA Talent Tests aimed sons across papers. at white and Asian parents (Bliss forthcoming; An example demonstrates the value of Kahn 2012; Ossorio 2007). These products are disambiguating difference in genetic research. based on statistical genetic correlations, which In biomedical research, “race” is often do not take into account the full range of pos- deployed but rarely rigorously specified, and sible biological or social processes (Ossorio thus it becomes an implicit proxy for a variety and Duster 2005). The lack of standards for of possible genetic, social, behavioral, cul- disambiguating types, and thus causes, of pop- tural, and political causes (Gravlee 2009). In ulation difference has led genetics research to a study of hypertension in Puerto Rico, Grav- be carried along with the racialized expecta- lee, Non, and Mulligan (2009) used a model tions of forensic and pharmaceutical biotech that compared two definitions of race: socially development, and disciplinary anomie around ascribed color or African genetic ancestry these issues may have discouraged oversight markers. When “race” was measured only via and critique from within genetics. genetic ancestry, hypertension inequality This study also helps illuminate the gov- appeared to have racial/genetic causation ernance problems around race and population (i.e., “African genes” caused hypertension). designation in genomics. The literature is lit- But the genetic ancestry association with tered with calls for clearer labeling practices hypertension became insignificant when a and more care with the race concept, as well significant color/SES interaction was as editorial statements and empirical studies included. Furthermore, only in the full model charging rampant noncompliance with these where genetic and social differences were recommendations (Ali-Khan et al. 2011; disambiguated could the effect of a particular Caulfield et al. 2009). The latest has asked for candidate gene for hypertension appear. Here the National Academies of Science to con- is an example where engaging the complexity vene experts to devise standards for biologi- of human difference, although not reducing or cal researchers to “move past the use of race” standardizing it, greatly improved the identi- (Yudell et al. 2016:565). These calls assume fication strategy. However, the dominant that the lack of effective standards in labels strategies to address the scandals of genomics and labeling practices is incidental to research have been brute force increases in sample size in human genetics. Our study shows that and deploying more advanced technologies ambiguity is not incidental, but rather is inti- that enable finer-grained genomic analysis mately related to the way geneticists’ author- (Panofsky 2015). ity has been constructed and maintained. 84 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Thus, public pronouncements in this domain build scientific authority. This study should will likely continue to be perceived as unwel- encourage researchers to look at the roles of come impositions, and ambiguous labeling decidedly non-rational factors, like ambigu- will continue to be the practical response. ity, in the production of scientific authority This strategy is unlikely to produce effective and order, and to explore other roles of ambi- reform. Instead, reform would seem more guity. Under what circumstances do such fac- likely to come from geneticists able to attach tors become functional rather than disruptive? the complaints to new ways of doing research Such attention will help us develop more within the legitimately recognized terms for subtle accounts of the growth of scientific valorizing scientific capital within the field. authority and rationalization. In other words, geneticists valorizing a new research agenda that connects disambiguation Acknowledgments (if not standardization) to more effective sci- Special thanks are due to Max Belasco, Kyle Hira- ence epistemically or practically (e.g., medi- bayashi, and Solange Thompson who helped the first cal or commercial success) would seem to be author with the laborious population label extraction and the most likely opening for a meaningful coding for the content analysis. The comments of Stefan move past conceptual ambiguity about popu- Timmermans, Jacob Foster, Hannah Landecker, and three lation classification. anonymous reviewers were extremely helpful, though any mistakes remaining are our own.

Conclusion Data Note By combining a novel content analysis with Additional methodological information, including the interview data, we added to the literature on data table for the content analysis, is available at http:// the molecularization of race in genomics socgen.ucla.edu/people/aaron-panofsky/. research and theories of scientific authority. Geneticists increasingly characterize human Notes populations with the ambiguous continental/ 1. This is true even for the “other” category, which we racial classification system. But they also used mainly for religious labels and otherwise only proliferate and combine logically distinct in the very rare instances when a label did not fit classification systems to describe and com- one of the other classification systems. 2. In several instances, we coded terms that appear pare human populations. This rise in the geographic as racial. For example, “Mexican Amer- ambiguity of human population classification ican” because of the racialized way this term has has helped the field of genomics secure its historically been interpreted in the U.S. Census, scientific authority and build its community. and “East Asian” because this term is often used to Future research should consider additional distinguish “racial” Asians from Asian populations from the Indian subcontinent. contexts for population labeling practices in 3. This shift does not seem to be due to overall growth genomics research. Are the patterns the same in of population labeling practices; animal research, other journals within and beyond genetics? Do for example, nearly always identifies the strain labeling practices differ in terms of the purposes being used. of research (e.g., medical vs. non-medical) or 4. In 2008, the Journal of the American Medical Asso- ciation’s deputy editor, Margaret Winker, presented the composition of research teams (e.g., U.S., data at the MIT “What’s the Use of Race?” confer- international, multinational)? How do processes ence, suggesting that the journal’s 2004 policy had of synecdoche occur—that is, what smaller not been fruitful. populations are allowed to stand in for or gener- 5. One interviewee quoted earlier explicitly noted that alize to larger populations? For example, are highly specific labels help geneticists resist “inap- propriate generalizations” of findings. findings for Danes claimed to represent Europe- ans? What about Sardinians or Amazigh? Finally, sociologists of scientific knowl- References edge have focused on the processes by which Ali-Khan, Sarah E., Tomasz Krakowski, Rabia Tahir, and forms of “rationalization” are constructed to Abdallah S. Daar. 2011. “The Use of Race, Ethnicity and Panofsky and Bliss 85

Ancestry in Human Genetic Research.” The HUGO Fujimura, Joan H., and Ramya Rajagopalan. 2011. Journal 5(1–4):47–63. “Different Differences: The Use of ‘Genetic Ances- Anonymous. 2000. “Census, Race and Science.” Nature try’ Versus Race in Biomedical Human Genetic Genetics 24(2):97–98. Research.” Social Studies of Science 41(1):5–30. Anonymous. 2004. “The Unexamined ‘Caucasian.’” Fullwiley, Duana. 2008. “The Biologistical Construc- Nature Genetics 36(6):541. tion of Race: ‘Admixture’ Technology and the Barkan, Elazar. 1993. The Retreat of Scientific Racism: New Genetic Medicine.” Social Studies of Science Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United 38(5):695–735. States between the World Wars. Cambridge, UK: Gannett, Lisa. 2014. “Biogeographical Ancestry and Cambridge University Press. Race.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Bliss, Catherine. 2012. Race Decoded. Stanford, CA: Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biologi- Stanford University Press. cal and Biomedical Sciences 47(Part A):173–84. Bliss, Catherine. Forthcoming. Sociogenomics: Differ- Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: ence and Discipline in the Postgenomic Age. Stan- Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chi- ford, CA: Stanford University Press. cago Press. Bolnick, Deborah A., Duana Fullwiley, Troy Duster, Gravlee, Clarence. 2009. “How Race Becomes Biology: Richard S. Cooper, Joan H. Fujimura, Jonathan Kahn, Embodiment of Social Inequality.” American Journal Jay S. Kaufman, Jonathan Marks, Ann Morning, of Physical Anthropology 139(1):47–57. Alondra Nelson, Pilar Ossorio, Jenny Reardon, Susan Gravlee, Clarence, Amy Non, and Connie Mulligan. M. Reverby, and Kimberly TallBear. 2007. “Genetics: 2009. “Genetic Ancestry, Social Classification, and The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Test- Racial Inequalities in Blood Pressure in Southeastern ing.” Science 318(5849):399–400. Puerto Rico.” PLoS ONE 4(9):e6821. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflex- Hall, Stuart. 1997. Race: The Floating Signifier (video). ivity. Translated by R. Nice. Chicago: University of Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. Chicago Press. Hamilton, Jennifer A. 2008. “Revitalizing Difference Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sort- in the HapMap: Race and Contemporary Human ing Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Genetic Variation Research.” Journal of Law, Medi- Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. cine & Ethics 36(3):471–77. Caulfield, Timothy, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Sarah E. Ioannidis, John P. A., Evangelia E. Ntzani, and Thomas Ali-Khan, Laura Arbour, Esteban G. Burchard, Rich- A. Trikalinos. 2004. “‘Racial’ Differences in Genetic ard S. Cooper, Billie-Jo Hardy, Simrat Harry, Robyn Effects for Complex Diseases.” Nature Genetics Hyde-Lay, Jonathan Kahn, Rick Kittles, Barbara 36(12):1312–18. A. Koenig, Sandra S. J. Lee, Michael Malinowski, Joss, Simon. 1999. “Public Participation in Science and Vardit Ravitsky, Pamela Sankar, Stephen W. Scherer, Technology Policy- and Decision-Making: Ephem- Béatrice Séguin, Darren Shickle, Guilherme Suarez- eral Phenomenon or Lasting Change?” Science and Kurtz, and Abdallah S. Daar. 2009. “Race and Public Policy 26(5):290–93. Ancestry in Biomedical Research: Exploring the Kahn, Jonathan. 2012. Race in a Bottle: The Story of Bidil Challenges.” Genome Medicine 1(1):8. and Racialized Medicine in a Post-Genomic Age. Centellas, Kate M., Regina E. Smardon, and Steve New York: Columbia University Press. Fifield. 2014. “Calibrating Translational Cancer Keinan, Alon, James C. Mullikin, Nick Patterson, and Research: Collaboration without Consensus in Inter- David Reich. 2009. “Accelerated Genetic Drift on disciplinary Laboratory Meetings.” Science, Technol- Chromosome X During the Human Dispersal out of ogy & Human Values 39(3):311–35. Africa.” Nat Genet 41(1):66–70. Cohen, Anthony P. 1985. Symbolic Construction of Com- Kelty, Christopher, and Aaron Panofsky. 2014. “Disen- munity. London, UK: Routledge. tangling Public Participation in Science and Biomedi- Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication cine.” Genome Medicine 6(1):1–14. and Induction in Scientific Practice. London, UK: Kevles, Daniel J. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics Sage Publications. and the Uses of Human Heredity. New York: Knopf. Duster, Troy. 2004. “Selective Arrests, an Ever-Expand- Lee, Sandra Soo-Jin, Joanna Mountain, Barbara Koenig, ing DNA Forensic Database, and the Specter of an Russ Altman, Melissa Brown, Albert Camarillo, Luca Early-Twenty-First-Century Equivalent of Phrenol- Cavalli-Sforza, Mildred Cho, Jennifer Eberhardt, ogy.” In The Technology of Justice: DNA and the Marcus Feldman, Richard Ford, Henry Greely, Roy Criminal Justice System, edited by D. Lazer. Cam- King, Hazel Markus, Debra Satz, Matthew Snipp, bridge, MA: MIT Press. Claude Steele, and Peter Underhill. 2008. “The Eth- Duster, Troy. 2006. “The Molecular Reinscription of Race: ics of Characterizing Difference: Guiding Principles Unanticipated Issues in Biotechnology and Forensic on Using Racial Categories in Human Genetics.” Science.” Patterns of Prejudice 40(4–5): 427–41. Genome Biology 9(7):404. Epstein, Steven. 2007. Inclusion: The Politics of Differ- Levine, Donald. 1985. The Flight from Ambiguity: Essays ence in Medical Research. Chicago: University of in Social and Cultural Theory. Chicago: University Chicago Press. of Chicago Press. 86 American Sociological Review 82(1)

Mackenzie, Adrian, Claire Waterton, Rebecca Ellis, Pollock, Anne. 2012. Medicating Race: Heart Disease Emma K. Frow, Ruth McNally, Lawrence Busch, and and Durable Preoccupations with Difference. Dur- Brian Wynne. 2013. “Classifying, Constructing, and ham, NC: Duke University Press. Identifying Life: Standards as Transformations of ‘the Provine, William B. 1986. “Geneticists and Race.” Amer- Biological.’” Science, Technology & Human Values ican Zoologist 26(3):857–87. 38(5):701–722. Reardon, Jenny. 2005. Race to the Finish. Princeton, NJ: Manolio, Teri A., Francis S. Collins, Nancy J. Cox, David Princeton University Press. B. Goldstein, Lucia A. Hindorff, David J. Hunter, Risch, Neil, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang. Mark I. McCarthy, Erin M. Ramos, Lon R. Cardon, 2002. “Categorization of Humans in Biomedical Aravinda Chakravarti, Judy H. Cho, Alan E. Gutt- Research: Genes, Race and Disease.” Genome Biol- macher, Augustine Kong, Leonid Kruglyak, Elaine ogy 3(7):1–12. Mardis, Charles N. Rotimi, Montgomery Slatkin, Rosenberg, Noah A., Jonathan K. Pritchard, James L. David Valle, Alice S. Whittemore, Michael Boehnke, Weber, Howard M. Cann, Kenneth K. Kidd, Lev Andrew G. Clark, Evan E. Eichler, Greg Gibson, A. Zhivotovsky, and Marcus W. Feldman. 2002. Jonathan L. Haines, Trudy F. C. Mackay, Steven A. “Genetic Structure of Human Populations.” Science McCarroll, and Peter M. Visscher. 2009. “Finding the 298(5602):2381–85. Missing Heritability of Complex Diseases.” Nature Rudwick, Martin. 1985. The Great Devonian Contro- 461(7265):747–53. versy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Marks, Jonathan. 2012. “My Ancestors, Myself. “Aeon. Gentlemanly Specialists. Chicago: University of Chi- Retrieved February 19, 2016 (http://www.aeonmaga cago Press. zine.com/being-human/jonathan-marks-neanderthal- Sapp, Jan. 1983. “The Struggle for Authority in the Field genomics/). of Heredity, 1900–1932: New Perspectives on the Meloni, Maurizio, and Giuseppe Testa. 2014. “Scruti- Rise of Genetics.” Journal of the History of Biology nizing the Epigenetics Revolution.” BioSocieties 16(3):311–42. 9(4):431–56. Shapin, Steven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility Nelkin, Dorothy. 1992. Controversy: Politics of Techni- and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chi- cal Decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. cago: University of Chicago Press. Nelson, Alondra. 2015. The Social Life of DNA: Race, Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and Reparations, and Reconciliation After the Genome. the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Boston: Beacon Press. Life: Including a Translation of Thomas Hobbes, Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial For- Dialogus Physicus De Natura Aeris by Simon Schaf- mation in the United States: From the 1960s to the fer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1990s. New York: Routledge. Shields, Alexandra E., Michael Fortun, Evelynn M. Ham- Ossorio, Pilar N. 2007. “The Human Genome as Com- monds, Patricia A. King, Caryn Lerman, Rayna Rapp, mon Heritage: Common Sense or Legal Nonsense?” and Patrick F. Sullivan. 2005. “The Use of Race Vari- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35(3):425–39. ables in Genetic Studies of Complex Traits and the Goal Ossorio, Pilar, and Troy Duster. 2005. “Race and Genet- of Reducing Health Disparities: A Transdisciplinary ics: Controversies in Biomedical, Behavioral, Perspective.” American Psychologist 60(1):77–103. and Forensic Sciences.” American Psychologist Shriver, Mark D., and Rick A. Kittles. 2004. “Genetic 60(1):115–28. Ancestry and the Search for Personalized Genetic Panofsky, Aaron. 2014. Misbehaving Science: Contro- Histories.” Nature Reviews Genetics 5(8):611–18. versy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. Smart, Andrew, Richard Tutton, Paul Martin, George Chicago: University of Chicago Press. T. H. Ellison, and Richard Ashcroft. 2008. “The Stan- Panofsky, Aaron. 2015. “From Behavior Genetics to dardization of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Sci- Postgenomics.” Pp. 150–73 in Postgenomics: Per- ence Editorials and UK Biobanks.” Social Studies of spectives on Biology after the Genome, edited by Science 38(3):407–423. S. S. Richardson and H. Stevens. Durham, NC: Duke Smedley, Audrey. 1999. Race in North America: Origin University Press. and Evolution of a Worldview. Boulder, CO: Westview. Parra, E. J., R. A. Kittles, and M. D. Shriver. 2004. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. “Implications of Correlations between Skin Color and “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Genetic Ancestry for Biomedical Research.” Nature Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Genetics 36(11):S54–S60. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Phelan, Jo C., Bruce G. Link, and Naumi M. Feldman. Studies of Science 19(3):387–420. 2013. “The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Sunder Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitu- Essential Racial Differences: A Backdoor to Eugen- tion of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke Univer- ics?” American Sociological Review 78(2):167–91. sity Press. Phimister, Elizabeth G. 2003. “Medicine and the TallBear, Kim. 2013. Native American DNA: Tribal Racial Divide.” New England Journal of Medicine Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. 348(12):1081–82. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Panofsky and Bliss 87

Timmermans, Stefan, and Marc Berg. 2003. The Gold Angeles. His research focuses on the sociology of sci- Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-Based Medi- ence and knowledge, public participation in science, and cine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadel- Bourdieu’s field theory. His award winning book Misbe- phia: Temple University Press. having Science (Chicago University Press 2014) is about Timmermans, Stefan, and Steven Epstein. 2010. “A how controversies have successively reshaped the field World of Standards but Not a Standard World: of behavior genetics socially and intellectually. Current Toward a Sociology of Standards and Standardiza- research considers genetics’ impact on knowledge of tion.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:69–89. race, white nationalists’ use of genetic ancestry tests, Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social controversies over the statistical evaluation of teachers, Organization of the Sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford and the sociology of the reproducibility crisis. University. Winker, Margaret A. 2004. “Measuring Race and Ethnic- Catherine Bliss is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the ity: Why and How?” JAMA 292(13):1612–14. University of California, San Francisco. Her research Yudell, Michael, Dorothy Roberts, Rob DeSalle, and explores the sociology of race, gender, and sexuality in Sarah Tishkoff. 2016. “Taking Race out of Human science and society. Bliss’s award winning book Race Genetics.” Science 351(6273):564–65. Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice (Stanford Zehr, Stephen C. 2000. “Public Representations of Sci- University Press 2012) examines how genomics became entific Uncertainty about Global Climate Change.” today’s new science of race. Her forthcoming book Public Understanding of Science 9(2):85–103. Sociogenomics: Difference and Discipline in the Postgen- omic Age (Stanford University Press 2017) examines Aaron Panofsky is Associate Professor in the Institute postgenomic convergences in social and genetic science for Society and Genetics and Departments of Public led by the new science of social genomics, including their Policy and Sociology at the University of California, Los implications for equality, identity, and belonging.