Race (human categorization)

=== Biology, anatomy, and medicine ===
In the same 1985 survey {{harv|Lieberman|Hampton|Littlefield|Hallead|1992}}, 16% of the surveyed [[biologist]]s and 36% of the surveyed [[Developmental psychology|developmental psychologists]] disagreed with the proposition: "There are biological races in the species ''Homo sapiens''."

The authors of the study also examined 77 college textbooks in biology and 69 in physical anthropology published between 1932 and 1989. Physical anthropology texts argued that biological races exist until the 1970s, when they began to argue that races do not exist. In contrast, biology textbooks did not undergo such a reversal but many instead dropped their discussion of race altogether. The authors attributed this to biologists trying to avoid discussing the political implications of racial classifications, and to the ongoing discussions in biology about the validity of the idea of "subspecies". The authors concluded, "The concept of race, masking the overwhelming genetic similarity of all peoples and the mosaic patterns of variation that do not correspond to racial divisions, is not only socially dysfunctional but is biologically indefensible as well (pp. 5 18–5 19)."{{harv|Lieberman|Hampton|Littlefield|Hallead|1992|pp=316–17}}

A 1994 examination of 32 English sport/exercise science textbooks found that 7 (21.9%) claimed that there are biophysical differences due to race that might explain differences in sports performance, 24 (75%) did not mention nor refute the concept, and 1 (3.1%) expressed caution with the idea.<ref name="presentation" />

In February 2001, the editors of ''[[Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine]]'' asked "authors to not use race and ethnicity when there is no biological, scientific, or sociological reason for doing so".<ref name="Rivara, Finberg 2001" /> The editors also stated that "analysis by race and ethnicity has become an analytical knee-jerk reflex".<ref name="nih" /> ''Nature Genetics'' now ask authors to "explain why they make use of particular ethnic groups or populations, and how classification was achieved".<ref name="profiling" />

Morning (2008) looked at high school biology textbooks during the 1952–2002 period and initially found a similar pattern with only 35% directly discussing race in the 1983–92 period from initially 92% doing so. However, this has increased somewhat after this to 43%. More indirect and brief discussions of race in the context of medical disorders have increased from none to 93% of textbooks. In general, the material on race has moved from surface traits to genetics and evolutionary history. The study argues that the textbooks' fundamental message about the existence of races has changed little.<ref name="reconstructing" />

Surveying views on race in the scientific community in 2008, Morning concluded that biologists had failed to come to a clear consensus, and they often split along cultural and demographic lines. She notes: "At best, one can conclude that biologists and anthropologists now appear equally divided in their beliefs about the nature of race."<ref name="MorningSocial" />

Gissis (2008) examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946–2003 period. He wrote that "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only ''seemingly'' disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a ''fluctuating yet continuous use'' during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even ''become more pronounced from the early 1970s on''".<ref name="autogenerated" />

33 health services researchers from differing geographic regions were interviewed in a 2008 study. The researchers recognized the problems with racial and ethnic variables but the majority still believed these variables were necessary and useful.<ref name="operationalization" />

A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English [[anatomy]] textbooks found that they all represented human biological variation in superficial and outdated ways, many of them making use of the race concept in ways that were current in 1950s anthropology. The authors recommended that anatomical education should describe human anatomical variation in more detail and rely on newer research that demonstrates the inadequacies of simple racial typologies.<ref name="biological" />

A 2021 study that examined over 11,000 papers from 1949 to 2018 in the ''[[American Journal of Human Genetics]]'', found that "race" was used in only 5% of papers published in the last decade, down from 22% in the first. Together with an increase in use of the terms "ethnicity", "ancestry", and location-based terms, it suggests that human geneticists have mostly abandoned the term "race".<ref>{{cite journal |title=Geneticists curb use of 'race' |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=374 |issue=6572 |page=1177 |date=3 December 2021}}</ref>

The [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]] (NASEM), supported by the US the [[National Institutes of Health]], formally declared that "researchers should not use race as a proxy for describing human genetic variation".<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |date=14 March 2023 |title=Researchers Need to Rethink and Justify How and Why Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry Labels Are Used in Genetics and Genomics Research, Says New Report |url=https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/03/researchers-need-to-rethink-and-justify-how-and-why-race-ethnicity-and-ancestry-labels-are-used-in-genetics-and-genomics-research-says-new-report |access-date=17 April 2023 |website=National Academies}}</ref> The report of its Committee on the Use of Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry as Population Descriptors in Genomics Research titled ''Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research'' was released on 14 March 2023.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kaiser |first=Jocelyn |date=14 March 2023 |title=Geneticists should rethink how they use race and ethnicity, panel urges |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-should-rethink-how-they-use-race-and-ethnicity-panel-urges |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=Online |doi=10.1126/science.adh7982}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Zimmer |first=Carl |date=14 March 2023 |title=Guidelines Warn Against Racial Categories in Genetic Research |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/science/race-genetics-research-national-academies.html |access-date=17 April 2023 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The report stated: "In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups."<ref name=":8" /> The committee co-chair [[Charmaine Royal|Charmaine D. Royal]] and [[Robert O. Keohane]] of Duke University agreed in the meeting: "Classifying people by race is a practice entangled with and rooted in racism."<ref name=":6" />
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text