Element contents
Ancestry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2026
Summary
Ancestry is a central concept in human population genetics, yet remains undertheorized in philosophy of biology. This Element examines ancestry through the lens of scientific objectivity, asking whether it can function as an objective concept. It begins by distinguishing the meanings of ancestry and showing the concept's ambiguity and imprecision. It then considers how ancestry relates to population descriptors such as race and ethnicity, focusing on virtues often attributed to it, including neutrality, measurability, simplicity, generality, and correspondence. The core question is what kind of objectivity ancestry can claim. The Element argues that ancestry's objectivity is constitutive: a vague concept becomes an object of inquiry only once the relevant practices, assumptions, and research aims are specified. Establishing the objectivity of ancestry therefore requires examining scientific practices in human population genetics. The Element concludes that ancestry is an iterative, model-dependent, context-sensitive construct that nonetheless plays an important role in scientific inquiry.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009660938Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 10 December 2026
References
Adhikari, K., Mendoza-Revilla, J., Chacón-Duque, J. C., et al. (2016). Admixture in Latin America. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 41: 106–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2016.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
All of Us Research Program. (2025). All of Us research program participant provided information.Google Scholar
American Sociological Association. (2003). Statement of the American Sociological Association on the Importance of Collecting Data and Doing Social Scientific Research on Race. www.asanet.org. Accessed 26 November 2025.Google Scholar
Baker, A. (2022). Simplicity. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/simplicity/Google Scholar
Banda, Y., Kvale, M. N., Hoffmann, T. J., et al. (2015). Characterizing race/ethnicity and genetic ancestry for 100,000 subjects in the genetic epidemiology research on adult health and aging (GERA) cohort. Genetics 200(4): 1285–95. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.115.178616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentz, M., Saperstein, A., Fullerton, S. M., et al. (2023). Conflating race and ancestry: Tracing decision points about population descriptors over the precision medicine research life course. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances 5(1): 100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2023.100243Google ScholarPubMed
Bhopal, R. (2004). Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: For reflection and debate. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-) 58(6): 441–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Biddle, J. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44(1): 124–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bick, A. G., Metcalf, G. A., Mayo, K. R., et al. (2024). Genomic data in the All of Us Research Program. Nature 627: 340–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06957-xGoogle Scholar
Birney, E., Inouye, M., Raff, J., et al. (2021). The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.10041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. (2008). Eliminativism. In The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-1052Google Scholar
Bliss, C. (2012). Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804782050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A., 2020. Towards a taxonomy of the model-ladenness of data. Philosophy of Science 87: 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1086/710516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, A. & Parker, W., 2021. Data models, representation and adequacy-for-purpose. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11: 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00345-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolnick, D. A. (2008). Individual ancestry inference and the reification of race as a biological phenomenon. In Koenig, B. A., Soo-Jin Lee, S., and Richardson, S. S., eds., Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Bonham, V. L., Green, E. D., & Pérez-Stable, E. J. (2018). Examining how race, ethnicity, and ancestry data are used in biomedical research. JAMA 320(15): 1533–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgerson, K. (2011). Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1(3): 435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0035-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrell, L. N., Elhawary, J. R., Fuentes-Afflick, E., et al. (2021). Race and genetic ancestry in medicine – A time for reckoning with racism. New England Journal of Medicine 384(5): 474–80. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms2029562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, L. & Hammonds, E. M. (2012). The dilemma of classification. In Lee, C. Y., ed., Genetics and the Unsettled Past: The Collision of DNA, Race, and History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M. J. (2013). Values in science beyond underdetermination and inductive risk. Philosophy of Science 80(5): 829–39. https://doi.org/10.1086/673720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchard, E. G., Ziv, E., Coyle, N., et al. (2003). The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. New England Journal of Medicine 348(12): 1170–75. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb025007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byeon, Y. J. J., Islamaj, R., Yeganova, L., et al. (2021). Evolving use of ancestry, ethnicity, and race in genetics research – A survey spanning seven decades. The American Journal of Human Genetics 108(12): 2215–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerdeña, J. P., Grubbs, V., & Non, A. L. (2022). Genomic supremacy: The harm of conflating genetic ancestry and race. Human Genomics 16(1): 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-022-00391-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, H. (2007). Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2022). Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dal/detail.action?docID=715083910.1017/9781108635738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, K. (2023). Genetic ancestry. Database. GnomAD, January 11. https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/news/2023-11-genetic-ancestry/Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 78(2): 67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025900Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1994). Can neurobiology teach us anything about consciousness? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 67(4): 23–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3130741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, G. (2023). Genetic similarity versus genetic ancestry groups as sample descriptors in human genetics. Preprint, arXiv, January 7. http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11595Google Scholar
Dauda, B., Molina, S. J., Allen, D. S., et al. (2023). Ancestry: How researchers use it and what they mean by it. Frontiers in Genetics 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1044555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, M. (2025). The correspondence theory of truth. In Zalta, Edward N., and Nodelman, Uri, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2025/entriesruth-correspondenceGoogle Scholar
Delgado, A. N., Baedke, J., Fischer, A.-C., 2026. The limits of diversity in science: The case of human microbiome research. In The Routledge Handbook of Values and Science. Routledge, pp. 162–174. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003469100-17Google Scholar
Diaz-Papkovich, A., Anderson-Trocmé, L., Ben-Eghan, C., & Gravel, S. (2019). UMAP reveals cryptic population structure and phenotype heterogeneity in large genomic cohorts. PLOS Genetics 15(11): e1008432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, H. (2004). The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138(3): 453–73.10.1023/B:SYNT.0000016451.18182.91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. (2007). Rejecting the Ideal of Value‐Free Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P., Wiener, P. P., & Vuillemin, J. (1982). Physical theory and experiment. In Duhem, P., ed., The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1nj34vm.16Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1996). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (2007). Fact and value. In Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, eds., Value-Free Science: Ideals and Illusions? Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/dal/detail.action?docID=3052729Google Scholar
Eastwood, S. V., Hemani, G., Watkins, S. H., et al. (2024). Ancestry, ethnicity, and race: Explaining inequalities in cardiometabolic disease. Trends in Molecular Medicine 30(6): 541–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2024.04.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elhaik, E. (2022). Principal component analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated. Scientific Reports 12(1): 14683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14395-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. (2012). Epistemic and methodological iteration in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43(2): 376–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/11320593.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1992). Eliminative pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59(4): 671–90.10.1086/289701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1998). Species pluralism and anti-realism. Philosophy of Science 65(1): 103–20.10.1086/392628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (2015). The theory-ladenness of experiment. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 46(1): 155–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-015-9285-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimura, J. H., &Rajagopalan, R. (2011). Different differences: The use of ‘Genetic Ancestry’ versus Race in Biomedical Human Genetic Research. Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 5–30.10.1177/0306312710379170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujimura, J. H., Rajagopalan, R., Ossorio, P. N., & Doksum, K. A. (2010). Race and ancestry: Operationalizing populations in human genetic variation studies. In Whitmarsh, I., and Jones, D. S., eds., What’s the Use of Race? Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gannett, L. (2014). Biogeographical ancestry and race. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47: 173–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.05.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gombault, C., Grenet, G., Segurel, L., et al. (2023). Population designations in biomedical research: Limitations and perspectives. HLA 101(1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/tan.14852CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenacre, M., Groenen, P. J. F., Hastie, T., et al. (2022). Principal component analysis. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00184-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J., Barragán, C. A., 2022. Re-situations of scientific knowledge: A case study of a skirmish over clusters vs clines in human population genomics. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 44, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00497-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guttinger, S. & Love, A. C.. (2025). The epistemic strength of proxies in scientific practice. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 15(3): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00669-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, M. H. (2025). Biology’s Einstein moment: Specifying lineal frames of reference and rejecting absolute biological history. Biological Theory, ahead of print, February 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-024-00475-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. (2023). The epistemic harms of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10164-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddad, Y. (2025). The value-ladenness of ancestry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 112: 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddad, Y. (2026). Measuring ancestry. Biology & Philosophy 41 (2): 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-026-10017-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. & Neto, C. (2026). Navigating values in scientific recommendations. Philosophy of Science, July 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2026.10252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, K. P. (2021). The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691226705Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity?’ The Centennial Review 36(3): 437–70.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226241531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, M. (2003). Theory-ladenness and scientific instruments in experimentation. In Radder, Hand, ed., The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjsnfGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466(7302): 29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, C. & Woodward, J. (2003). Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth. Noûs 37(2): 181–99.10.1111/1468-0068.00435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intemann, K. (2005). Feminism, underdetermination, and values in science. Philosophy of Science 72(5): 1001–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/508956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, D. & Bonam, C. M. (2023). Biogeographic ancestry information facilitates genetic racial essentialism: Consequences for race-based judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 53(7): 631–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. (2021). Objectivity in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009063647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampourakis, K. (2023). Ancestry Reimagined: Dismantling the Myth of Genetic Ethnicities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197656341.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, M. (2007). Philosophy and phylogenetics: Historical and current connections. In Hull, D. L., and Ruse, M., eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khosrowi, D. (2019). Trade-offs between epistemic and moral values in evidence-based policy. Economics and Philosophy 35(1): 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267118000159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1995). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195096533.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, M. (2024). ‘All of Us’ genetics chart stirs unease over controversial depiction of race. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00568-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutz, G. (2010). Congressional testimony. In Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. & Tempini, N. (2020). Data journeys in the sciences. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37177-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, A. C. F., Molina, S. J., Appelbaum, P. S., et al. (2022). Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society. Science 376(6590): 250–52. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm7530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, C. T. & Belanger, C. (2015). The generality of scientific models: A measure theoretic approach. Synthese 192(1): 269–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0567-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1995). Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies. Synthese 104(3): 351–81.10.1007/BF01064505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Beltrán, C., Nieves Delgado, A., González-Santos, S. P., García-Deister, V. (2022). The heredity matrix: Genetics and the understanding of Mestizaje, health, and belonging in Mexico. Science as Culture 31, 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2065976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tvzv010.1515/9780691187013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorusso, L., & Bacchini, F. (2015). A reconsideration of the role of self-identified races in epidemiology and biomedical research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 52: 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.02.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludwig, D. (2015). Against the new metaphysics of race. Philosophy of Science 82(2): 244–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/680487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, G. & Elliott, K. C. (2022). Non-epistemic values and scientific assessment: An adequacy-for-purpose view. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12(2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00458-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mari, L., Wilson, M., & Maul, A. (2023). Philosophical perspectives on measurement. In Mari, Luca, Wilson, Mark, and Maul, Andrew, eds., Measurement Across the Sciences: Developing a Shared Concept System for Measurement. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22448-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieson, I. & Scally, A. (2020). What is ancestry? PLOS Genetics 16(3): e1008624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008624CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morales, J., Welter, D., Bowler, E. H., et al. (2018). A standardized framework for representation of ancestry data in genomics studies, with application to the NHGRI-EBI GWAS catalog. Genome Biology 19(1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1396-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morning, A. (2005). Race. Contexts 4(4): 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2005.4.4.44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, C. (2015). Genetic Geographies: The Trouble with Ancestry. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt130jtmg10.5749/minnesota/9780816690633.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2023). Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26902Google Scholar
National Human Genome Research Institute. (2026). Accessed August 5, 2026. www.genome.gov/Google Scholar
National Institute of Health. (2020). All of Us Research Program. https://allofus.nih.govGoogle Scholar
Neto, C. (2020). When imprecision is a good thing, or how imprecise concepts facilitate integration in biology. Biology & Philosophy 35(6): 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09774-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novembre, J. (2016). Pritchard, Stephens, and Donnelly on population structure. Genetics 204(2): 391–93. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.116.195164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Hara, R. J., 1993. Systematic generalization, historical fate, and the species problem. Systematic Biology 42, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992462Google Scholar
Padawer, R. (2018). Sigrid Johnson was black. A DNA test said she wasn’t. New York Times, November 19. www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/magazine/dna-test-black-family.htmlGoogle Scholar
Padovani, F. (2015). Measurement, coordination, and the relativized a priori. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 52: 123–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panofsky, A. & Bliss, C. (2017). Ambiguity and scientific authority: Population classification in genomic science. American Sociological Review 82(1): 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416685812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papale, F. (2024). From the philosophy of measurement to the philosophy of classification: Generalizing the problem of coordination and historical coherentism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 106: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, W. S. (2010). Scientific models and adequacy-for-purpose. The Modern Schoolman 87 (3/4): 285–93. https://doi.org/10.5840/schoolman2010873/410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, W. S. (2020). Model evaluation: An adequacy-for-purpose view. Philosophy of Science 87(3): 457–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/708691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. & Panofsky, A. (2021). Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication. Social Studies of Science 51(4): 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211005551CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popejoy, A. B. & Fullerton, S. M. (2016). Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature 538(7624): 7624. https://doi.org/10.1038/538161aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potiron, A., 2025. Beyond the microscope: Rethinking microbial diversity measurement with the model-based account. European Journal of Philosophy of Science 15(33). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00660-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155(2): 945–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/155.2.945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Psillos, S. (2005). Scientific realism and metaphysics. Ratio 18(4): 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2005.00301.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S. (2006). Scientific realism. In Borchert, Donald M., ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale.Google Scholar
Raghavan, M., Skoglund, P., Graf, K. E., et al. (2014). Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans. Nature 505(7481): 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12736CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reardon, J. (2007). Democratic mis-haps: The problem of democratization in a time of biopolitics. BioSocieties 2(2): 239–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174585520700573XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, D. (2018a). Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, D. (2018b). How genetics is changing our understanding of ‘race’. New York Times, March 23. www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.htmlGoogle Scholar
Reich, D., Thangaraj, K., Patterson, N., et al. (2009). Reconstructing Indian population history. Nature 461(7263): 489–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08365CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiss, J. & Sprenger, J. (2020). Scientific objectivity. In Zalta, Edward N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/scientific-objectivityGoogle Scholar
Ringbauer, H., Huang, Y., Akbari, A., et al. (2024). Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA. Nature Genetics 56(1): 143–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocha, C. S., Secolin, R., Rodrigues, M. R., et al. (2020). The Brazilian Initiative on Precision Medicine (BIPMed): Fostering genomic data-sharing of underrepresented populations. Npj Genomic Medicine 5(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-020-00149-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez Duque, S., Tal, E., Barbic, S. P. (2024). The role of ethical and social values in psychosocial measurement. Measurement 225: 113993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2023.113993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, N. A., Pritchard, J. K., Weber, J. L., et al. (2002). Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298(5602): 2381–85. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotimi, C. N. & Jorde, L. B. (2010). Ancestry and disease in the age of genomic medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 363(16): 1551–58. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0911564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-Linares, A., Adhikari, K., Acuña-Alonzo, V., et al. (2014). Admixture in Latin America: Geographic structure, phenotypic diversity and self-perception of ancestry based on 7,342 individuals. PLoS Genetics 10(9): e1004572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvo, N. M., Olsen, G.-H., Berg, T. & Janssen, K. (2024). Biogeographical ancestry analyses using the ForenSeqTM DNA Signature Prep Kit and multiple prediction tools. Genes 15(4): 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15040510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saukko, P. (2017). Shifting metaphors in direct-to-consumer genetic testing: From genes as information to genes as big data. New Genetics and Society 36(3): 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2017.1354691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scally, A. (2023). Roots of misunderstanding. In Meller, Harald, Krause, Johannes, Haak, Wolfgang, and Risch, Roberto, eds., Kinship, Sex, and Biological Relatedness: The Contribution of Archaeogenetics to the Understanding of Social and Biological Relations. Heidelberg: Propylaeum.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. (2017). Using democratic values in science: An objection and (partial) response. Philosophy of Science 84(5): 1044–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/694006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, A. E., Fortun, M., Hammonds, E. M., et al. (2005). The use of race variables in genetic studies of complex traits and the goal of reducing health disparities: A transdisciplinary perspective. American Psychologist 60(1): 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddique, A. (2013). DNA ancestry tests are ‘meaningless’ for your historical genealogy search. Medical Daily, March 7. www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586Google Scholar
Skoglund, P. & Mathieson, I. (2018). Ancient genomics of modern humans: The first decade. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19(1): 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021749CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solomon, M. & Richardson, A. (2005). A critical context for Longino’s critical contextual empiricism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36(1): 211–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.12.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez, J. & Veigl, S. (2024). Vindicating lineage eliminativism. Biological Theory: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-024-00478-0Google Scholar
Tal, E. (2012). The epistemology of measurement: A model-based account. Thesis. University of Toronto. https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/95d3f5da-b56b-4d1e-a3ef-227aa65e3dcb/contentGoogle Scholar
Tal, E. (2013). Old and new problems in philosophy of measurement. Philosophy Compass 8(12): 1159–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tal, E. (2024). Models and measurement. In Knuuttila, T., Carrillo, N., and Koskinen, R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Scientific Modeling. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003205647-23Google Scholar
TallBear, K. (2013a). Genomic articulations of indigeneity. Social Studies of Science 43(4): 509–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713483893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TallBear, K. (2013b). Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt46npt010.5749/minnesota/9780816665853.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillmar, A., Fagerholm, S. A., Staaf, J., et al. (2021). Getting the conclusive lead with investigative genetic genealogy – A successful case study of a 16 year old double murder in Sweden. Forensic Science International: Genetics 53: 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102525Google ScholarPubMed
Torres Irribarra, D. (2021). A pragmatic perspective of measurement. In David Torres Irribarra, A Pragmatic Perspective of Measurement. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74025-2_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau. About the Hispanic population and its origin. Census.Gov. Accessed November 26, 2025. www.census.gov/topics/population/hispanic-origin/about.html.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278220.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wailoo, K. & Nelson, A. 2012. Genetics and the unsettled past: The collision of DNA, race, and history. In Catherine, Y. Lee, Wailoo, Keith, and Nelson, Alondra, eds., Rutgers Studies in Race and Ethnicity. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. 1–12.Google Scholar
Ward, Z. B. (2021). On value-laden science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 85: 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.09.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, A. (2021). Multi-model approaches to phylogenetics: Implications for idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 90: 285–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.10.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkins, A. & DiMarco, M. (2025). Sex eliminativism. Biology & Philosophy 40(1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-024-09972-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. (2025). Research guides: NIH: All of Us research data: Overview of data sources. https://libguides.unm.edu/allofus/dataGoogle Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2022). Epistemic interests and the objectivity of inquiry. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt, ed. 2018. The genetic reification of ‘Race’: A story of two mathematical methods. In Phylogenetic Inference, Selection Theory, and History of Science, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316276259.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witonsky, J., Elhawary, J. R., Eng, C., et al. (2022). Genetic ancestry to improve precision of race/ethnicity–based lung function equations in children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 205(6): 725–27. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202109-2088LECrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wylie, A. & Nelson, L. H. (2007). Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from Feminist Science Studies Scholarship. In Kincaid, Harold, Dupré, John, and Wylie, Alison, eds., Value-Free Science?, 1st ed., New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0005.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this Element
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.