I do not understand how David Reich and other geneticists find it so easy to slide from arguing that there might be mean population differences between different groups of humans to claiming that characterizing such differences will be useful somehow
Even if you stipulate that there's some genetic association between ancestry and some clinically or prophylactically actionable phenotype, isn't the whole point of modern genetics to ID the relevant variants so we can make predictions at the individual rather than group level?
Yes, in the absence of knowing someone's genotype the inferences one can make based on ancestry might have some narrow practical value. But surely this is transitory.
There is value in characterizing population variation and exploiting it for research purposes. But the ultimate power of contemporary genetics lies in what it learns to the individual and not to the group.
And doesn't this render the whole idea of using biased cultural proxies like race or imperfect and imprecise genetic ones like ancestry invalid in any kind of practical sense?
Given that, and given the damage these concepts have wrought through history and continue to cause on a daily basis, why make them the center of any kind of conversation about genetics?
Reich is correct that geneticists need to engage in discussion of race and ancestry. But by focusing on the value of group identity he not only reifies destructive concepts of race, he betrays the ultimate promise of genetics to elevate the individual.
