The technical complaint here is mainly that variance-based dimensional reduction ignores many important variables. Retracting the paper over this would be an extremely controversial move. Those who are claiming that race has no genetic basis are factually wrong.
Self-identified race correlates remarkably well with genetic history, although many scientists don't want that to be true. It looks like most of the people complaining are applying a form of consequentialism: they might actually think that genetics and self-identified race are closely related, but worry if that fact is widely known, people will weaponize it as a justification for racism. I think we should approach the problem differently: accept that self-identified race correlates with genetic history, and also explain why that doesn't justify being racist.
(For those who are curious, self-identified race is what a person puts down on a form that asks what their ethnicity or race is. That answer can be based on a combination of many different forms of evidence and belief and might not correspond to the genetic history of the individual at all! Genetic history is literally your ancestry tree- from whom you descended. This is a scientific concept, can be measured using sequencing, and often contains surprising data (it's how I learned I had a bunch of half-sisters and brothers around the country).
Unfortunately, nearly every online discussion of these sorts of things devolves into very ugly arguments falling into the same tropes over and over, which isn't very productive. Everything I wrote above is true to the best of my knowledge, and has factual support, but could be wrong- I fully acknowledge my epistemic uncertainty. I am not interested in your single paper/publication that supports your view (having had many scientific debates on the internet, I have grown wary of the common behavior of cherry-picked studies). Instead, I heartily recommend becoming as educated as possible about this field, making your own determination, and pushing back against well-meaning consequentialists who worry their scientific discoveries could be used for evil purposes.
I agree, with this and see that objection as stupid consequentialism. Policy that actually improves wellbeing[1] can probably only be developed by accepting and working with the facts as best we know them.
1. For the target groups, not for a subset of the elite that creates a cottage industry of wringing its hands over inequities and therefore seeks to perpetuate them. Ivy league policy wonks are best deprived of income and a voice, in the hope that they will do something socially useful instead.
Self-identified race correlates remarkably well with genetic history, although many scientists don't want that to be true. It looks like most of the people complaining are applying a form of consequentialism: they might actually think that genetics and self-identified race are closely related, but worry if that fact is widely known, people will weaponize it as a justification for racism. I think we should approach the problem differently: accept that self-identified race correlates with genetic history, and also explain why that doesn't justify being racist.
(For those who are curious, self-identified race is what a person puts down on a form that asks what their ethnicity or race is. That answer can be based on a combination of many different forms of evidence and belief and might not correspond to the genetic history of the individual at all! Genetic history is literally your ancestry tree- from whom you descended. This is a scientific concept, can be measured using sequencing, and often contains surprising data (it's how I learned I had a bunch of half-sisters and brothers around the country).
Unfortunately, nearly every online discussion of these sorts of things devolves into very ugly arguments falling into the same tropes over and over, which isn't very productive. Everything I wrote above is true to the best of my knowledge, and has factual support, but could be wrong- I fully acknowledge my epistemic uncertainty. I am not interested in your single paper/publication that supports your view (having had many scientific debates on the internet, I have grown wary of the common behavior of cherry-picked studies). Instead, I heartily recommend becoming as educated as possible about this field, making your own determination, and pushing back against well-meaning consequentialists who worry their scientific discoveries could be used for evil purposes.