1. Natalie Angier, “Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show,” New York Times (Aug. 22, 2000), 1; David Chandler, “Heredity Study Eyes European Origins,” Boston Globe (May 10, 2001), A22; Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Shouldn’t a Pill Be Colorblind?” New York Times (May 13, 2001).
2. As Snait B. Gissis observed, even at the height of genomicist antiracial statements, articles on the genetics of race were multiplying. “When Is ‘Race’ a Race? 1946–2003,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39 (2008), 437– 50. My own Boolean search of [rac* and (gene* or geno*)] in the over three thousand journals in Stanford University’s database found a lasting rise in such articles into the twenty-first century.
3. In this book, I home in on genomic work on race. Race is an open referent for systems of meanings that people attribute to physical and social patterns. For many centuries, scientists and philosophers have characterized such patterns in continental terms. For analysis of the connections between genomic concepts of race and ethnicity, see Michael Montoya, Making the Mexican Diabetic: Race, Science, and the Genetics of Inequality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). On the broader relationship between race and ethnicity, see Richard Jenkins, Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press, 1997).
4. See Audrey Smedley, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, 2nd edition (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999); Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960 (London: Macmillan, 1982); Pat Shipman, The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002); Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: Norton, 1996); and William H. Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996).