Genetics has delivered a powerful verdict in the ongoing discussion about “race”: there is no meaningful biological basis for racial categories, even as their social significance continues to impact lives worldwide. This scientific clarity comes at a time when political and cultural debates, such as recent US presidential orders attacking museum exhibitions that deny race is a biological reality, reignite age-old controversies. For Thai readers navigating conversations on ethnicity, heritage, and health, understanding what genetics truly reveals about human difference is more important than ever.
Around 25 years ago, the completion of the Human Genome Project marked a turning point in our understanding of human variation. Researchers found that genetic diversity does not cluster neatly into so-called “races” as historically defined—instead, there is significantly more genetic variation within any single racial group than between groups. The implication is profound: the very idea of race as a strict biological concept is a myth, shaped more by culture and history than by DNA (BBC Future).
Despite decades of increasingly robust evidence, misconceptions persist. Social media, parts of the healthcare system, and even government policies still sometimes treat race as a genetic dividing line. In the US, recent presidential decisions rebuked a Smithsonian exhibition for stating “race is not a biological reality but a social construct”. This misunderstanding is far from an American-only issue; across Asia—including Thailand—racial and ethnic categories are often treated as meaningful biological distinctions in education, health, and even immigration policies.
To appreciate why these beliefs persist, it helps to revisit some historical context. In the 18th century, Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, often credited as the father of modern biology, classified humans into groups based almost entirely on visible traits—mainly skin color. His categories, tagged to continental identities (“Asiaticus”, “Americanus”, “Africanus”, “Europeaus”), set a precedent for associating physical features with deeper differences. Later editions even linked these groups to crude behavioral stereotypes—proving how biological narratives have historically been infused with bias.
Over the following centuries, pseudo-scientific methods such as craniometry (measuring skulls) further entrenched race as both a physical and moral hierarchy—almost always placing white Europeans at the top. It took paradigm-shifting work in molecular genetics and evolutionary biology, especially since the mid-20th century, to dismantle these notions. Charles Darwin himself, writing in 1871, highlighted the vast continuity between so-called races, and modern geneticists have confirmed that genes simply don’t map onto racial categories as once believed.
What does the latest science actually show? People from Ethiopia and Namibia, for instance, are genetically more different from each other than either is to a white European. This holds true even for genes that control pigmentation. Globally, those classified socially as “black” or “white” often share more genetic similarities across groups than within them (PubMed), reflecting ancient migrations and intermixing rather than discrete, isolated evolution (Wikipedia).
In Thailand, where concepts of “ชาติพันธุ์” (châat-pan) or ethnicity are often invoked in national census, politics, and dialogue around health, the science neatly debunks the notion that visible differences mean fixed biological groupings. For example, members of the Moken, Hmong, Lahu, and Thai-majority populations have varying features and health risks, but these distinctions are shaped overwhelmingly by historical migrations and social environments—not immutable genetic destiny.
The reality that race is mostly a social construct does not erase its real-world impact, especially in medicine and public health. During the Covid-19 pandemic, researchers and the media worldwide—including Thailand—were quick to look for racial or genetic explanations for disparities in infection and death rates (BMJ). But underlying differences emerged as primarily linked to socioeconomic factors: poverty, occupation (such as frontline work), housing density, and access to healthcare—factors that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities, whether in the US, UK, or Thailand (Bangkok Post).
Even in Thailand, ethnic Chinese, Malay-Muslim, and “hill tribe” communities often experience different health outcomes, but these are rooted more in social, economic, and historical inequality than simple genetic difference. For example, Thai-Chinese communities may have better health metrics partly due to urban concentration and economic opportunity, while hill tribe populations sometimes face barriers to healthcare due to citizenship status, language, and remote location, as reported by the Ministry of Public Health (Ministry of Public Health, Thailand).
Crucially, while genetic differences do exist—for instance, in some responses to medication or metabolism—they rarely, if ever, align with traditional racial classifications. Instead, they follow much more complex ancestral patterns. Medical scientists increasingly recommend abandoning the use of “race” as a shortcut in clinical research and practice, focusing instead on social determinants of health and personalized medicine. This shift is starting to influence medical education globally, but implementation lags in many countries, including Thailand.
Adam Rutherford, a genetics lecturer at University College London and author of “How to Argue with a Racist,” puts it succinctly: “There is more genetic diversity in people of recent African descent than in the rest of the world put together. Yet, for historical reasons, we continue to refer to Ethiopians and Namibians alike as ‘black’. To lump them together makes no sense scientifically.”
Dr. Sarah Tishkoff, a leading African genomicist at the University of Pennsylvania, adds, “The public often conflates ancestry, race, and ethnicity, but they’re not the same. Genetics can tell us about population history, but ‘race’ is a poor proxy for most genetic differences related to disease or physiology” (Nature).
For Thai policymakers, educators, and healthcare workers, these insights suggest a need to look beyond cosmetic diversity and historical labels. As the country becomes more multicultural, especially with migration from neighboring ASEAN countries, reducing health disparities will require tackling root causes—poverty, education gaps, and discrimination—rather than leaning on outdated racial typologies.
The history of “race science” also serves as a caution against importing foreign political narratives about biology into Thai public debate. As the BBC report notes, top US leaders have sometimes invoked genetic “superiority” or denigrated immigrants for having “bad genes”—a dangerous distortion of both science and social reality. Thailand’s own complex history—ranging from the introduction of the “Thai race” concept in the early 20th century to recent debates on the rights of minority groups—reminds us that scientific facts must be carefully separated from socio-political ideologies.
Looking to the future, the genetic revolution promises to sharpen our understanding of how ancestry, environment, and health interact—benefiting everything from personalized medicine to better public policy. For Thai families hoping to leverage genetic testing for health, ancestry, or disease risk, it’s important not to interpret results through a simplistic racial lens. Instead, consult genetic counselors and seek information grounded in a nuanced understanding of both genetics and society (WHO South-East Asia).
For educators, integrating this modern understanding can help dispel old myths about “Thai-ness,” ethnic superiority, and biological determinism—fostering a more inclusive and equitable society (อ่าน: สิ่งเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่ ‘ฝรั่งว่าว’—but global scientific consensus).
For readers wanting to engage meaningfully with these issues:
- Recognize race as primarily a social, not biological, construct—with real societal consequences.
- Advocate to remove unnecessary racial categorization in medical, educational, and official documents.
- Focus on the true drivers of disparity in Thai society—poverty, discrimination, and access to care.
- Seek out genetic information from credible sources, not social media or political rhetoric.
- Promote education that reflects up-to-date science and respects Thai’s multicultural heritage.
The wisdom from genetics encourages us to look deeper than the surface and to combat prejudice not just with good intentions, but with good information. As Thailand continues to evolve, embracing these insights will help build a more just and healthy future for all.
Sources: