What do these "scientists" hope to prove with their assertion that Race Is A Social Construct?

Is it an effort to convince people to ignore race? Is it an effort to convince people to ignore the utility of using "descriptive racial characteristics" in certain specific situations?

I'll give you the most common utilization of using racial descriptors in the United States. When a crime has been committed and a police call goes out, it is commonplace to describe the perceived sex and race of the person being sought. The most usual descriptions are "White male," "Black male," etc. using the generally accepted convention that any trace of Blackness in the subject's appearance makes him "Black" regardless of how light his skin might be. (Within my lifetime the terms "Quadroon" and "Octoroon" were still in use.)

The search for a criminal can be quickly narrowed if you can eliminate all possible suspects who are not of the described race or sex.

Another, less well known use, is in the field of medicine. As has already been pointed out, Sickle-cell Disease is a genetic disease that tends to be concentrated in people whose origins are in sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, it is important for Black Americans to be screened for this disease.

Similarly, there are a panoply of genetic diseases that are shared by Jews. Even more interesting is that there are three different groups of such diseases. Some are seen in all types of Jews; others only in Ashkenazi Jews; and even others only in Sephardic Jews.

The utility of screening for certain diseases known to appear primarily in a particular race, based upon the perceived race of the patient, cannot be denied.

So, again, I ask. What is the point of denying the value of acknowledging genetic racial differences, and what are the "scientists" trying to accomplish?

Carl in Tampa

.