I'm unsure why one might believe that biological science has anything to say about race at the social level--and I think that's the point Nelson is trying to express without having the vocabulary to do so. At least in the fields of analytic philosophy and cognitive science, very few people are still reductivist in the old sense of the word. By that I mean: asking about the relation between objects at the n and n-1 (or n-2 or n-3) levels of analysis does not commit you to saying that the n level can be reduced to the n-1 level, which can be reduced to the n-2 level and so on. That is, non-reductive materialism is not recursively contradictory.

Why should social scientists--who with respect to cognitive scientists study the n+1 level of analysis--think they are committed to explaining biological correlates of objects at their level? Whether correlates are found or not is moot. Correlation raises an interesting question about the nature of the connection, but thinking that we can understand--at this point or ever--this connection, with the many levels of analysis between sociology or cognitive science and biology, seems arrogant and reductive in a way that disrespects the massive complexity in the connection between the objects of study. This is not an argument against interdisciplinarity but one about the current extent of knowledge in the cognitive or social sciences.

Social scientists need not and *should* not give up social construction of race as a theoretical construct, at least due to biological evidence of this type. At some point, it may be that we will have more fully fleshed out theories regarding the consequence of biological indicators for social or cognitive constructs, but we are not there yet.

Do we still think of race as a social construct?

I'm going with yes.

Another option to thinking & acting postitively or negatively about your race/ethnicity and/or other people's race/ethnicity is to be neither positive or negative about it. Race/ethnicity just is.

Imo, that is the preferred goal for all people rather than color blindness or thinking positively or negatively about your or anyone else's racial category compared to other racial categories.

Based on my understanding of the new genetic sciences, and I believe reinforced by this interview with Dr. Nelson, is that they don't necessarily challenge the *social construct* of race, but it uncovers biological attributes/tendencies/predispositions that can be associated with our social constructs of race. BUT it also can and has uncovered our common hereditary links.

While this may lead to a better understanding of, say, diseases that are associated more prevalently with one 'genetic path' or another (e.g., sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, lactose intolerance)... such genetic research doesn't inherently suggest values. THESE are the social constructs. What is good/bad, normal/abnormal are imposed by society, not by genetic heritage.

I think that needs to be kept in mind for TWO reasons, (1) repeating history is always a risk. We have to guard against eugenics and the like... but (2) we shouldn't stifle scientific research just because it could *potentially* lead toward that or because it's a sticky subject.

There are genetic markers that can place many people into one of 5 ancestral populations. But these have more to do with climate and disease adaptation than anything else.

My issue with "race" is that it is infinitely divisible, and in the modern age, quite old hat. How does one racialize Bob Marley, or President Obama, except by social construct? They were/are both equally African and European.

The only reason people perceive them as "black" is due to their skin colour, and how that affected their places in society.

Or, does increasing understanding of human genetics show any convergence with the social construct of race?

The popular and ever changing notions of race are likely to continue to find limited solace in the revelations of science. Biologists themselves have been struggling to find a good definition for what a "species" is since the term was formalised, and a definition seems to get further and further away the more we find out about DNA. But don't expect this to stop people making things up.

It would be interesting to find out what a traditional white racist (such as Hitler) would have made of recent findings about the presence of Neanderthal genes in humans of non-African descent. Perhaps they would be embraced as the Ur-Aryan grandfathers?

Sadly I know no intellectually enabled white racist types I can try this one on.