A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement.

The use of population descriptors such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry in science, medicine, and public health has a long, complicated, and at times dark history, particularly for genetics, given the field's perceived importance for understanding between-group differences. The historical and potential harms that come with irresponsible use of these categories suggests a clear need for definitive guidance about when and how they can be used appropriately. However, while many prior authors have provided such guidance, no established consensus exists, and the extant literature has not been examined for implied consensus and sources of disagreement. Here, we present the results of a scoping review of published normative recommendations regarding the use of population categories, particularly in genetics research. Following PRISMA guidelines, we extracted recommendations from n = 121 articles matching inclusion criteria. Articles were published consistently throughout the time period examined and in a broad range of journals, demonstrating an ongoing and interdisciplinary perceived need for guidance. Examined recommendations fall under one of eight themes identified during analysis. Seven are characterized by broad agreement across articles; one, "appropriate definitions of population categories and contexts for use," revealed substantial fundamental disagreement among articles. Additionally, while many articles focus on the inappropriate use of race, none fundamentally problematize ancestry. This work can be a resource to researchers looking for normative guidance on the use of population descriptors and can orient authors of future guidelines to this complex field, thereby contributing to the development of more effective future guidelines for genetics research.

An Ethical Framework for Research Using Genetic Ancestry.

A wide range of research uses patterns of genetic variation to infer genetic similarity between individuals, typically referred to as genetic ancestry. This research includes inference of human demographic history, understanding the genetic architecture of traits, and predicting disease risk. Researchers are not just structuring an intellectual inquiry when using genetic ancestry, they are also creating analytical frameworks with broader societal ramifications. This essay presents an ethics framework in the spirit of virtue ethics for these researchers: rather than focus on rule following, the framework is designed to build researchers' capacities to react to the ethical dimensions of their work. The authors identify one overarching principle of intellectual freedom and responsibility, noting that freedom in all its guises comes with responsibility, and they identify and define four principles that collectively uphold researchers' intellectual responsibility: truthfulness, justice and fairness, anti-racism, and public beneficence. Researchers should bring their practices into alignment with these principles, and to aid this, the authors name three common ways research practices infringe these principles, suggest a step-by-step process for aligning research choices with the principles, provide rules of thumb for achieving alignment, and give a worked case. The essay concludes by identifying support needed by researchers to act in accord with the proposed framework.

Ancestry: How researchers use it and what they mean by it.

Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term "ancestry" is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered. Methods: Systematic literature analysis of 205 articles at least tangentially related to human health from diverse disciplines that use the concept of ancestry, and semi-structured interviews with 44 lead authors of some of those articles. Results: Ancestry is relied on to structure research questions and key methodological approaches. Yet researchers struggle to define it, and/or offer diverse definitions. For some ancestry is a genetic concept, but for many-including geneticists-ancestry is only tangentially related to genetics. For some interviewees, ancestry is explicitly equated to ethnicity; for others it is explicitly distanced from it. Ancestry is operationalized using multiple data types (including genetic variation and self-reported identities), though for a large fraction of articles (26%) it is impossible to tell which data types were used. Across the literature and interviews there is no consistent understanding of how ancestry relates to genetic concepts (including genetic ancestry and population structure), nor how these genetic concepts relate to each other. Beyond this conceptual confusion, practices related to summarizing patterns of genetic variation often rest on uninterrogated conventions. Continental labels are by far the most common type of label applied to ancestry groups. We observed many instances of slippage between reference to ancestry groups and racial groups. Conclusion: Ancestry is in practice a highly ambiguous concept, and far from an objective counterpart to race or ethnicity. It is not uniquely a "biological" construct, and it does not represent a "safe haven" for researchers seeking to avoid evoking race or ethnicity in their work. Distinguishing genetic ancestry from ancestry more broadly will be a necessary part of providing conceptual clarity.

Getting genetic ancestry right for science and society.

We must embrace a multidimensional, continuous view of ancestry and move away from continental ancestry categories.