"We are living through an era of the ascendance of biology, and we have to be very careful," said William Henry Gates Jr., director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University. "We will all be walking a fine line between using biology and allowing it to be abused."

The assertion that there is a genetic basis for race is surfacing on mainstream blogs, in college classrooms, and among the growing community of ancestry test-takers. Because of the ubiquity of DNA, it seems, the idea is occurring to many who had previously rejected or never before considered the possibility. Non-scientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data.

Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high IQ. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

No matter that the link between IQ and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high IQ snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors.

Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means "the egalitarian theory," that all races are created equal, "is proven false."

Although few of the bits of human genetic code that vary between individuals have yet been tied to physical or behavioral traits, scientists have found that roughly 10 percent of them are more common in certain continental groups, and can be used to distinguish people of different races. They say that studying the differences, which arose during the tens of thousands of years human populations evolved on separate continents following their ancestors' dispersal from humanity's birthplace in East Africa is crucial to mapping the genetic basis for disease.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

Many geneticists are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to non-medical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called "a very delicate time and a dangerous time."

"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries," said Marcus Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. "It's not there yet for things like IQ, but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better." Feldman said any finding on intelligence was likely to be exceedingly hard to pin down. But given that some may emerge, he wants to create "ready response teams" of geneticists to put such socially fraught discoveries in perspective.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Some fear that the authority DNA has earned through its use in freeing wrongly convicted inmates, preventing disease and reconstructing family ties, scientists warn, leads people to wrongly elevate genetics over other explanations for differences between groups.

"I've spent the last 10 years of my life researching how much genetic variability there is between populations," said Dr. David Altshuler, director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "But living in America, it is so clear that the economic and social and educational differences have so much more influence than genes. People just somehow fixate on genetics, even if the influence is very small." But on Half Sigma and elsewhere, the conversation is already flashing forward to what might happen if genetically encoded racial differences in socially desirable - or undesirable - traits are identified.

"If I were to believe the 'facts' in this post, what should I do?" one reader responded. "Should I advocate discrimination against blacks because they are less smart? Should I not hire them to my company because odds are I could find a smarter white person? Stop trying to prove that one group of people are genetically inferior to your group. Just stop."

Renata McGriff, 52, an African American health care consultant who had been encouraging black clients to volunteer genetic information to scientists, said she and other African Americans have been discussing "opting out of genetic research until it's clear we're not going to use science to validate prejudices."

Such discussions are among thousands that followed the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson's assertion last month that Africans are innately less intelligent than other races. Watson subsequently apologized and quit his post at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island.

But the incident has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits.

Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important for preparing to address them politically. Others hope the genetic data might overturn preconceived notions of racial superiority by, for example, showing that Africans are innately more intelligent than other groups. But either way, the recent outpouring of conversation on the normally taboo subject of race and genetics has prompted some to suggest that innate differences should be accepted, but - at some level - ignored. "Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law," wrote Perry Clark, 44, on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Clark, a retired doctor in Kansas City, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist.