There is no scientific basis for race

Race is obviously a thing. You can look at somebody and usually have a pretty good idea of whether their ancestors are from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, etc. Heck, with some practice, you can often figure out which part of Europe, Africa, Asia, etc they are from (Koreans look different than Filipinos, Eastern Europeans look different than Scandinavians, etc). And such an identification will correspond to measurable genetic differences.

Of course, this is only a coarse grained thing and there are lots of cases where somebody’s ancestry is difficult to determine based on their outward appearance, especially in cases where someone has mixed ancestry. But what most people mean by race—that you can look at most people and make a decent guess about their ancestry—is a real thing which is born out by genetics.

Race is just a very vague method of generalising large groups of humans, once that is shown to be decreasingly useful as we learn more accurate methods. As a result even the definition is vague.

These days race has mostly been reduced to vague groups of appearance; for medical/genetic groups we usually have better indicators. It is still useful as a vague appearance descriptor. We shouldn't claim that a visual description is racism, it is just a handy tool.

Race is so controversial a topic that I would argue virtually anything that makes it into print these days is heavily compromised.

I think a better title would have been “there’s no scientific basis for skin-color-based racial categories”. The article cites all kinds of people grouped by distinct genetic profiles.

Police forensics labs beg to disagree: https://newatlas.com/3d-id-skull-forensic-software/22137/

Bone marrow transplants disagree

https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/matching-patients-w...

You can't look at the clusters of IQ around the world and ignore a genetic component to intelligence either:

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country