In the ever-complex world of politics, ideologies are often driven by deep-seated beliefs that go beyond policy and campaign slogans. A new study published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research brings attention to a particularly unsettling intersection of science and political behavior: the link between support for far-right parties and belief in genetic essentialism. Led by independent Canadian political scientist Alexandre Morin-Chassé, the research explores how genetic determinism—once the foundation of eugenics—is reemerging among ordinary political supporters in contemporary democracies.
At the heart of this study lies a deceptively simple question: Do far-right supporters believe that our genes dictate who we are—our intelligence, our behavior, our worth?
The Spark Behind the Research
Alexandre Morin-Chassé’s interest in the subject wasn’t born in the ivory towers of academia but in the troubling pages of modern terrorist manifestos. These documents, written by perpetrators of heinous attacks in places like Christchurch, Oslo, and Chicago, shared a haunting theme: a pseudo-scientific obsession with genetics. These individuals didn’t just express racism; they attempted to legitimize their hate with the language of science, invoking the outdated and dangerous ideology of genetic essentialism.
This ideology proposes that people’s social traits and behaviors—such as intelligence, criminality, or civic engagement—are primarily inherited. It’s a belief that ignores the complexity of human life, the role of culture, upbringing, education, and environment, simplifying society into genetic categories. For Morin-Chassé, the question was pressing: if terrorists espouse this belief system, do everyday supporters of far-right populist parties hold similar convictions?
The Underlying Science of Belief
Morin-Chassé had previously explored how public interpretations of genetic science can lead to overgeneralizations. In his earlier studies (2014 and 2020), he demonstrated how people extrapolate scientific claims from news articles. For instance, after reading a report about a genetic basis for gambling addiction, individuals were more likely to believe that other behaviors—like voting or job success—were also genetically driven.
This trend pointed to a phenomenon he described as “genetic essentialism creep,” where readers begin applying genetic explanations to unrelated social traits. These extrapolations are not mere curiosities. They reflect how people internalize science to shape their understanding of the world and, crucially, of others.
In his most recent study, Morin-Chassé sought to pinpoint who was more likely to believe in these simplistic genetic narratives. Given prior research linking genetic essentialism to nationalism, authoritarianism, and racism, the hypothesis was clear: supporters of far-right populist parties might be especially susceptible.
The Sweden and Norway Study
To investigate, Morin-Chassé turned to two neighboring nations with distinct political climates but shared cultural roots—Sweden and Norway. In both countries, robust citizen panels had collected data from thousands of participants, providing a valuable resource for social analysis.
The Swedish data, collected in 2015 from over 8,000 adults via the University of Gothenburg’s Citizen Panel, included both political preference ratings and responses to psychological scales measuring belief in genetic determinism. Participants were asked to assess statements about the role of genetics in shaping traits like intelligence, behavior, and social outcomes.
The results were telling. Individuals who expressed stronger support for the Sweden Democrats—a populist radical-right party—also scored higher on measures of genetic essentialism. Importantly, the connection held even after controlling for demographics like age, gender, education, and political ideology. The data revealed a curvilinear pattern: the more deeply someone believed in genetic essentialism, the more likely they were to support the Sweden Democrats, with the most fervent essentialists forming the party’s strongest base.
Across the border in Norway, data from the 2016 Norwegian Citizen Panel provided a smaller but still substantial sample of 1,190 participants who answered similar questions. Here, supporters of the conservative Progress Party also displayed elevated levels of genetic essentialism, but the link was weaker than in Sweden and lacked the dramatic curve seen among Swedish respondents.
Why the Difference Between Countries?
Several explanations could account for this discrepancy. One possibility is the ideological breadth of the Progress Party in Norway, which might attract a more ideologically diverse voter base than the more radical Sweden Democrats. Another lies in methodological differences: the Swedish survey used a longer and more robust scale for genetic essentialism, possibly capturing nuances that the shorter Norwegian version missed.
Regardless, both studies supported the broader conclusion: far-right supporters in both countries are more likely than other citizens to endorse genetic essentialist beliefs.
Old Beliefs in New Clothes
Morin-Chassé’s findings echo disturbing historical precedents. In the early 20th century, before modern genetics had matured, ideas about inherited traits fueled the eugenics movement. Under the guise of improving humanity, governments pursued sterilization programs targeting individuals labeled as feeble-minded, criminal, or deviant—people whose “bad genes” were seen as a threat to society.
In Sweden and Norway, thousands were sterilized, often under pressure or without consent, in programs that endured well into the late 20th century. These policies were based on the same flawed logic that Morin-Chassé now sees resurfacing in far-right ideology: that people’s worth and capabilities are encoded in their DNA.
What today’s far-right supporters believe, however, runs counter to contemporary scientific understanding. The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 revealed a far more intricate picture of heredity. Human traits are not the result of a single gene but arise from complex interactions among multiple genes and between genes and environmental influences. Concepts like epigenetics have shown that even heritable traits can be influenced—and reversed—by external factors, meaning that biology is anything but destiny.
In this light, genetic essentialism is not just scientifically inaccurate; it is dangerously simplistic.
The Hidden Risk of Eugenic Thinking
Morin-Chassé warns that public acceptance of genetic essentialism may pave the way for a resurgence of eugenic thinking—not necessarily through overt policies but through the slow normalization of discriminatory beliefs. Recent studies suggest that people who believe genes control social outcomes are also more likely to support eugenics-inspired policies, such as selective reproduction or genetic screening for social traits.
If far-right supporters hold high levels of genetic essentialism, they may be more receptive to these ideas. This raises serious ethical and political questions: What happens when a political movement merges nationalist ideology with genetic determinism? How far are we from a future where “improving the population” becomes part of a party platform again?
A Call for Scientific Responsibility
At the core of Morin-Chassé’s work is a plea to the scientific community. Public misunderstanding of genetics isn’t just a communication problem—it has real-world consequences. Scientists must be aware of how their findings are interpreted (and misinterpreted) by the public. A single headline about a “gene for intelligence” can ripple into policy debates and political ideologies.
More importantly, scientists and educators need to actively combat genetic essentialism by presenting a more accurate and nuanced view of genetics. This means emphasizing the interplay between genes and environment, the role of culture, the plasticity of human traits, and the limitations of current genetic knowledge.
The Political Future of Science
As far-right parties gain ground across Europe and beyond, understanding their ideological foundations becomes urgent. Morin-Chassé’s research opens a window into how scientific concepts are co-opted and weaponized, and how belief systems once relegated to fringe extremists now permeate broader political discourse.
But the study also highlights how much remains unknown. Are far-right supporters aware that their views contradict scientific consensus? Would exposure to accurate information change their beliefs? Or are these ideas so deeply embedded in their worldview that facts alone cannot dislodge them?
These are questions for future research—and for political societies wrestling with the ethics of modern science. As Morin-Chassé notes, “If far-right supporters see genes as determining people’s place in society, we must ask what kind of society they are trying to build.”
Conclusion: The Biology of Belief
In the end, this is not just a study about politics or genetics. It’s about how we see ourselves and others. It’s about the dangerous allure of certainty in a complex world and the human tendency to seek simple explanations for difficult questions.
Genetic essentialism offers such simplicity—but at a cost. It erases the richness of human experience, undermines the ideals of equality and fairness, and provides a pseudoscientific foundation for discrimination.
Alexandre Morin-Chassé’s work reminds us that science is not just a tool for understanding the world—it is also a battleground for meaning, values, and power. And in that battle, the way we talk about genes may shape the future of democracy itself.
Think this is important? Spread the knowledge! Share now.