Teaching genetics as a complex interaction between many genes and environmental factors can reduce students’ belief that human differences are biologically fixed, according to a new study of more than 2,000 US undergraduates.
By Sofia Woodfine
How we teach genetics shapes how people think about race, intelligence, and human potential - and for decades, we've been getting it wrong.
Lessons in Genetics often begin with Punnett squares and “genes for” traits. A new experiment suggests that reforming this curriculum to reflect scientific consensus can shift how students think about the relationship between genes and complex human outcomes.
Teaching university students that most traits arise from many genes interacting with each other and the environment reduced their belief that human differences are genetically fixed, according to a large US-based study (Wedow et al., 2026).
The study, published on 15th January 2026 in Human Genetics and Genomics Advances, involved 2,061 undergraduates at a large public university on the US west coast (Wedow et al., 2026). Students were randomly assigned to one of four teaching approaches, including a redesigned “Humane Genetics Curriculum” that emphasised polygenic traits and the amount of genetic variation that occurs both within and between populations (Keck et al., 2026). Those exposed to the full curriculum showed the largest reduction in inaccurately believing that genes are the primary explanation for complex human outcomes.
Genetic essentialism is the belief that traits are solely determined by DNA and differ substantially between groups (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2021). Modern genomics shows that most complex traits arise from many genes interacting with environmental factors (Kandler and Instinske, 2025).
The biggest shifts occurred when students learned how little genetic variation separates racial groups. “I would never put up a Punnett square,” says Wedow.
The revised curriculum instead foregrounds population-level variation. “It’s the lack of between-group variation that seems to matter most for showing students that genes by themselves are not a good explanation for variation in complex outcomes”, says Wedow.
The reduction of inaccurate understandings of genetic variation was consistent across students, regardless of gender, race or political affiliation (Wedow et al., 2026). Though it was stronger among students who began the course with higher baseline genetics knowledge.
The study measured shifts in self-reported beliefs rather than behaviour. It also assessed students only before and after the curriculum, so it remains unclear how durable the changes may be.
Around the world, genetics education still often begins with Mendel’s pea plants and simple dominant-versus-recessive inheritance patterns (Mc Ewen et al., 2025). But as modern genomics reveals a far more complex picture of how traits arise, public understanding, and school curricula, often lag behind the science, because education systems take time to adapt to modern scientific insights.
The team plans to make its materials publicly available. Future studies will test whether the curriculum works in different countries, age groups and educational settings, and whether its effects persist over time.
References
