"Scientists and clinicians have increasingly tried to move away from simplistic racial and ethnic categories in disease research, the authors say, and – with th

"Scientists and clinicians have increasingly tried to move away from simplistic racial and ethnic categories in disease research, the authors say, and – with the rise of precision medicine – in clinical diagnosis and treatment as well. Studies by the Burchard group and others have found that using genetic ancestry rather than ethnic self-identification significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for certain diseases. But the new data showing that a large fraction of epigenetic signatures of ethnicity reflect something other than ancestry suggests that abandoning the idea of race and ethnicity altogether could sacrifice a lot of valuable information about the drivers of differences in health and disease between different communities." The study shows that abandoning the idea of ethnicity could sacrifice information, but it still seems to indicate that genetic ancestry is more useful than race. Why does the article seem to conflate the two?