I think the author is trying to make a point here, and this statement you quoted is not meant to be taken literally. It's more like "the fact that left-wingers

I think the author is trying to make a point here, and this statement you quoted is not meant to be taken literally. It's more like "the fact that left-wingers often oppose genetic research, taken at face value, implies that they fear that the results would make racism more acceptable" (since that's the only logical explanation if you assume that left-wingers otherwise fervently support science). Of course if you ask a "left-winger" directly if they think that, they would say "no, of course not". But then you could counter with "well then why are you so concerned about this type of research?". I guess the only reasonable response that they could offer is "well, I don't want to give racists more fuel to push their agendas". That's fine, I guess I understand where they are coming from. But should we really limit science to avoid giving fuel to racists? Doesn't it mean that the racists won, in some sense, if they successfully set back scientific research? Can't we get rid of racism without resorting to constraining scientific research? I sure hope we can. IMO racists are generally not very intelligent, so I think we can best them even if they have a bit of extra fuel.