I could have fewer citations than Roberts, while there are still better cited scholars than her on the topic at hand (and there are). How Shiao is cited holding the complete opposite view is even less material. Calm down.
The modal paper in the top journal publishing articles on race and health from a sociological perspective disagrees with Roberts' argument about doing this kind of research. Which journal is that again, since you know the area well enough to be commenting on it?
Oh, you "could have," yet you're still unable to, lol, even after running this playing ignorant routine for years on SJMR. I discuss well-cited articles on the subject, you refer to leading scholars again as "fringe" (just like you did in the threads you deleted regarding the most prominent biologists), you say there is "better scholarship," but you're always unable to cite it, then you run away. Rinse and repeat.
The "prominent scholars" on race and genomics in sociology are turd-brains like Dorothy Roberts, Phil Cohen, Matt Hughey and Victor Ray (the latter two who have personal interest in defining race as "socially constructed" and not biologically real to be able to identify as socioculturally black). PNC, Hughey, and VR all appeared in an issue together where they basically repeated all of DR's views verbatim denying biological reality of race.
"I don't need to respond to the content of those articles, because I know of more important secret articles that I'm not allowed to mention." lol, no wonder sociologists are the laughingstock of academia.