["Bioethics, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nAfter the horrors of the Holocaust and its connections to eugenics were revealed to the world, many post‐war population geneticists sought to establish rhetorical distance from the Nazi's state‐led campaigns, without abandoning their belief that actively shaping the population's genetics would produce a prosperous society. While many advancements in equity have come, well‐intentioned geneticists continue to struggle to distance themselves from those weaponizing genetic data. Herein, we outline the practices which often prevent modern population genetics from ridding itself of the ghost of genetic determinism. These include the interlocking practices of: agnostically noting “genes matter” without detailing the degree or context of importance; using examples or explanations which can be ambiguously interpreted; using flawed data to assert that medical advances require genetic insights; homogenizing the environment in ways that ignore, rather than account for, deleterious exposures; insisting that populations be mathematically segregated prior to performing their analysis; then, when predictable harms arise, using lack of intent to harm as an excuse to refuse to change standard practices or to accept responsibility. Finally, discrete recommendations for improvements are presented. Unlike denouncements of overt eugenics, it is controversial to argue that those working on the genetics of diseases like asthma may unwittingly echo the eugenicists of the past. However, the consistency of associations between modern population genetics and historic eugenics demand mechanistic evaluation.\n"]