If you ever doubted the power of words, consider these three: race, breed and subspecies.

A subspecies is a subdivision of a species: a population, usually from a particular geographic region, that is genetically distinguishable from others of its species but can still interbreed with them.

Race, breed and subspecies all describe roughly the same thing, but we use them in different contexts. "Breed" is reserved for domesticated animals, with dogs the classic example. All dogs are one species, yet we describe them by breed. For wild animals we say subspecies, such as the Bengal and Siberian tigers. For humans, we use race, and any other term would be considered unacceptable.

We could be more accurate and use subspecies across the board, but I can't see that catching on. Or we could be more consistent and use race for everything, though that invites accusations of doggy racism: "How dare you suggest all boxers are scatty or all bull terriers are aggressive!"

Would we think differently about dogs if we called their breeds races? I think so. And we would never describe humans as subspecies.

Words are powerful carriers of meaning, and they affect how we think. On that basis, we're probably better off keeping race, breed and subspecies as they are. It may muddy the biological classification, but it gives us a cultural distinction we need.