Interpretation is an inseparable part of science. Take the issue of race for example. People since the 30s have repeatedly pointed out that there's no consistent biological basis for race. The concept is just flat out not biologically rooted. Yet scientists kept using it because it was convenient and they came from a worldview where race was very much a reality. Thus studies were (and continue to be) done on the basis of biological racial categories.
Not sure about races, but one can certainly tell the difference between ethnicities; I can tell apart a Russian and an Armenian for example, with more than 75% success rate. Therefore there certainly is difference between people in different geographic areas. If people have differences in their outer appearances, there might be differences (not very large, obviously) in the way their neural systems work;denying that, IMO is a very ideological position.
It's the consensus of the vast majority of relevant professionals that "humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct categories", i.e. races. That quote comes from the ASHG [1], but another relevant field is anthropology where again, the largest professional organization (the AAAS) says the same thing [2]. The AAPA concurs [3]. If you think these associations might be a little biased, someone published a national survey of anthropologists a couple years ago confirming these views [4].
Some technical caveats: So yes, on some level you can approximately group sets of people into things roughly matching modern broad racial categories on the basis of genetics. This isn't because of anything real (i.e. there's nothing all members of a group share that doesn't exist "outside" them), but simply because you can broadly categorize any large set of things, regardless of whether those categories are actualized. Race as a social construct (e.g. identifying someone as "black" or "caucasian") is absolutely, undeniably a thing. It's simply not reflecting an underlying biological reality. There are also people in the community who argue that even if racial categories aren't biologically actualized, they're still useful (or that the definition I gave previously doesn't apply), but that's a much more complicated matter for which entire libraries' worth of debate exist.
