Answer

I would distinguish between scientists who speak about matters outside their field of expertise and science itself. Here we are dealing with people who happen to make their living from science, but the statements were not made in a scientific context. In the scientific realm, people are supposed to examine the data carefully before forming an opinion. But in areas of ideology and public activity, it is human nature to act on a less solid basis. It is regrettable, but universal and forgivable. We all feed off newspaper headlines and form opinions based on them. What should be done is to point out their mistake and hope that they are honest enough that when the facts are revealed to them as they really are, they will retract and apologize.
 
By the way, while we’re on the subject, I don’t really understand what is so bad about genetic testing. Why is that worse than verbal inquiries into who your father or mother is? Is it less racist because it isn’t done in a test tube? After all, he too agrees that when there is doubt regarding parentage, genetics is used.
From Rubinstein’s remarks it appears that he truly objects to that as well, and from his point of view, belonging to a recognized Jewish community is enough. But he does not notice that such belonging is also usually based on more or less “racist” tests.
 
And another side point: it seems to me that in most countries in the world, citizenship is granted on the basis of ancestry and parents (American parents confer American citizenship on their child, something that is “racistly” denied to me as an Israeli). Yes, yes, I know that citizenship is not race and Jewishness is. So what? It’s profiling, and it really doesn’t matter what it is based on. The excessive sensitivity to considerations of race is just a hysterical post-Nazi reaction, and it has no principled significance. The problem is profiling, and not specifically racism (= profiling on the basis of race).