The usefulness of social and political population labels, including those based on race, ethnicity, geographic location, ancestry, and nationality, in science and medicine is a topic of heated debate. The discussion is significant not only for defining rigorous scientific study designs, but for influencing how scientists and the broader society conceptualize, discuss, and react to human difference. Misuse of population descriptors in genetic and genomic research has the potential to perpetuate misinformation, stigmatize certain groups and simplify the complex relationships between individual identity, genetics, and health. With such potential harms in mind, National Institutes of Health guidelines to use the Office of Management and Budget categories of race and ethnicity to monitor inclusion in clinical trials and evaluate potential differences in the safety and efficacy of interventions have been questioned. As increasing attention is given to the implications of human genetic variation on disease and health, actively engaging with scientists may help to identify a lexicon for discussing human genetic variation that is scientifically sound and socially and politically meaningful. We aim to conduct a pilot qualitative study of genetic researchers, exploring their use of population descriptors in human genetic research, including an experiment in which they have the opportunity to describe and group their study populations in a new way. We use qualitative methods to capture researcher's opinions and practices as they think critically about the use of population labels in their studies. Understanding individual scientists' opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of different classifications in various contexts will provide important data to help define and facilitate appropriate use of population descriptors in human genetic research.