I understand that you want to defend your original post, but you are mistaken on all three counts.
1) You're using a straw man; you can study sickle-cell anemia perfectly well without the concept of "race," in fact, sickle-cell anemia is primarily studied outside a racial context. In addition, given that the researchers in question have access to genetic data, they would be better served by using "clines" as their fundamental orientation rather than races, because clines are based in actual biological science, not a shifting sociohistorical construct. Look up the word "cline."
2) It's not retarded, it's modern anthropology. You reveal here that you are unfamiliar with the field, and that you are assuming common knowledge equals the current scientific outlook. Race is most definitely seen as a social construct, because throughout its history (both scientific and popular) it has been based on a wide variety of shifting characteristics, and applied differently in different contexts. It is a social fact, but that does not mean it has any merit biologically.
3) Changing the language does change the science. Analytical terms are essentially the instruments of social science, and precision is critical. A cline is different from a race and a species and a gene pool. These terms all have meaning so we can use them precisely, they are not dreamed up to "influence society" as you claim, although that is a nice byproduct of scientific discovery. They are actually changing concepts and ideas responding to new information based on actual research.