Affiliation:
1. Washington University in St. Louis
2. University of Pittsburgh
3. Georgetown University
Abstract
Race describes cultural, historical, and oppressive relationships in society. The use of race in biomedical and scientific studies has been a powerful tool that can reinforce and alter society’s current assumptions about race. Some of the historical uses of race include evidence for race-based medicine, biological inferiority, and genocide. These uses have all used race as a crude proxy for genetic makeup, rather than a biological expression of the social environment that infiltrates the health and well-being of every American. By defining race and its social and cultural impacts on identity and the human experience within research, the field of biomedicine will improve clarity and integrity in addressing historical, scientific, and clinical inequalities. Currently, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not contain a definition of race and uses homogeneous ethnical categories when reporting population statistics. We propose that the definition of race be added in the collection of race data as a requirement of the OMB for nationally conducted research.
Publisher
Journal of Science Policy and Governance, Inc.
Reference26 articles.
1. “67 FR 8451 - Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication - Content Details - R2-59.” Accessed May 2, 2021. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2002-02-22/R2-59
2. American Sociological Association. “Race and Ethnicity.” Accessed May 2, 2021. https://www.asanet.org/topics/race-and-ethnicity.
3. Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten, and Alicia Fernandez. “BiDil for Heart Failure in Black Patients: Implications of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval.” Annals of Internal Medicine 146, no. 1 (January 2, 2007): 52–56. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-1-200701020-00009.
4. Brody, Howard, and Linda M. Hunt. “BiDil: Assessing a Race-Based Pharmaceutical.” Annals of Family Medicine 4, no. 6 (November 2006): 556–60. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.582.
5. Caldwell, W. E., and H. C. Moloy. “Anatomical Variations in the Female Pelvis and Their Effect in Labor with a Suggested Classification.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 26, no. 4 (October 1, 1933): 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(33)90194-5.