The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Science Editorials and UK Biobanks

Author:

Smart Andrew1,Tutton Richard2,Martin Paul3,Ellison George T.H.4,Ashcroft Richard5

Affiliation:

1. Department of Sociology, Bath Spa University, Newton Park Campus, Bath BA2 9BN, UK,

2. Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University, County South, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK,

3. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK,

4. University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK,

5. School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK,

Abstract

As the search for human genetic variation has become a priority for biomedical science, debates have resurfaced about the use of race and ethnicity as scientific classifications. In this paper we consider the relationship between race, ethnicity and genetics, using insights from science and technology studies (STS) about processes of classification and standardization. We examine how leading biomedical science journals attempted to standardize the classifications of race and ethnicity, and analyse how a sample of UK genetic scientists used the concepts in their research. Our content analysis of 11 editorials and related guidelines reveals variations in the guidance on offer, and it appears that there has been a shift from defining the concepts to prescribing methodological processes for classification. In qualitative interviews with 17 scientists, the majority reported that they had adopted socio-political classification schemes from state bureaucracy (for example, the UK Census) for practical reasons, although some scientists used alternative classifications that they justified on apparently methodological grounds. The different responses evident in the editorials and interviews can be understood as reflecting the balance of flexibility and stability that motivate standardization processes. We argue that, although a genetic concept of race and ethnicity is unlikely to wholly supplant a socio-political one, the adoption of census classifications into biomedical research is an alignment of state bureaucracy and science that could have significant consequences.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,General Social Sciences,History

Cited by 82 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Reply;Journal of Vascular Surgery;2024-01

2. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Categories in the Algorithmic Fairness Literature;2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency;2023-06-12

3. Solicitude;Genomics with Care;2023-06-09

4. Scrupulousness;Genomics with Care;2023-06-09

5. Curation;Genomics with Care;2023-06-09

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3