I thought that the article written by Lee, Mountain, and
Koenig The Meanings of “Race” in the New Genomics: Implications for Health
Disparities Research, did a
very good job of discussing the implications of using “race” as a biological
status for genomic health research. Including race as a variable in health research
without examining the underpinnings of the terminology chosen is not a critical
method of differentiating between sub-groups of a population. In some cases, differences in “racialized” expression
of diseases can be attributed to population bottlenecks that arise as a result
of local geography such as in Iceland. While in other cases, differences in
health status could be the result of behavioral similarities due to shared social
associations. The author’s argument that “the application of a näive genetic
determinism will not only reinforce the idea that discrete human races exist,
but will divert attention from the complex environmental, behavioral, and
social factors contributing to an excess burden of illness among certain segments
of the diverse U.S. population” especially resonated with me due to the fact
that I identify as biracial and don’t feel that the current propensity to rely
on binary categorizations of race accurately reflect my situation. Differences
in the health status of “racialized” groups should prompt us to push farther
for a more critical and scientific explanation that that of race, which, when
left as imprecise social categories, is a meaningless biological determinate of
health. In a country whose history is intertwined deeply with issues of race,
it seems to me that the political will and change in thinking necessary for a
change in the ways “race” is understood will be a very difficult but essential development.
No comments:
Post a Comment