This week, I found "The Biologistical Construction of Race: 'Admixture' Technology and the New Genetic Medicine," by Duana Fullwiley, extremely interesting and challenging. Challenging in the sense that, throughout the entire reading, I found myself switching my opinion on race-specific drugs and research. I hadn't heard about this kind of thing, such involved relationships between race and research and medicine, until last semester. I took the class "Introduction to Global Health" with Professor Benson, and at one point during lecture he brought up the drug, "BiDil." This drug is for congestive heart failure in specifically African-American populations. The idea that a drug could be specifically for a certain race was surprising to me. I didn't believe that there were actual, biological differences in races. Professor Benson framed the drug in a somewhat problematic way, raising questions about the validity of socially constructed race in science, a subject thought to be based on facts rather than socially constructed concepts. We discussed the problem of someone identifying with a race due to their heritage might not biologically considered a race, and the kind of issues that could raise. There is also much controversy about how the drug was tested--it is believed to have only been tested in African-American population. This means that the effect is unknown in other populations. After hearing about BiDil, though, I didn't think much about this combination of race and medicine and research.
As soon as I read this article, though, I was excited to read and learn more about this subject. I remembered that part of lecture in Global Health right away and was excited to hear about similar instances. In lecture, I left the idea of race in biology as a kind of negative and bad concept. Reading this paper, though, I was surprised with the amount of times my opinion switched as I read the different parts. I began skeptical and definitely biased. I, however, began to leave my past view behind as I read about "The Genetics of Asthma Laboratory" at UCSF with Esteban Gonzáles-Burchard. Somehow, reading about someone's drive to do research like this made me feel like it was more legitimatized. Another thing that made it feel more valid was the way the researchers acknowledged that there was a problem in what they were studying. A problem because of racists, who will take the research findings and construe it in an "we are better than you" way. It's frightening how any kind of research can be construed in certain and malicious ways.
This article made me go back and look at BiDil more seriously. What I found interesting was that a lot of the main introductions and descriptions didn't say the drug was for African-Americans. And for me, based on how they did their research, I wonder if the drug could be just as effective for non-African-Americans. Reviews online tend to be good, but don't specify race, just sex. Reviews online often compare it to similar drugs, drugs intended to be used by any race.
This topic is hard for me to have an extreme or polar stance on, which I think is perfectly fine. This kind of research can be problematic, and although may have good intentions, may lead to more harm than good. But, as this article points out, some researchers believe the good often outweighs the harm. I'm glad I had the chance to read this article to get a few different opinions about the research, by people who firmly believe in this kind of thing for a substantial reason.
As soon as I read this article, though, I was excited to read and learn more about this subject. I remembered that part of lecture in Global Health right away and was excited to hear about similar instances. In lecture, I left the idea of race in biology as a kind of negative and bad concept. Reading this paper, though, I was surprised with the amount of times my opinion switched as I read the different parts. I began skeptical and definitely biased. I, however, began to leave my past view behind as I read about "The Genetics of Asthma Laboratory" at UCSF with Esteban Gonzáles-Burchard. Somehow, reading about someone's drive to do research like this made me feel like it was more legitimatized. Another thing that made it feel more valid was the way the researchers acknowledged that there was a problem in what they were studying. A problem because of racists, who will take the research findings and construe it in an "we are better than you" way. It's frightening how any kind of research can be construed in certain and malicious ways.
This article made me go back and look at BiDil more seriously. What I found interesting was that a lot of the main introductions and descriptions didn't say the drug was for African-Americans. And for me, based on how they did their research, I wonder if the drug could be just as effective for non-African-Americans. Reviews online tend to be good, but don't specify race, just sex. Reviews online often compare it to similar drugs, drugs intended to be used by any race.
This topic is hard for me to have an extreme or polar stance on, which I think is perfectly fine. This kind of research can be problematic, and although may have good intentions, may lead to more harm than good. But, as this article points out, some researchers believe the good often outweighs the harm. I'm glad I had the chance to read this article to get a few different opinions about the research, by people who firmly believe in this kind of thing for a substantial reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment