when used to define populations for genetic research, race has the potential to confuse by mistakenly implying biological explanations for socially and historically constructed health disparities.

In the United States, much of this debate has centered on the biological meaning of race, an historically contentious concept that has polarized what might otherwise be a more nuanced consideration of the distribution and structure of genetic differences among humans. This polarization is not surprising in light of the importance that the public attaches to race. As a prominent way of defining population membership over the past 500 years, race has been used to advantage some groups over others. For that reason, race should not, and cannot, be avoided in considerations of issues such as access to care, exposure to environmental hazards and preferences regarding clinical interventions. However, when used to define populations for genetic research, race has the potential to confuse by mistakenly implying biological explanations for socially and historically constructed health disparities.

Morris W. Forster and Richard R. Sharp, “Beyond race: towards a whole-genome perspective on human populations and genetic variation,” Nature Reviews Genetics (Volume 5, Issue 10, October 2004), 790.

Tags: , , , ,