There is no scientific rationale for race-based research.

SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14215, USA.
Journal of the National Medical Association (Impact Factor: 0.91). 07/2007; 99(6):690-2.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT For centuries, the colonial governments used a combination of race and ethnic characteristics to subjugate and control people of color, and scientists of the day provided evidence of the "natural order of things" to support national policies of domination, segregation and control. There have been many examples of events in the past 70 years to suggest that achievements by ethnic peoples are not genetically determined and that race and ethnicity are merely terms to describe external features, language, culture, social mores and folklore. BiDil was the first drug in this country approved by the FDA for use in a single "race" after a clinical trial that enrolled only members of that race. Thus arose the question of the efficacy of doing race-based research in humans. In order for this kind of research to have any scientific basis, each individually defined or self-declared race would have to have a 100% pure gene pool, and the data show that the gene pool among whites, blacks and Hispanics in America is very heterogeneous. This makes for far greater similarities among U.S. citizens than any perceived differences, and genomic science has failed to support the concept of racial categories in medicine. Scientists involved with the first mapping of the human genome have noted that there is no basis in the genetic code for race. That being the case, there appears to be no justification for race-based research among human beings.

  • Dermatologic clinics 04/2014; 32(2):ix-xii. DOI:10.1016/j.det.2014.01.001 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding how and why humans are biologically different is indispensable to get oriented in the ever-growing body of genomic data. Here we discuss the evidence based on which we can confidently state that humans are the least genetically variable primate, both when individuals and when populations are compared, and that each individual genome can be regarded as a mosaic of fragments of different origins. Each population is somewhat different from any other population, and there are geographical patterns in that variation. These patterns clearly indicate an African origin for our species, and keep a record of the main demographic changes accompanying the peopling of the whole planet. However, only a minimal fraction of alleles, and a small fraction of combinations of alleles along the chromosome, is restricted to a single geographical region (and even less so to a single population), and diversity between members of the same population is very large. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. Nevertheless, racial categorization is all but gone, especially in clinical studies. We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.
    Tissue Antigens 09/2013; 82(3):155-64. DOI:10.1111/tan.12165 · 2.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Race as a variable in research ethics is investigated: to what extent is it morally appropriate to regard the race of research subjects as pivotal for research outcomes? The challenges it poses to deliberation in research ethics committees are considered, and it is concluded that race sometimes must be considered, subject to clearly stated qualifications.
    South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde 04/2011; 101(4):248-50. · 1.71 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from