Race and genetics: Controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences.

Abstract

Among biomedical scientists, there is a great deal of controversy over the nature of race, the relevance of racial categories for research, and the proper methods of using racial variables. This article argues that researchers and scholars should avoid a binary-type argument, in which the question is whether to use race always or never. Researchers should instead focus on developing standards for when and how to use racial variables. The article then discusses 1 context, criminology, in which the use of racial variables in behavioral genetics research could be particularly problematic. If genetic studies of criminalized behavior use forensic DNA databanks or forensic genetic profiles, they will be confounded by the many racial biases of the law enforcement and penal system.

Incorporating ethnicity into genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL study experience

“…Implicit in this understanding is the need to develop protocols that anticipate and address the social and ethical implications of race and ethnicity in genetic research. 54 The aim of this article is to describe how researchers in the second REVEAL trial addressed the issue of providing genetic risk assessments for AD to African American participants.…”

Bracketing off population does not advance ethical reflection on EVCs: A reply to Kayser and Schneider

“…While this is certainly a positive effect of the use of EVCs in criminal investigation, the flip side of the coin is that the second profile foster exactly the opposite, namely forms of racial profiling and the incrimination of a whole population. Such cases have occurred in recent history and lead to violations of basic rights of large groups of people (for descriptions see [8][9][10][11][12]). Infringements of the rights of groups of individuals typically occur when volunteers -approached according to criteria that correspond with certain presumed ethnicities -are requested to provide samples 'voluntarily'.…”

“…If this is an assumption that is made in the public realm, it increases the risk of stigmatization of individuals and groups, reinforces racial categories [3,[8][9][10][11][12]15], and clusters an entire population group into a 'suspect population' [16]. If such assumptions enter investigative considerations as well, then members of such 'suspect populations' will have to be actively excluded as possible perpetrators e.g.…”

Gene–environment interactions and health inequalities: views of underserved communities

“…Others are more critical, arguing that an overemphasis on genetic determinants might lead researchers to ignore important social or environmental contributions to health inequalities and might promote a disproportionate reliance on downstream medical interventions at the expense of upstream social or political change (Fine et al 2005;Sankar et al 2004). Additionally, some scholars are concerned that any use of population categories in research contributes to the reification of false notions of biological differences between social groups, potentially exacerbating racism rather than reducing health inequalities (Ossorio and Duster 2005;Lee et al 2001;Frank 2007).…”

“…For instance, underserved and ethnically diverse communities will be understandably resistant to research that appears to Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12687-013-0143-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. stigmatize either their lineage or their lifestyles as unusually unhealthy, even if the research is well intended (Goldenberg et al 2011;Ossorio and Duster 2005;Sankar et al 2004). People's beliefs about themselves, their families, their community, and racial and ethnic identity shape and reinforce opinions about genomic research and lay the foundation for research risks or possible health benefits that might emerge for underserved and low-income groups Lee et al 2005).…”