Standardization of Race and Ethnicity

7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity

1/17

RESEARCH NOTE

ABSTRACT As the search for human genetic variation has become a priority for

biomedical science, debates have resurfaced about the use of race and ethnicity as

scientific classifications. In this paper we consider the relationship between race,

ethnicity and genetics, using insights from science and technology studies (STS) about

processes of classification and standardization. We examine how leading biomedical

science journals attempted to standardize the classifications of race and ethnicity, and

analyse how a sample of UK genetic scientists used the concepts in their research. Our

content analysis of 11 editorials and related guidelines reveals variations in theguidance on offer, and it appears that there has been a shift from defining the

concepts to prescribing methodological processes for classification. In qualitative

interviews with 17 scientists, the majority reported that they had adopted socio-political classification schemes from state bureaucracy (for example, the UK Census)

for practical reasons, although some scientists used alternative classifications that they

justified on apparently methodological grounds. The different responses evident in

the editorials and interviews can be understood as reflecting the balance of flexibility

and stability that motivate standardization processes. We argue that, although a

genetic concept of race and ethnicity is unlikely to wholly supplant a socio-political

one, the adoption of census classifications into biomedical research is an alignment of

state bureaucracy and science that could have significant consequences.

Keywords classification, ethnicity, genetics, population, race, standardization

The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity in

Biomedical Science Editorials and UK

Biobanks

Andrew Smart, Richard Tutton, Paul Martin, George T.H.

Ellison & Richard Ashcroft

The received notion that race and ethnicity are socio-political constructs

with limited biological validity is under challenge. Markers of genetic

ancestry have been correlated with groups classified by race and ethnicity

(Risch et al., 2002). Scientists exploring disease aetiology and drug response

have identified genetic differences between populations, some of which cor-

relate and overlap with population groupings defined using racial and eth-

nic classifications (Burchard et al., 2003). Moreover, the US Food andDrug Administration (FDA) has approved its first ethnic drug (Taylor

Social Studies of Science 38/3 (June 2008) 407423

SSS and SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)

ISSN 0306-3127 DOI: 10.1177/0306312707083759

www.sagepublications.com

at UNIV FED DE SANTA CATARINA on November 23, 2015sss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://sss.sagepub.com/http://sss.sagepub.com/http://sss.sagepub.com/http://sss.sagepub.com/


2/17

et al., 2004). These developments have re-ignited debates within the bio-

medical science community about the conceptualization, measurement

and use of race and ethnicity (for example, Kaplan & Bennett, 2003;

Rathore & Krumholz, 2003; Bhopal, 2004), particularly in relation to

genetics (for example, Braun, 2002; Foster & Sharp, 2002; Sankar & Cho,2002; Root, 2003; Sankar, 2003; Cooper et al., 2004).

Social scientists, meanwhile, have suggested that population differ-

ences are increasingly explained in molecular rather than socio-political

terms (Kahn, 2006; Skinner, 2006). Troy Duster (2005) is concerned that

we are witnessing a biological reinscription of race, while Nikolas Rose

(2007) has instead argued that race occupies an unstable space between

identity politics and a molecular vision of the genome. In this paper, we

consider the questions arising from the renewed prominence of race and

ethnicity in biomedical science by examining empirical evidence of how theconcepts are being classified and standardized. Our data are drawn from

the editorial guidance in biomedical science journals and interviews with

scientists working at biobanks in the UK. We show how the editorials and

scientists have standardized the concepts in different ways and then reflect

on: (1) the imperatives behind these differences; and (2) the implications

for understanding the intersection between race, ethnicity and genetics.

Classification and Standardization

Classification is a pervasive, mundane and transparent activity (Roth,

2005: 582): a basic social and scientific practice for making sense of and

ordering the world (Durkheim & Mauss, 1963; Foucault, 1992; Bauman,

1993; Bowker & Star, 1999; Waterton, 2002; Lie, 2004; Roth, 2005). In an

idealistic sense, the classifications that scientists construct are unlike many

of those used in everyday life, as they are designed to be usable by others

in the scientific community (Bowker & Star, 1999). In practice, however,

scientific classifications are historically and socially contextualized. The

processes of creating and using classifications involve socially negotiated,

contingent and localized ways of coping with ambiguity (Roth, 2005).

Thus, Bowker and Star (1999) claim that classifications can be boundary-

objects: concepts that are capable of spanning different contexts while

potentially being operationalized differently in each setting.

In this paper, we treat classifications of race and ethnicity as boundary

objects that are used across a range of social settings, including the social and

natural sciences, public institutions and popular culture. The ambiguity of race

and ethnicity is reflected in the considerable literature devoted to operational-

ization and measurement (see Bulmer, 1986), the epistemic issues of race as a

classification of the human species (Montague, 1972; Marks, 1998; Goodman,2000) and the scientific, social and historical dynamics of racial science

(Stepan, 1982; Harris & Waltraud, 1999; Dubow, 2001; Lie, 2004). The use

of these concepts is characterized by uncertainty, which at least partially stems

from the absence of any universally accepted definitions. Shim (2005) argues

that there is, nevertheless, a continuing ritualistic inclusion of classifications

408 Social Studies of Science 38/3



3/17

of race and ethnicity in scientific research, which is driven by scientific prac-

tices that value generalizability, comparability and standardization.

Bowker and Star (1999) suggest that classifications become standard-

ized when they are portable across different social settings. Standardization,

like classification, is a socially negotiated and historically situated process(Fujimura, 1996). It is concomitant to processes of translation, as standards

can enable heterogeneous systems of people and things to interact and com-

bine across time and space. Agreed standards can reduce uncertainty, com-

petition and conflict in a socio-technical network, but they also need to be

flexible and adaptable to local situations (Watson-Verran & Turnbull, 1995).

The achievement of standardization has been linked to the success of scien-

tific fields in producing and testing theories, and generating investment

(Fuchs, 1992). Joan Fujimuras (1996) study of cancer research showed how

science, industry, government and patient groups co-constructed the study ofcancer as a genetic disease. Standardization of the oncogene package

enabled the research field to become highly productive and cohesive. In our

study we will consider the extent and nature of the standardization of race

and ethnicity in editorial guidance and the practice of UK biobanks.

Investigating the Standardization of Race and Ethnicity

Our research began with a documentary analysis to identify how editorial

guidance in biomedical science has addressed the classification of race andethnicity, particularly the issues of conceptualization and use. We reviewed

editorial guidance as it performs a social role that reflects and serves a par-

ticular research community (Morris, 1988) and it sets standards for prac-

tice (Bhopal et al., 2000; cf. Davidoff, 2000). Using PubMed we searched

for editorials in the fields of human genetics and general medicine (includ-

ing specialist disciplines such as paediatrics and dermatology) between

1994 and 2004. We identified 11 papers in nine journals (see Table 1). Six

of these journals rank in the top ten of their respective fields and so may be

considered significant and influential publications.1 As we were concerned

with standardization, we also analysed the International Committee of

Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEs) guidance on race and ethnicity.2 The

ICMJEs Uniform Requirements are a set of standards for biomedical science

publishing, including recommendations on the use of language and speci-

fications for submission and review. These are followed by more than 500

journals, including all but two of the publications in our sample.3

We also interviewed 17 epidemiologists, clinicians, geneticists and other

research staff at ten UK biobanks (see Table 2). The term biobank

describes a repository of data (usually health, lifestyle or genealogical data)

that is linked to stored biological materials (for example, DNA samples)(Tutton & Corrigan, 2004). As there are many different types of biobank

(Gibbons et al., 2007), we focused largely on those that studied common

complex diseases. We chose to explore the use of race and ethnicity in this type

of genetic research for three reasons. First, these studies often analyse popu-

lation-level difference by classifying research participants into population sub-

Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 409



4/17


TABLE 1

Journal editorials

Journal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Hospital and

Community

Psychiatry

British

Medical

Journal

Nature

Genetics

Canadian

Medical

Association

Journal

Archives of

Pediatric and

Adolescent

Medicine

Journal of

Adolescent

Health

Nature

Genetics

Archives of

Dermatology

Author

Bell, C.C.

British

Medical

Journal/

McKenzie,

K. & N.S.

Crowcroft

Nature

Genetics

Canadian

Medical

Association

Journal

Rivara, F &

L. Finberg

Litt, I.F.

Nature

Genetics

Williams,

H.C.

Date

1994

1996

2000

2000

2001

2001

2001

2002

Comments on

meanings

Race has a confusing

status it can be a

genetic, social or political

category

Race and ethnicity have

limited biological

relevance

Race as environmental

and social factors (e.g.

experiences of

discrimination and diet)

and not a proxy for

genetic variation

Race and ethnicity seen

to have wide range of

meanings from being a

genetic, cultural or

socio-economic category

Both race and ethnicity,

are ambiguous, lacking

any scientific basis for

their meaning

Race seen primarily in

social terms as relating to

different social groups

and patterns of

behaviour

Race is a social concept

but one that is imprecise

in its definition

Race is a flawed social

construct

Comments on use

and utility

Race has value for

research if confused use

could be rectified

Race should not be used

to examine cultural

differences, but can be

used if it is proved to

have a biological

correlate relevant to thedisease. Ethnicity can be

used to examine

disparities in access to

heath services

Race and genetic

difference should not be

confused. Genetic

variation can be

measured directly

Race and ethnicity

should be clearly defined

and justified on basis of

good science to avoid

confusion and potentially

misleading results

Using ethnicity in

preference to race is

misleading as ethnicity is

often a synonym for race

Avoid routinized use of

race; so careful

consideration should be

given to when race is

relevant to research

findings

Preference for use of

genetic evidence rather

than race for examining

differences in drug

response among

populations

Develop a methodology

for using ethnicity to

explore the role of genes

and environment in

human disease

(continued)



5/17

groups. Second, some studies focus on geneenvironment interactions, which

is arguably a location at which race and ethnicity have the potential to be

confounding variables. Third, it has been suggested that such studies will beimportant for future healthcare policy and practice (Bell, 1998; Khoury et al.,

2000), meaning that findings that link race, ethnicity and genetics could have

a significant public impact. We identified potential research sites from the UK

Medical Research Council, the UK House of Lords Science and Technology

Committee, the National Research Register and the campaign group GeneWatch.

Our, sample was purposively selected to ensure heterogeniety (Ritchie et al.,

2003) using criteria relating to cohort size, study design, geographical location

and recruitment policies. The research was conducted in accordance with the

British Sociological Associations ethical guidelines.

4

To respect confidentiality,Table 2 includes only information relevant to this paper (on the projects

research focus and its recruitment policy), and quotations from individuals are

labelled anonymously (PGD1, PGD2, etc.).

In the interviews, we asked respondents how race and ethnicity was con-

ceptualized, operationalized and measured in their studies, and if there were

any associated practical, scientific and socio-ethical concerns. Anonymized

interview transcripts were read by the whole research team, and a list of key

themes was devised, discussed and agreed upon. The coding frame was

applied to all the transcripts using Atlas-ti (a qualitative data analysis software

package)5, and a cross-sectional, thematic analysis was conducted to identify

commonalities and differences (Mason, 1996; Spencer et al., 2003). The

data reported here are from a numerically small sample of biobanks and prac-

titioners who worked with them, selected using a non-probability sampling

method. As such, we make moderatum generalizations that are tied to the

context of the study (Williams, 2000; Payne & Williams, 2005).


TABLE 1 (continued)

Journal

9

10

11

Clinical and

Investigative

Medicine

Journal of

the American

Medical

Association

Nature

Genetics

Author

Bevan, D.

Winkler,

M.A.

Nature

Genetics

Date

2004

2004

2004

Comments on

meanings

Race is a historically

rooted pejorative

category linked to

social status

Individual scientists to

justify their choice of

race orethnicity

Race as the combination

of ethnicity, ancestry and

phenotypic features

Comments on use

and utility

Avoid use of race as

surrogate for directly

measurable genetic

information and

differences

Research subjects must

be allowed to designate

their own racial or ethnic

categorization

Use ancestry for

information about

descent, ethnicity for

cultural and social

factors, and race only

as legacy of

discrimination



6/17

Standardizing Race and Ethnicity in Editorial Guidance

Attempts by individual editors to standardize race and ethnicity have

meant that different and potentially incommensurate classifications have

been promoted by journals in different disciplinary (and national) contexts

(Table 1). There are various opinions about the basis of race (as biological,

genetic, ancestral, phenotypical, social, socio-economic, cultural, politicaland environmental), and the relationship between race and ethnicity (see

Table 1, numbers 2, 8 and 11). Indeed, some editorials express dissatis-

faction about the validity of the concepts: race is described as confusing,

imprecise and flawed (1, 7 and 8), while ethnicity is also viewed as ambigu-

ous and sometimes just a synonym for race (5). Indeed, the routine use of


TABLE 2

Characteristics of biobanks included in the study

Interviewee

Code

Research Focus Classification Recruitment (where quoted)

Various epidemiological

studies

Health and

development of

children

Health and

development

Various common

diseases

Hypertension

Cardiovascular disease;

stress in the

workplace

Various common

diseases

Coronary heart disease

Renal failure/disease

Population history:

genetic controls for

other studies

UK Census

UK Census

NHS national

standard

UK Census

White European or

not

UK Census

UK Census

Caucasian

European, South

Asian, African or

Afro- Caribbean,

Chinese or Other

UK Census

Geographical

ancestry

Open policy not directed at

representative national

sample



sample

Policy directed at

representative local

sample

Policy directed at


sample

Exclusion of non White

European populations



sample



sample



sample

Policy directed at

representative local

sample

Exclusion of non White

British populations

PGD1

PGD3

PGD4

PGD9

PGD14

PGD5

PGD6

PGD7

PGD8

PGD16



7/17

race is questioned (6), or even proscribed in certain instances (it should not

be used to explore directly measurable genetic difference [3 and 9] or cul-

tural differences [2]). Nevertheless, race and ethnicity were perceived by

some to have continuing utility. It was argued that race can be used in bio-

medical science when it has a biological correlate relevant to the disease(2), and that ethnicity can be useful for exploring the role of genes and the

environment in disease (8). Alternatively, ethnicity was treated as a poten-

tial indicator of inequality (2) or broader cultural and social variables (11),

and similarly, race was used as a proxy for social and environmental factors

(3) or, more narrowly, the legacy of discrimination (11).

The variability in the editorials was echoed in the ICMJEs recom-

mendations. Prior to 2001, the Uniform Requirements cautioned that the

definition and relevance of race and ethnicity are ambiguous. Authors

should be particularly careful about using these categories (cited in Bhopalet al., 2000: 76). In 2001, the guidelines became more directive and rec-

ommend that authors use descriptors based on ethnicity over race (as the

latter lacks precise biological meaning).5 However, this advice was sub-

stantially revised in 2004:

When authors use variables such as race or ethnicity, they should definehow they measured the variables and justify their relevance. Authorsshould specify carefully what the descriptors mean, and tell exactly howthe data were collected (for example, what terms were used in surveyforms, whether the data were self-reported or assigned by others, etc.).6

The focus of attempts at standardization has thus shifted from a prescrip-

tion about the classifications themselves to the processes of classification,

whether using race or ethnicity. Some of the editorials we reviewed were

similarly concerned with the ways in which research was conducted and the

performance of classification (4, 10). Using these editorials and the 2004

ICMJE Uniform Requirements, we identified six methodological principles

and procedures for classification (see Box 1).


1. Provide a rationale for characterizing research subjects by race or

ethnicity that relates to the purpose and aims of the investigation;

2. Ensure transparent and explicit accounts of how race or ethnicity

are used to classify research subjects;

3. Avoid relying on the use of broad categories and potentially ambiguous

labels (such as white or Asian) when operationalizing race or ethnicity;

4. Aim to be highly descriptive when using racial or ethnic labels, and

document the way these concepts are measured;5. Recognize that research subjects are best able to designate their own

racial or ethnic identities, and that they should be measured accordingly;

6. Do not use race or ethnicity as proxies for variables that can be

measured directly.

Box 1 Methodological principles and procedures for classification



8/17

Standardizing Race and Ethnicity in UK Biobanks

Most of our respondents favoured the term ethnicity over the term race,

reflecting its more frequent usage in the UK. Where interviewees explicitly

defended the preference, their reasons related to a perceived lack of scien-

tific credibility of race as a biological concept and what that led to in

terms of racism (PGD9). Three different (and potentially conflicting) con-

ceptualizations of ethnicity were expressed (sometimes during the same

interview). Eight interviewees referred to ethnicity as having largely a

genetic meaning related to biological ancestry, meaning that it could be

used as an external marker of genetic difference (PGD8). Ethnicity was

also conceptualized as differences in lifestyle or socio-cultural practices

(particularly diet and exercise), meaning it could be used to measure the

non-genetic factors involved in disease aetiology. The third conceptualiza-

tion was of a different order. Three interviewees commented that ethnicity

was a social, political or cultural construct or classification; a product of

socially negotiated definitions or socialpolitical processes rather than a

natural categorization of biological ancestry and/or socio-cultural practice.

Some respondents viewed genotyping as a route for resolving the con-

ceptual ambiguities of ethnicity. One interviewee thought that genotyping

could effectively prove or disprove the biological reality of the socio-cultural

groupings to which people self-ascribe, or into which they are assigned:

to see whether these categories are really what people think they are, inthat theyre sort of defined and distinguishable from each other in termsof [the] genetic context. (PGD7)

Alternatively, genotyping was conceived as a more appropriate alterna-

tive to ethnicity for elucidating the genetic influences in common complex

diseases:

If you can actually get the information at the genetic level, which we the-oretically can ultimately, then thats obviously going to be more accurate

and more useful for what we actually want to do. (PGD14)

At present, none of the projects were actually using genotyping to check the

veracity of ethnic categories, or to isolate the genetic components of eth-

nicity that might be relevant to disease. Nine out of the ten were, never-

theless, using a measure of race and ethnicity in their study design.

To categorize population groups, seven of the ten biobanks adopted

pre-existing systems of self-assigned classification. Of the seven, six used

the classification produced by the National Office of Statistics for the

decennial UK National Census7

(hereafter the Census classification) andone used the UK National Heath Service (NHS) national standard eth-

nic group classification (Department of Health et al., 2005). The Census

classification was perceived among our interviewees to be widely used or

normal. One respondent termed them the standard Census categories

(PGD1), another commented that theyre the categories that are most




9/17

accepted (PGD14), and a third explained how the classification had been

adopted on a project so as to fit with the UK population reference method

(PGD6). The scientists we spoke to reported important benefits that arose

from the Census classifications status as a standardized tool.

It was considered that the Census classification had been successfullyused in practice and that it was more appropriate and accurate than previ-

ous systems:

that tool was used in the 2001 Census with some degree of success, andits felt greater success than all previous Are you black?, Are you Chineseor Oriental? classifications which have been really pretty poor at detect-ing what peoples ethnic origin is. (PGD4)

This respondent also explained that developing a novel system for classify-

ing research populations could raise concerns with regard to the choice oflabels used to describe population groups. In contrast, the Census classifi-

cation was perceived to be acceptable to community groups (likely to be

a euphemism for minority ethnic groups) as it had been developed with

community engagement (PGD4).

Furthermore, using the Census classification had added scientific ben-

efits that related to its portability. It could allow scientists to make sam-

pling decisions and assess representativeness, by comparing baseline data

on the characteristics of the general population with the proportions of cer-

tain populations in their cohort:

[It] gives us an idea of whether the kind of numbers that we get are simi-lar to what was found in the Census, so were using the Census figuresto get the proportion in the first place of how many Indians, Pakistanis,Bengalis there are in the UK so it makes sense to use the same categoriesto find out if were getting a representative sample as well. (PGD9)

Moreover, adopting the Census classification could enable scientists to

undertake comparative work and engage in dialogue across the research

community as youre sure that people are using the same categories in dif-ferent studies (PGD14). The researcher who adopted the NHS classifica-

tion used similar justifications for her selection: it allowed the project team

to assess the representativeness of their cohort against local health service

users, compare their findings with their previous studies and match and

provide information for the NHS (PGD3).

A minority of projects in our sample (three out of ten) had either adopted

a broad racial and/or ethnic classification or avoided it altogether. Whatever

the differences between these alternative methods, the scientists involved all

justified their decisions on ostensibly methodological grounds. A researcherwho used the broad categories Caucasian European, South Asian, African

or Afro-Caribbean, Chinese or Other explained that little attention was

given to classification as the study did not set out to specifically make any

effort to represent ethnic groups in the UK (PGD8). A scientist whose proj-

ect had excluded all but white European participants justified this by citing




10/17

the purpose of getting as homogeneous a group as possible (PGD5) to elim-

inate potentially confounding factors that might be introduced by including

subjects from other ethnic groups. A respondent whose project recruited only

participants whose families had lived in the same location for three genera-

tions argued that geographical ancestry was the only objective way to goabout defining what the population of this country is (PGD16).

Discussion

The conceptualization of race and ethnicity was ambiguous in our samples

of both biomedical science editorials and UK biobank studies. The multi-

ple and conflicting constructions of the meaning, measurement and utility

of race and ethnicity both reflect and further indicate that the concepts are

heterogeneous, contingent and locally situated. However, there were dif-ferent responses to this conceptual ambiguity in the editorial guidance

compared with the practices at UK biobanks.

Failed attempts to standardize the concepts of race and ethnicity in edito-

rial guidance have been superseded by an attempt to standardize the method-

ological processes for their use in scientific practice. The ICMJ and some

editors have shifted the focus of their guidance toward methodological prin-

ciples and procedures. This arguably pragmatic shift represents an attempt to

build a consensus on methodology that might facilitate the continuing use of

race and ethnicity as legitimate variables. In this instance, a key driver ofstandardization was the need for flexibility in particular settings (Watson-

Verran & Turnbull, 1995). Ideally, standardized processes for using race and

ethnicity could be adapted to different contexts, while retaining sufficient

coherence to allow other scientists to make comparisons and draw their own

conclusions about validity and reliability. In practice, however, flexibility

could impede the easy transfer of information between different contexts,

and it was this portability that was valued so highly by our interviewees.

The majority of studies in our small, non-random sample had adopted

socio-political classifications from state bureaucracy. It appears that the

Census classification in particular was emerging as part of the standardized

package (Fujimura, 1996) for biobank projects in the UK. To justify their

decision, interviewees cited the practical benefits: these classifications had

proven utility (that is, were workable and relatively uncontroversial) and

were portable (that is, enabled judgements about generalizability and facil-

itated comparisons). The qualities that made these classifications popular

were thus their stability, rather than the scientific acuity of the measures.

In this instance, a key driver of standardization was the desire to facilitate

interaction and enable the transfer of information (Bowker & Star, 1999).

The desire for stability can thus be seen to shape the structure, routines andnorms of scientific practice in way that encourages the adoption of socio-

political classifications of race and ethnicity.

The value of the Census classification to the scientists in our sample can

be attributed to the stability it gains from being the official UK State measure.

We can infer from this that these scientists operated in a socio-technical




11/17

network that aligned the interests of science and state bureaucracy. In the

USA, such an alignment has become formalized in regulation (Epstein,

2004). The 1993 Health Revitalisation Act mandated the National Institutes

of Health (NIH) to include women and minority groups in its clinical studies.

In response, the NIH has adopted the Census categories developed by the USOffice of Management and Budget.8 Although these categories were explicitly

acknowledged as social-political constructs (Office of Management and

Budget, 1997), they have become integral to biomedical science, for example

for monitoring the group composition of clinical trials (Friedman et al., 2000;

Stevens, 2003). Such formalized requirements are a further incentive for sci-

entists to use state census classifications throughout their work.

The adoption of a standardized socio-political classification of race and

ethnicity in biomedical science can be understood as a consequence of both

the structure and norms of scientific practice and the institutionalized meas-urement of population groups in state bureaucracy. In this sense, the ritu-

alistic inclusion of race and ethnicity is not encouraged by scientific

standardization alone (Shim, 2005), but by a socio-technical network in

which both scientific and bureaucratic requirements for standardization

have become aligned. Despite this, the use of Census classifications in bio-

medical science is not entirely stabilized. On the one hand, a small minority

of projects in our sample used alternative classifications. On the other hand,

there were differences in the expressions of standardization in editorial guid-

ance and scientific practice, which were linked to differential demandsfor portability and stability. This latter illustration of the contingency of

standardization processes (Fujimura, 1996) also signals a potential incom-

patibility between the emerging methodological ideals and the practices

reported from our sample of UK biobanks. Indeed, the veracity of the

Census classification for biomedical science more generally is open to ques-

tion. The editors of some journals, for example, suggested census categories

can be useful (for example, the British Medical Journal(1996) and Winkler

(2004) in theJournal of the American Medical Association), while others were

more sceptical (for example,Nature Genetics [2000]).

We noted at the outset that concerns have been expressed about the re-

emergence of biological and genetic ideas of race and ethnicity (Duster,

2005; Kahn, 2006; Rose, 2007). In our findings about the practices of clas-

sification at UK biobanks, both the ostensibly methodological justifications

for using alternative classification systems and the desire for stable classifi-

cations have important implications in this regard. Extrapolating from our

data, we argue that there is a potential for genetic ideas of race and ethnic-

ity to emerge in three ways.

(1) The unreflexive or routinized adoption of the Census classificationthreatens to erode the epistemological status of its categories as socio-

political constructs. As the Census classification emerges as an

accepted and acceptable part of a biobank study package, scientists

will be required to give little or no elucidation of the veracity of its

population categories. Meanwhile, most of our interviewees at least




12/17

partially conceptualized ethnicity in genetic terms, and some were

anticipating a future in which genotyping could clarify the conceptual

ambiguities. There is therefore a potential contradiction in thought

and practice, which could result in the Censuss socio-political cate-

gories being naturalized and institutionalized as population groupsthat have an accompanying genetic meaning.

(2) Geneticization of race and ethnicity could also arise from weak oper-

ationalization of the concepts. Race or ethnicity can be used effec-

tively in science (and social science) as proxies for variables such as

socio-cultural practice, social structural status and (arguably in light

of recent studies) genetic ancestry. Nonetheless, if a scientist fails to

clearly state what the proxies are being used to measure, there is a risk

that social differences could be misinterpreted as genetic differences.

For example, two studies in our sample used broad racial or ethnicclassifications and used justifications based on concerns with repre-

sentativeness and other methodological problems. This implied that

race and ethnicity were relevant to those studies, but it remained

unclear as to whether the classification was a proxy of socio-cultural,

social structural or genetic difference.

(3) There is a risk of geneticization in research that classifies populations

based on both genotype and race and ethnicity. Some human popula-

tion geneticists, like one of our interviewees, attempt to replace con-

cepts of race and ethnicity with genetic ancestry (Bamshad, et al.,2004; Keita et al., 2004; Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004). Superficially, this

appears to circumvent methodological concerns about the reliability

and validity of race and ethnicity, as well as socio-political concerns

about the reification of race as a biologically meaningful category.

However, the latter problem cannot necessarily be sidestepped so eas-

ily, at least not in geneenvironment studies. Population-level data on

racial or ethnic identity can be powerful evidence of environmental

differences in socio-cultural practice and social structural inequality.

Datasets that contain both genotypic information and a classification

of race and ethnicity may allow researchers to explore the intersec-

tions between them. On the one hand, this might allow race and eth-

nicity to be used as purely socio-political constructs that interact with

genotypes. On the other hand, socio-political difference may be sim-

plistically reduced to genotypic difference.

Conclusion

The history of racial science shows the potential for socio-political con-structs of population groupings to be transformed into innate, immutable

and natural categories, with dire social consequences. Our finding that

there is a contemporary potential for a geneticization of race and ethnicity

can therefore be interpreted as continuing the risk of misunderstanding and

misuse feared by Duster (2005). However, concerns about the molecular




13/17

rewriting of race could be viewed differently in light of our discussion of the

differential processes of standardization. From this perspective, a concept of

race or ethnicity that is linked to, or based on, genotype will necessarily inter-

act with and influence the existing conceptualizations used in other social set-

tings. It seems currently unlikely that a genetic concept of race and ethnicitywill ever be portable enough to wholly supplant a socio-political one. This is

because socio-political constructs (such as the Census classification) have

interpretive flexibility and mutability, both of which at least have the poten-

tial to address the ever-shifting popular experiences and understandings of

race and ethnicity. However, this does not preclude a more nuanced inter-

section between race, ethnicity and genetics, for example in a social space

between identity politics and science (Rose, 2007). In our study, like

Epsteins (2004) in the USA, this intersection was most prominent in the

alignment of science and state bureaucracy evident in the adoption of theCensus classification by scientists. This is an alignment that could have con-

sequences for the management and surveillance of population groups by the

state, as well as the understanding of race and ethnicity across social settings.

Notes

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Programme, grant

number: 073524/Z/03/Z/AW/HH. We would like to thank Mike Lynch for his editorial advice

throughout, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

1. ISI Journal Citation Reports for 2004 show that in the category of general and internalmedicine, theJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is ranked 2nd, the

British Medical Journal(BMJ) 7th and Canadian Medical Association Journal 8th; in

genetics and heredity,Nature Genetics is 1st; in pediatrics,Archives of Pediatric and

Adolescent Medicine is 5th, andJournal of Adolescent Health is 19th; in dermatology, the

Archives of Dermatology is ranked 2nd; in psychiatry, Psychiatric Services is 35th; and in

clinical and experimental medicine, Clinical and Investigative Medicine is 48th

().

2. The ICMJE originated from an informal grouping of editors (The Vancouver Group)

and began producing its Uniform Requirements in 1979.

3. According to the most recent available information (January 1997), the two journals

whose editorials we discuss in this paper that do not appear to have signed up to theUniform Requirements, are Hospital and Community Psychiatry (Continuing Now retitled

as Psychiatric Services) andNature Genetics.

4. The British Sociological Association (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice. Available at

, accessed 18 September 2007.

5. Atlas-ti GmbH, Berlin, Germany (www.atlasti.com) (accessed 18 September 2007).

6. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) (2001) Uniform

Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Available at

, accessed 26 January 2005.

7. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) (2004) Uniform

Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Available at:

, accessed 26 January 2005.8. Used for the first time in the 1991 UK Census, the ethnic group classification was

revised for the 2001 Census after a series of consultations. The population was asked to

assign themselves to one of the following categories: White White British, White Irish,

White Other; Mixed White and Black Caribbean, White and Black African, White

and Asian, Other Mixed; Asian or Asian British India, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other

Asian; Black or Black British Caribbean, African, Other Black; Chinese or other




14/17

Ethnic Group Chinese, Other (in Scotland, variations included White Scottish and

Other White British and Chinese was included in Asian sub-classification) (see Karin

Bosveld, Helen Connolly and Michael S. Rendall, A Guide to Comparing 1991 and

2001 Census Ethnic Group Data, available online at ). See Aspinall (2000) for a critical analysis of the 2001 ethnic

group question; and for a wider discussion about national Censuses and the politics ofracial and ethnic identities, see Kertzer and Arel (2002).

9. National Institutes of Health (2001) Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women

and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research Amended, October, 2001 (available

at ).

References

Aspinall, Peter J. (2000) The New 2001 Census Question Set on Cultural Characteristics:

Is it Useful for the Monitoring of the Health Status of People from Ethnic Groups in

Britain? Ethnicity and Health 5(1): 3340.

Bamshad, M., S. Wooding, B.A. Salisbury & J.C. Stephens (2004) Deconstructing theRelationship between Genetics and Race,Nature Reviews Genetics 5(8): 598609.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1993)Modernity and Ambivalence (London: Polity Press).

Bell, C.C. (1994) Taking Issue, Hospital and Community Psychiatry 45(1): 5.

Bell, J. (1998) The New Genetics in Clinical Practice, British Medical Journal316: 61820.

Bevan, D. (2004) Genes, Race and Drugs, Clinical and Investigative Medicine 27: 56.

Bhopal, Raj (2004) Glossary of Terms Relating to Race and Ethnicity: For Reflection and

Debate,Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58: 44145.

Bhopal, Raj, Judith Rankin & Trude Bennett (2000) Editorial Role in Promoting Valid Use of

Concepts and Terminology in Race and Ethnicity Research, Science Editor23(3): 7580.

Bowker, Geoffrey C. & Susan L. Star (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and its

Consequences (London: MIT Press).Braun, Lindy (2002) Race, Ethnicity, and Health: Can Genetics Explain Disparities?,

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 45(2): 15974.

British Medical Journal(1996) Style Matters: Ethnicity, Race, and Culture: Guidelines for

Research, Audit, and Publication, Editorial, British Medical Journal312: 109495.

Bulmer, Martin (1986) Race and Ethnicity, in Robert G. Burgess (ed.), Key Variables in

Social Investigation (London: Routledge): 5457.

Burchard, E.G., E. Ziv, N. Coyle, S.L. Gomez, H. Tang, A.J. Karter, et al. (2003) The

Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical

Practice,New England Journal of Medicine 348(12): 117075.

Canadian Medical Association Journal (2000) Scientific Reporting of Ethnicity, Age, Sex

and Race, Editorial, Canadian Medical Association Journal162 (10): 1393.Cooper, Richard, Jay S. Kaufman & Ryk Ward (2004) Race and Genomics, New England

Journal of Medicine 348(12): 116675.

Davidoff, Frank (2000) Letter, Science Editor23(6): 207.

Department of Health/National Health Service Health and Social Care Information

Centre/National Health Service Employers (2005)A Practical Guide to Ethnic

Monitoring in the NHS and Social Care (London: Department of Health).

Dubow, Saul (ed.) (2001) Science and Society in Southern Africa (Manchester: Manchester

University Press).

Durkheim, Emile & Marcel Mauss (1963) Primitive Classification (Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press).

Duster, Troy (2005) Race and Reification in Science, Science, 307 (18 February): 105051.Epstein, Steven (2004) Bodily Differences and Collective Identities: The Politics of Gender

and Race in Biomedical Research in the United States, Body and Society

10(23): 183203.

Foster, Morris W. & Richard R. Sharp (2002) Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social

Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity, Genome Research 12(6): 84450.

Foucault, Michel (1992) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London

and New York: Routledge).




15/17

Friedman, D.J., B.B. Cohen, A.R. Averbach & J.M. Norton (2000) Race/Ethnicity and

OMB Directive 15: Implications for State Public Health Practice,American Journal of

Public Health 90: 171419.

Fuchs, Stephan (1992) The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and

Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Fujimura, Joan (1996) Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Gibbons, Susan M. C., J. Kaye, A. Smart, C. Heeney & M. Parker (2007) Governing

Genetic Databases: Challenges Facing Research Regulation and Practice,Journal of

Law and Society 34(2): 16389.

Goodman, Alan H. (2000) Why Genes Dont Count (for Racial Differences in Health),

American Journal of Public Health 90(11): 16991702.

Harris, Bernard & Ernst Waltraud (eds) (1999) Race, Science and Medicine 17001960(New

York: Routledge).

Kahn, Jonathan (2006) From Disparity to Difference: How Race-specific Medicines may

Undermine Policies to Address Inequalities in Health Care, Southern California

Interdisciplinary Law Journal15: 10530.Kaplan, J.B. & Trude Bennett (2003) Use of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical

Publication,Journal of the American Medical Association 289(20): 270916.

Keita S.O., Rick A. Kittles, Charmaine Royal, G.E. Bonney, P. Furbert-Harris, G.M.

Dunstone & Charles Rotime (2004) Conceptualising Human Variation,Nature

Genetics 36(11): S17S20.

Kertzer, David I. & Dominique Arel (eds) (2002) Census and Identity: The Politics of Race,

Ethnicity, and Language in National Censuses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Khoury, Muin J., Wylie Burke & Elizabeth J. Thomson (eds) (2000) Genetics and Public

Health in the 21st Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Lie, John (2004)Modern Peoplehood(London: Harvard University Press).

Litt, I. F. (2001) When Race Matters,Journal of Adolescent Health 29: 311.Marks, Jonathan (1998) Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History (New York: Aldine

de Gruyter).

Mason, Jennifer (1996) Qualitative Researching(London: Sage Publications).

McKenzie, Kwame & N.S. Crowcroft (1996) Describing Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in

Medical Research, British Medical Journal312 (7038):1054.

Montagu, Ashley (1972) Statement on Race, third edition (New York: Oxford University

Press).

Morris, J. M. (1988) Images of Community in Scientific Texts: A Grid Group-Approach to

the Analysis of Journal Editorials, Sociological Inquiry 58(3): 24060.

Nature Genetics (2000) Census, Race and Science, Editorial,Nature Genetics 24(2): 9798.

Nature Genetics (2001) Genes, Drugs and Race, Editorial,Nature Genetics 29(3): 23940.Nature Genetics (2004) The Unexamined Caucasian, Editorial,Nature Genetics

36(6): 541.

Office of Management and Budget (1997) Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity (Washington, DC: Office of Management and

Budget).

Payne, Geoff & Malcolm Williams (2005) Generalisation in Qualitative Research, Sociology

39: 295314.

Rathore, Saif S. & Harlan M. Krumholz (2003) Race, Ethnic Group, and Clinical

Research, British Medical Journal327(7418): 76364.

Risch, Neil, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv & Hua Tang (2002) Categorization of Humans in

Biomedical Research: Genes, Race and Disease, Genome Biology 3(7): 112.Ritchie, Jane, Jane Lewis & Gillian Elam (2003) Designing and Selecting Samples, in Jane

Ritchie & Jane Lewis (eds), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science

Students and Researchers (London: Sage Publications).

Rivara, Frederick & Laurence Finberg (2001) Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity,

Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 155(2): 119.

Root, Michael (2003) The Use of Race in Medicine as a Proxy for Genetic Differences,

Philosophy of Science 70: 117383.




16/17

Rose, Nikolas (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the

Twenty-first Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Roth, Wolff-Michael (2005) Making Classifications (at) Work: Ordering Practices in

Science, Social Studies of Science 35 (4): 581621.

Sankar, Pamela (2003) MEDLINE Definitions of Race and Ethnicity and their Application

to Genetic Research,Nature Genetics 34(2): 11920.Sankar, Pamela & Mildred K. Cho (2002) Toward a New Vocabulary of Human Genetic

Variation, Science 298: 133738.

Shim, Janet. K. (2005) Constructing Race Across the ScienceLay Divide: Racial

Formation in the Epidemiology and Experience of Cardiovascular Disease, Social

Studies of Science 35(3): 40536.

Skinner, David (2006) Racialised Futures: Biologism and the Changing Politics of

Identity, Social Studies of Science 36(3): 45988.

Spencer, L., J. Ritchie & W. OConnor (2003) Analysis: Practices, Principles and

Processes, in Jane Ritchie & Jane Lewis (eds), Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for

Social Science Students and Researcher(London: Sage Publications).

Stepan, Nancy (1982) The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 18001960(London:Macmillan Press).

Stevens, J. (2003) Racial Meanings and Scientific Methods: Changing Policies for NIH-

sponsored Publications Reporting Human Variation,Journal of Health Politics, Policy

and Law 28: 103387.

Taylor, Ame L., Susan Ziesche, Clyde Yancy, et al. (2004) Combination of Isosorbide

Dinitrate and Hydralazine in Blacks with Heart Failure, New England Journal of

Medicine 351: 204957.

Tishkoff, S.A. & Kenneth K. Kidd (2004) Implications of Biogeography of Human

Populations for Race and Medicine,Nature Genetics 36(11): S21S27.

Tutton, Richard & Oonagh Corrigan (eds) (2004) Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in

the Collection and Use of DNA (London: Routledge).Waterton, Claire (2002) Classifying Nature, Constructing Europe, Social Studies of Science

27 (2): 177204.

Watson-Verran, Helen & David Turnbull (1995) Science and Other Indigenous Knowledge

Systems, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson & T. Pinch (eds), Handbook of

Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage Publications): 11539.

Williams, H.C. (2002) Have You Ever Seen an Asian/Pacific Islander?,Archives of

Dermatology 138 (May): 67374.

Williams, Malcolm (2000) Interpretivism and Generalisation, Sociology 34: 20924.

Winkler, Margaret A. (2004) Measuring Race and Ethnicity: Why and How?,Journal of the

American Medical Association 292(13): 161214.

Andrew Smart is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Bath Spa University. Hisresearch is focused on the impacts of genetic science and technologies inhealthcare, in particular the challenges faced by practitioners, patients andpolicy-makers. He has published work in journals including Sociology ofHealth and Illness, Bioethics, Critical Public Health, Biosocieties and theInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care.

Address: Department of Sociology, Bath Spa University, Newton Park

Campus, Bath BA2 9BN, UK; tel:+

44 1225 876193; fax:+

44 1225 875886;email [email protected]




17/17

Richard Tutton is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Economic and SocialAspects of Genomics (CESAGen) at Lancaster University. His researchinterests are in the social and ethical issues of banking human tissue forbiomedical research and the implications of developments in science,

technology and medicine for cultural and social identity. In 2004, he edited(with Oonagh Corrigan) Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in theCollection and Use of DNA (Routledge).

Address: CESAGen, Institute for Advanced Studies, Lancaster University,County South, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK; tel: +44 1524 510838; fax: +44 1524510856; email: [email protected]

Paul Martin is Reader in Science and Technology Studies and DeputyDirector of the Institute for Science and Society (formerly IGBiS) at theUniversity of Nottingham. His research interests cover innovation in thebiotechnology industry, the social and ethical issues raised by genetics, andthe regulation of new medical technologies. He is Principal Investigator on aWellcome Trust-funded project The Use of Race/Ethnicity in AppliedPopulation Genetics Research.

Address: Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham,University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; tel: +44 115 9515419; fax: +44115 8466349; email: [email protected]

George T.H. Ellison is Professor of Health Sciences at St Georges,University of London and Associate Editor of Critical Public Health. Hisresearch focuses on social inequalities in health, the use of race/ethnicity inbiomedical research, HIV/AIDS and the development of evidence-informedpolicy and practice. This has culminated in the publication of two editedvolumes: Learning from HIV and AIDS(with Cathy Campbell and MelissaParker) published in 2002 by Cambridge University Press; and The Nature ofDifference: Science, Society and Human Biology(with Alan Goodman)published in 2006 by Taylor and Francis.

Address: St Georges University of London, Cranmer Terrace, LondonSW17 0RE, UK; tel: +44 208 725 5140; fax: +44 208 725 0146; email:[email protected]

Richard Ashcroft is Professor of Bioethics in the School of Law at Queen Mary,University of London. His research interests include social and ethical issues inpublic health and the evaluation of new medical technologies. He is editor-in-chief of Principles of Health Care Ethics (second edition; Wiley 2007) and co-

editor of Case Analysis in Clinical Ethics (Cambridge University Press 2005).

Address: School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London E14NS, UK; tel: +44 20 7882 3282; fax: +44 20 8981 8733; email:[email protected]


Documents

Standardization of Race and Ethnicity