Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Information Loss in Harmonizing Granular Race and Ethnicity Data: Descriptive Study of Standards

BACKGROUND

Data standards for race and ethnicity have significant implications for health equity research.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe a challenge encountered when working with a multiple-race and ethnicity assessment in the Eastern Caribbean Health Outcomes Research Network (ECHORN), a research collaborative of Barbados, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, and the US Virgin Islands.

METHODS

We examined the data standards guiding harmonization of race and ethnicity data for multiracial and multiethnic populations, using the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive No. 15.

RESULTS

Of 1211 participants in the ECHORN cohort study, 901 (74.40%) selected 1 racial category. Of those that selected 1 category, 13.0% (117/901) selected Caribbean; 6.4% (58/901), Puerto Rican or Boricua; and 13.5% (122/901), the mixed or multiracial category. A total of 17.84% (216/1211) of participants selected 2 or more categories, with 15.19% (184/1211) selecting 2 categories and 2.64% (32/1211) selecting 3 or more categories. With aggregation of ECHORN data into OMB categories, 27.91% (338/1211) of the participants can be placed in the "more than one race" category.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis exposes the fundamental informatics challenges that current race and ethnicity data standards present to meaningful collection, organization, and dissemination of granular data about subgroup populations in diverse and marginalized communities. Current standards should reflect the science of measuring race and ethnicity and the need for multidisciplinary teams to improve evolving standards throughout the data life cycle.

Human genetic research, race, ethnicity and the labeling of populations: recommendations based on an interdisciplinary workshop in Japan

BACKGROUND

A challenge in human genome research is how to describe the populations being studied. The use of improper and/or imprecise terms has the potential to both generate and reinforce prejudices and to diminish the clinical value of the research. The issue of population descriptors has not attracted enough academic attention outside North America and Europe. In January 2012, we held a two-day workshop, the first of its kind in Japan, to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue between scholars in the humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, and genetics to begin an ongoing discussion of the social and ethical issues associated with population descriptors.

DISCUSSION

Through the interdisciplinary dialogue, we confirmed that the issue of race, ethnicity and genetic research has not been extensively discussed in certain Asian communities and other regions. We have found, for example, the continued use of the problematic term, "Mongoloid" or continental terms such as "European," "African," and "Asian," as population descriptors in genetic studies. We, therefore, introduce guidelines for reporting human genetic studies aimed at scientists and researchers in these regions.

CONCLUSION

We need to anticipate the various potential social and ethical problems entailed in population descriptors. Scientists have a social responsibility to convey their research findings outside of their communities as accurately as possible, and to consider how the public may perceive and respond to the descriptors that appear in research papers and media articles.

Evidence-based medicine: opportunities and challenges in a diverse society

In this article we explore the discourse and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the context of social and cultural diversity. The article consists of 2 parts. First, we begin by defining EBM, describing its historical development and current ascendance in medical practice. We then note its importance in contemporary psychiatry, comparing dynamics between the United States and Canada. Secondly, we offer a constructive critique of the application of EBM and evidence-based practices in the context of ethnocultural diversity, as one consistent reflection on the EBM literature is that it is does not adequately address issues of diversity. In doing so, we use the situation here in Canada as an extended case study, though our observations will likely be applicable in other diverse nations, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. We critically examine the following 6 issues related to the practice of EBM in a diverse society: generalizability and transferability of evidence-based interventions; diversifying standards of evidence in EBM; strategies to address diversity in EBM research; cultural adaptations of evidence-based interventions; integrating idiographic knowledge; and, training and health service delivery. Concurrent with our critique, we offer research and practice suggestions that may address outstanding challenges vis-à-vis the practice of EBM in a diverse society. These include a need for more effectiveness research, more openness to diverse sources of knowledge, better integration of idiographic and nomothetic knowledge, and a critical approach to extrapolation and transfer of knowledge.

The categorization of African descent populations in Europe and the USA: should lexicons of recommended terminology be evidence-based?

This review attempts to evaluate a proposed lexicon for African-descent populations from the viewpoint of saliency amongst those described and wider official and scientific usage, focusing on Britain and the USA. It is argued that it is unsatisfactory to privilege the term 'African American' over 'Black' for African-descent populations in the USA as the evidence base shows that both labels compete as self-designations on co-equal terms, while 'Black' is the prevalent term in scientific writing. Moreover, 'African American' is not an inclusive term for the African-descent population and it is not known how prevalent and enduring the term will prove to be. With respect to Britain, the census terms of 'Black African' and 'Black Caribbean' are well established, the increasing popularity of 'Black British' also being recognized in census labels. Given the increasing interest in the relationship between ethnic identity and health, there are arguments for documenting the diversity of terminology amongst different user constituencies in country-specific settings. The approach of synthetic glossaries of consensual terms may, through the need for economy and parsimony in the use of terminology, contribute to an unsatisfactory paring of that diversity.