Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
-
Upload
marilia-luz -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
4/17
410 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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)
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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).
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 411
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
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
412 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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
Open policy not directed at
representative national
sample
Policy directed at
representative local
sample
Policy directed at
representative national
sample
Exclusion of non White
European populations
Open policy not directed at
representative national
sample
Open policy not directed at
representative national
sample
Open policy not directed at
representative national
sample
Policy directed at
representative local
sample
Exclusion of non White
British populations
PGD1
PGD3
PGD4
PGD9
PGD14
PGD5
PGD6
PGD7
PGD8
PGD16
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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).
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 413
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
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
414 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 415
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
416 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 417
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
418 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 419
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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).
420 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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.
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 421
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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]
422 Social Studies of Science 38/3
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/ -
7/26/2019 Standardization of Race and Ethnicity
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]
Smart et al.: Research Note:The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity 423