Analyzing the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research from a Local Community Perspective

Lost in the debate over the use of racial and ethnic categories in biomedical research is community-level analysis of how these categories function and influence health. Such analysis offers a powerful critique of national and transnational categories usually used in biomedical research such as "African-American" and "Native American." Ethnographic research on local African-American and Native American communities in Oklahoma shows the importance of community-level analysis. Local ("intra-community") health practices tend to be shared by members of an everyday interactional community without regard to racial or ethnic identity. Externally created ("extra-community") practices tend to be based on the existence of externally-imposed racial or ethnic identities, but African-American and Native American community members show similar patterns in their use of extra-community practices. Thus, membership in an interactional community seems more important than externally-imposed racial or ethnic identity in determining local health practices, while class may be as or more important in accounting for extra-community practices.     

The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins

The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief's position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins's contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief's position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments.The authors would like to thank Ralph Alexander, Terri Baumgardner, Dennis Doverspike, Rick DeShon, Jan Dorsett, Lynn Kahney, Paul Levy, Robert Lord, Karen Maher, Marty Murphy, Jackie Szmania, and Linda Subich for their comments.