Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|4.21.06 @ 3:19PM|#
If you allow all races in your study but no one from a particular race volunteers, is that racist? Would it delegitimize the results? How about excluding women, or no women volunteer?
|4.21.06 @ 3:27PM|#
Curious: I work for a large research university with very strict policies about race/gender representation in sponsored studies. If the ratios aren't right, the study doesn't go through. This is partially university policy at work, but the university's policy is only a slightly stricter version of what most grant-writing foundations (some of them government-sponsored) require.
|4.21.06 @ 3:53PM|#
Private, for-profit pharm companies want to sell their products to as many humans as possible: white, black, yellow, gay, straight, whatever. Surely some researchers have their private prejudices, but to stupidly disqualify a sizeable chunk of beneficiaries (and customers) from access to new medicines would be market suicide. I'd be far more wary of state-run labs who take their orders from a "minister" of health with egalitarian motives.
|4.21.06 @ 4:02PM|#
"Journalist Andrew Gumbel" surely plans to start a Biotech that will identify underserved minority populations that will benefit from "white" drugs. Unless he's a racist.
Bureaucrat, it is Academic policy that there are no genetic differences between races. Well, except for all the exceptions. Politics trumps science.
|4.21.06 @ 4:07PM|#
bubba: It's also state law that we don't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc. in awarding admission or financial aid to incoming students.
But I'm sure we can all guess what happens when admissions season rolls around.
You're right to point out the contradiction. I sat next to our chief diversity officer at a meeting yesterday, and listened to him give a little talk about how he would personally drive African-American recruits around to all of the hair salons and churches in the city.
Real sensitive of him, stereotyping blacks like that.
|4.21.06 @ 4:08PM|#
Ed makes a good point. What incentive do they have to be "racist".
Furthermore, it seems like alot of people in this country need to freshen up on the definition of "racism". From Miriam-Webster:
"A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
In other words, it is the non-scientific belief that, because someone is a certain race, they will exhibit or not exhibit specific qualities.
But when you find,scientifically, that a particular race does not respond well to a medicine, well, that's not "racism"...any more than observing that many blacks are more athletically proficient than other races.
To put it another way, if a certain race of people had 12 fingers, would it be "racist" to only recruit them to play a musical instrument that requires 12 fingers to play it?
|4.21.06 @ 4:10PM|#
I think Ron Bailey made a good point in this article, especially the last 2 paragraphs.
Yes, yes, "race" is not a well-defined term, and it is only a crude proxy for the probability of having certain genes, and because there's been so much inter-racial sex in the past you can find people with genes that you wouldn't "expect" based on skin tone, yadda yadda. And hopefully researchers will learn soon enough which genes are responsible for differential responses to certain drugs, and then they won't have to use that crude proxy.
What I want to know is whether the critics cited in the article are isolated examples, or whether they are in fact representative of a wider sentiment, or at least have considerable influence. Ron Bailey cites the fact that sales have not met expectations for one drug, but it isn't clear that racial issues are the reason. It could very well be the case for all I know, but it isn't made clear. Also, while the performance stats sound impressive (43-percent reduction in death and a 39-percent decrease in hospitalization for heart failure) I have no clue how that stacks up to other drugs, nor do I know how side effects compare with other drugs.
So, basically, I completely agree that there's nothing wrong with studying differential responses to drugs as a function of ethnic background (indeed, I often hear that health care providers need to pay more attention to the distinct needs of patients in minority communities), but I wonder if the opposition to this notion is really all that strong or significant.
|4.21.06 @ 4:17PM|#
If blacks aren't passing the test at the same rate that white's are, the test must be racist.
Oops, wrong thread.
Gimme Back My Dog|4.21.06 @ 4:19PM|#
If I were an African-American, I would be a little alarmed at the rise of race-specific treatments. Given that the pharms make most of their profits in the US and given the demographics of the US, they have very little incentive to develop blacks-only medicines. Ron's article mentions BiDil's disappointing sales, perhaps sales are low because ~88 percent of the population are not candidates for the treatment.
|4.21.06 @ 4:23PM|#
Different responses to drugs is more than a black/ white issue. We natural redheads apparently don't process painkillers all that well, as disclosed last August. It'll be interesting to see what other groups sharing a genetic identity have differing responses to drugs.
|4.21.06 @ 4:27PM|#
Dude Sans Dog-
The counter-argument is that if there's a drug that works well for your group but not other groups you'd want to know about that. And if there's a drug that works well for other groups but not your group you'd want to know that too, so you don't spend money on a therapy that won't work while your health continues to deteriorate.
As for the fact that only 12% of the public is eligible for the drug, I assumed (hoped?) that demographic considerations were already factored into the projections, and the sales fell short of even those predictions.
Anyway, it's not made clear in the article that racial issues are the reason why the drug isn't selling. That could very well be the case, but it isn't made clear in the article.
|4.21.06 @ 4:32PM|#
Therapies will then go beyond "whites only" or "blacks only," and become personalized: "Joe only" or "Julie only."
Awesome: soon they will be able to individually tailor medical research to benefit only the specific people who can pay for it. Buh-bye free rider problems!
Captain Holly|4.21.06 @ 4:36PM|#
Excluding a certain racial or ethnic group from a study isn't necessarily racism, or bad science. I doubt any scientist would object to performing a study on a sickle-cell anemia treatment that excluded persons of Scandinavian descent. Sometimes it's simply what is required because some diseases or conditions do not universally affect every race (or sex) the same way.
I suspect what is really bothering the critics of this practice is the fact that there are significant, tangible differences in the physiology of racial groups.
|4.21.06 @ 5:22PM|#
soon they will be able to individually tailor medical research to benefit only the specific people who can pay for it.
Soon I will able to drive a horse-less carriage that only "they" could afford.
|4.21.06 @ 5:33PM|#
Melanin is biology; nigger is a pathology.
|4.21.06 @ 7:29PM|#
Given the higher incidence of high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, and related conditions in the black population, I can't imagine why anyone would object to a heart disease drug that has greater efficacy in blacks. There is a great deal of effort being put into culturally competent, population specific *delivery* of health interventions to reduce health disparities. Seems like adding a population specific drug therapy could go a long way towards reducing a major health problem for African-Americans.
Chris Wage|4.21.06 @ 9:26PM|#
Thankfully, we have happyjuggler0 here to demonstrate for us all what real racism looks like.
|4.21.06 @ 9:47PM|#
If blacks aren't passing the test at the same rate that white's are, the test must be racist.
Oops, wrong thread.
Thankfully, we have happyjuggler0 here to demonstrate for us all what real racism looks like.
I'm not at all sure how to take that. Joke? Sarcasm? Angry at me?
My comment was a frustrated joke at:
1) people who assume blacks and whites as a group must have internal chemistry that is the same even though their skin pigment is quite different and hair, to name the most obvious and uncontroversial.
2) People who assume that blacks and whites as a group must perform at the same level on educational attainment tests even with one group going to clearly inferior schools that the teachers refuse to send their kids too, and having fewer two-parent homes to help them with homework, and having a disturbing cultural issue with learning well being equated with "trying to be white".
Due to a blind refusal to admit that there are real differences in section 2, many (liberal, or liberally nuts, your choice) people who don't see those real differences blindly proclaim it must be the standardized test makers that are racist, and they proclaim this because they are afraid the only alternative is to say that blacks are genetically inferior, something I suspect these liberals secreatly believe but are too horrified to admit.
Due to this blind stupidity, these same liberal nuts also think that despite real, documented differences in heart disease, diabetes, etc., that the physical make up of blacks is somehow the same, which is clearly not the case.
None of which by any means implies any mental superiority, inferiority, or equality for that matter.
As a result of this liberal blindness, both blacks and whites would receive inferior drugs, or expensive placebos, at least some of the time if these same liberals have their way. Hence my frustrated joke, which I stand by.
80sfan|4.22.06 @ 12:12AM|#
It was nice to see a genuinely provocative item on top of the Reason page for a couple of hours--but then, Gillespie puts it back on-message, albeit a day late. Is this how the Pillow Girl appears through dimethyltryptamine
Gil Roth|4.22.06 @ 7:56AM|#
I interviewed an exec at NitroMed last year for an article on biomarkers and we talked abou the possibilities of "race-based medicine" (the article's not online; sorry). He was very excited about BiDil's prospects, and the reclamation story of the drug's history (it didn't show strong results initially, and took some data-mining before people figured out that the black patients in the trial benefited very well).
He mentioned that one of the key problems with marketing BiDil is that black people (generally) don't trust doctors and drug companies. Similarly, it was hard to get the A-HeFT clinical trials going, because black people (generally) don't volunteer for clinical trials.
During the interview, I asked what sort of "qualification" one needed to count as "black," and the exec told me that they're trusting people to be "self-defined" as black.
Here's a piece about attempts at marketing BiDil, and reducing co-payments so as to make the drug more accessible to patients who are poor.
|4.23.06 @ 11:13AM|#
Race is a pretty difficulty construct to define biologically. And self-defined race is certainly not a biological marker that will indicate drug-genetic interaction effects.
But the silly notions we hold about both race and genetics result in some fairly silly activities, some of which lead to access to government largess...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12genes.html?ex=1145937600&en=29299aa304e08ce0&ei=5070
|4.23.06 @ 11:18AM|#
For a nice review of the IQ skin color debate,
http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815746091/html/86.html
|4.23.06 @ 11:20AM|#
There may be excellent biochemical reasons to test medicines in subsets of the population. The presence or absence of melanin may or may not be a factor in the absortion rate and metabolizing of medicine, but unless there is a study we'll never know.
It is a biochemical facts that both blacks and whites can digest milk as adults, while American Indians and Asians do not. It is no racism to wonder why there is no cheese in Chinese cuisine.
It is also a biological fact that the Jacob Kreunfelt disease is concentrated in Eastern European Jews.
Blacks are also a population with a high incidence of sickle cell anemia. That also has to be factored in.
|4.23.06 @ 7:30PM|#
Happyjuggler,
I understood your joke, and I agree with your clarification as well. I have come to the conclusion that racism is a trait most closely associated with those who call others racist.
Why would anybody be surprised that there are bilogical differences between differentiated ethnic groups? It is genetic differences that are the casue of differing ethnic groups after all.