Humans often use race as a way to categorize the differences in the way people look. There are better reasons to categorize the differences between people, such as mapping genetic variations in large populations and applying those variations to medicine.
In some cases genetic similarities shared by people of a common race increase the chance of those people developing certain diseases. Many diseases have a genetic component which varies with race. This explains why some races are more or less susceptible to a sickness and even certain medicines.
For instance, BiDil has had a higher rate of effectiveness in treating heart failure primarily in African Americans. The Food and Drug Administration is likely to make it the first drug on the market targeted at a single race. “BiDil may be effective in people of African ancestry because, as a way of retaining salt in hot climates, they have genetically low levels of a chemical signal that BiDil enhances.” (Wade) The idea of treating patients racially may seem to be linked to racism, but it is necessary for the health and treatment of many patients.
Skin color is an equivocal way of identifying race. It is better to identify race based on the ancestry of the individual. Neil Risch (Geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco) wrote an article that included the five continent-based races; the list is below:
Africans are those whose primary ancestry is in sub-Saharan Africa.
This includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans.
Caucasians are people of Eurasia—Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and those of the Indian subcontinent (India and Pakistan)
Asians are people of eastern Eurasia (China, Japan, Indochina, the Philipines and Siberia).
Pacific Islanders are Australian aborigines and people of New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronasia.
Native Americans are the original inhabitants of North and South America.(Rische)
This list categorizes the race of humans based on their ancestry of many generations. We were taught to look past race, but it is necessary for us to recognize that we are different. Racial profiling is more important for our fitness. If drugs could target each patient according to race, than the outcome could be better for many patients.
Works Cited
1. Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 2007. Print.
2. Risch, Neil, Esteban Burchard, Hua Tang, and Elav Ziv. "Categorization of Humans in Biomedical Research: Genes, Race and Disease." Categorization of Humans in Biomedical Research: Genes, Race, and Disease. Genomebiology.com. 3 July 2002. Web. 15 Sept. 2009. 7
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I thought Ch. 9 was extremely fascinating. But the author does not do a great job of stating the the idea of race is a highly contested theory in all fields(anthropology to biology to history). Or that most medical journals ask submitters to refrain from using race to explain diseases or cures. Or that the scientists who first mapped the human genome, state that the "1% to 3%" of our DNA which makes up our genes does warrant the classification of race. And the list goes on and on and on....
ReplyDeleteRace is a social construction.
I thought your argument was pretty interesting. In class we have discussed that "race" is a difficult topic to agree upon, but I did not realize there was such controversy over race in medicine as well.
ReplyDeleteThe study of the drug BiDil was a perfect example to explore. I am still trying to formulate my opinion about the idea of objecting medical treatment based on fear of racial discrimination. I am leaning towards your view that targeting medications towards the genetic needs of various races may provide better care and overall health. This is definitely a topic that would be interesting to explore further - good choice!
Often we discuss medicine as the treatment for a disease, as someone who has a chronic condition, believe me it's much more healthy to treat the person. That is to say that a disease does not exist in its own special dimension, it's living in a person whose ability to combat the disease is made up of more than just their genetics -their environment and psycho-emotional state are also huge factors in recovery; healthy living and immune response in general are highly affected by social factors.
ReplyDelete"New studies must integrate measures of the social environment as a major part in gene-environment interactions. Few existing genetic epidemiology models factor in social or psychosocial environment. The latter must be included in contemporary gene-environment investigations of race- and ethnicity-based health disparities in common complex diseases."
The Human Genome: Implications forthe Health of African Americans
Georgia M.Dunston And Charmaine D.M.Royal
Rather than using the word race when describing people, perhaps we should use the term genetic heritage. This may help get rid of the racism aspect of specializing medicine towards groups of people with similar genetics. If doctors ask their patients about their heritage, rather than assuming based on looks, then this practice may become more widely accepted. I absolutely think that if medicines can be tailored to genetically-similar groups of people rather than mass-produced for everyone, the benefits could be great. Problems could arise if some doctors have racial biases, or any other issues involving discrimination. However, this practice should be considered by pharmaceutical companies.
ReplyDeleteYou bring a great argument about 'race' based diseases; they should be treated by 'race'. However, Mini (posted above) brings up a good point: The word 'race' will always stand in the way progress due to its negative connotation. In his studies, Murcus Feldman didn't use the word 'race', but used terms like "structure" or "self-reported population ancestry" (Wade, p 188). Getting rid of the word 'race' may not completely alleviate the uncomfortable vibe associated with the word, but it would be a start. That said, a disease could be cured with a structure-based treatment.
ReplyDeleteThis topic reminded me of how race was used to take advantage of a particular group of people suffering from a particular disease. The group was comprised of black men; the disease was syphilis; the time was 1950. Actually, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment began in 1932 and lasted until 1972. (For reference, that is FDR through Nixon.)
ReplyDeleteThese men were allowed to suffer the ravages of this horrible disease because the U.S. Public health service was curious about the effects. There was never a move made to treat these poor souls and, in fact, active prevention for medical attention kept these men isolated in rural parts of the deep South.
Today, doctors do not practice such cruelty, but then dispassionate testing on inferior humanity (blacks) was easily done - and funded. Perhaps the Depression fostered a weird economic-social tie because the doctors needed to justify their jobs. One cannot imagine such a study existing today, because of all of new laws and ethical safeguards.
Also, there is a greater awareness of what genetics and race means; when a specific type of person is called for, researchers tend to make sure that a person fits the DNA bill.