Health statistics are often broken down into categories by race. But increasingly, scientists question whether race is a meaningless concept that has no basis in biology or genetics.
This was the concern of 40 scientists and ethicists at the \Race, Genetics & Disease"" symposium at Grainger Hall April 16 and 17. The symposium was sponsored by UW-Madison's Holtz Center for Science and Technology Studies.
Marcus Feldman, professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, pointed out all humans share 99.9 percent of their DNA.
""So it's that 0.1 percent that accounts for all the differences between all of us,"" he said.
Speaker Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, senior research scholar at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, agreed genetics reflect very little difference between members of different races.
""There is 10 times more difference genetically between a Caucasian man and his wife than there is between a Caucasian man and a black man,"" she said.
These data call into question research that focuses on race as a distinct, scientifically valid concept.
Jonathan Kahn, senior research fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, gave the example of pharmaceutical manufacturer NitroMed.
NitroMed offers a drug called BiDil for the treatment of heart failure. The FDA initially rejected BiDil because NitroMed could not demonstrate its effectiveness across the entire population.
NitroMed went back to its data and broke them down by race, which seemed to indicate increased effectiveness for blacks, Kahn said. NitroMed sought approval for BiDil as a specific drug for blacks.
The FDA approved it, Kahn said, though he suggested Nitromed called BiDil an ""African-American drug"" as more of a marketing ploy than as a reflection of its increased effectiveness on the entire racial group.
Kahn pointed out, ""In NitroMed's SEC filings, they acknowledge there may be no separate meaning of race, and that they can't define 'African-American.'""
Several speakers agreed it is still important to consider race, but not simply as a reflection of skin and hair color.
Pilar Ossorio, UW-Madison assistant professor of law and bioethics, said race is not just ancestry, but an ideology around ancestry, language, accent, religion, skin color and more. She said social scientists still need to consider race as a variant between people.
""Race influences a person's access to education, housing, employment, health care, even exposure to toxins,"" she said. ""So we still need to keep race as a scientific consideration.""
One audience member, a black woman, said she would not trust a drug marketed to her by race.
""If I go to my doctor and he says, 'Here's a drug especially for you as an African-American,' I'm going to say, 'Thanks, but I'll take what you give to the white folks,'"" she said.
