The Standardization of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Science Editorials and UK Biobanks
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 the guidance 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…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The widespread uncritical adoption of racial categories, standardized or not, can erode awareness of the social and political histories of racial taxonomies and reify racial categories as natural kinds.
“In fact, the widespread uncritical adoption of racial categories, standardized or not, can erode awareness of the social and political histories of racial taxonomies and reify racial categories as natural kinds [19, 30, 42, 43, 78, 100, 111].”
From Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness (2020) · cites this paper as [111]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Taking race out of human genetics
Yudell, M., Roberts, D., DeSalle, R., & Tishkoff, S. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4951 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness
Hanna, A., Denton, R., Smart, A., & Smith-Loud, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372826 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
“In fact, the widespread uncritical adoption of racial categories, standardized or not, can erode awareness of the social and political histories of racial taxonomies and reify racial categories as natural kinds [19, 30, 42, 43, 78, 100, 111].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Smart, A., Tutton, R., Martin, P., Ellison, G. T. H., & Ashcroft, R.
- Affiliations
- Bath Spa University (GB)
- Lancaster University (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- University of London (GB)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Smart, Andrew
- Tutton, Richard
- Martin, Paul
- Ellison, George T.H.
- Ashcroft, Richard
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 407-423
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2053319122
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 4.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Research Space (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (073524/Z/03/Z/AW/HH)
- Economic and Social Research Council (RES-145-28-1003-A)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Medical History and Research
- Keywords
- race, ethnicity, standardization, classification, UK Biobank, genetic variation, biomedical journals, editorial guidelines, census classification, state bureaucracy, science and technology studies
- MeSH terms
- Ethnicity, United Kingdom, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Bibliometrics, Databases, Factual, Editorial Policies, Racial Groups, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review