Mixed Race Studies

What’s Biology Got to Do with It? The Social Life of Genetics

Brooklyn Historical Society
Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations
Saturday, 2013-11-16, 15:00-18:00 EST (Local Time)

Part One of the reading series Quantifying Bloodlines

• What do we learn about ourselves through genetics and genealogy?
• How does DNA connect with what we know about our family’s ancestry and cultural heritage?

Join anthropologist, Jennifer Scott in conversation with sociologist Ann Morning, author of The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference (2011), for a discussion examining the social life of DNA.

Having read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, we will explore the tremendous social impact of one woman’s cellular legacy upon the world. We will discuss the impact on her direct descendants as Henrietta Lacks’ family discovers how their genes were used to make unprecedented medical advancements and enormous profits without their consent. Looking at the connections between biology and culture, this discussion session will explore the meanings of heredity, inheritance, and questions of bioethics.

Please plan to have read the book prior to our meeting.

This reading and discussion group is co-sponsored by MixedRaceStudies.org

For more information, click here.

The Meanings of “Race” in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research

Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics
Volume 1, Issue 1 (2001)
pages 33-76

Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Senior Research Scholar
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics
Stanford University

Joanna Mountain, Assistant Professor of Anthropological Genetics
Stanford University

Barbara A. Koenig, Professor of Biomedical Ethics and of Medicine at the College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic;
Affiliate Faculty of the Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis;
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University

Eliminating the well-documented health disparities found within the United States population is a laudable public policy goal. Social justice demands that we understand the sources of health inequality in order to eliminate them. A central dilemma is: To what extent are health disparities the result of unequal distribution of resources, and thus a consequence of varied socioeconomic status (or blatant racism), and to what extent are inequities in health status the result of inherent characteristics of individuals defined as ethnically or racially different? How we conceptualize and talk about race when we ask these questions has profound moral consequences. Prior to the Human Genome Project (HGP), scientific efforts to understand the nature of biological differences were unsophisticated. The new technologies for genomic analysis will likely transform our thinking about human disease and difference, offering the promise of in-depth studies of disease incidence and its variations across human populations. In her opening remarks at a meeting of the President’s Cancer Panel, which focused on health disparities in cancer treatment in the United States, Dr. Karen Antman noted that racial differences in cancer rates have been reported for decades, “but for the first time, science now has the opportunity to quantify such differences genetically.” Will the light refracted through the prism of genomic knowledge illuminate straightforward explanations of disease etiology, offering simple solutions to health inequalities? Or are there consequences, currently hidden in the shadows, that require our attention?

The challenge is then to analyze the causes of racism while avoiding the implication that race exists.
-Steven Miles, 1993

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self-Reliance,” 1841

Eliminating the well-documented health disparities found within the United States population is a laudable public policy goal. Social justice demands that we understand the sources of health inequality in order to eliminate them. A central dilemma is: To what extent are health disparities the result of unequal distribution of resources, and thus a consequence of varied socioeconomic status (or blatant racism), and to what extent are inequities in health status the result of inherent characteristics of individuals defined as ethnically or racially different? How we conceptualize and talk about race when we ask these questions has profound moral consequences.

Prior to the Human Genome Project (HGP), scientific efforts to understand the nature of biological differences were unsophisticated. The new technologies for genomic analysis will likely transform our thinking about human disease and difference, offering the promise of in-depth studies of disease incidence and its variations across human populations. In her opening remarks at a meeting of the President’s Cancer Panel, which focused on health disparities in cancer treatment in the United States, Dr. Karen Antman noted that racial differences in cancer rates have been reported for decades, “but for the first time, science now has the opportunity to quantify such differences genetically.” Will the light refracted through the prism of genomic knowledge illuminate straightforward explanations of disease etiology, offering simple solutions to health inequalities? Or are there consequences, currently hidden in the shadows, that require our attention?…

…Increasing ability to detect genetic mutations linked to disease susceptibility has not been paralleled by therapeutic discoveries. This disjuncture has contributed to the conflict about population-based testing and disagreement about the calculus of the largely unknown risks and benefits to individuals and populations. Knowing one has a BRCA mutation does not mean that one will ultimately develop cancer. Individuals must interpret complex, uncertain information to make sense of their cancer risk, and are often confused as to how to make sense of genetic information. The additional burden of contemplating the ramifications of targeted testing of their community, including the possibility of categorical discrimination and prejudice, is a daunting challenge. The mutations found most commonly among those of Ashkenazi ancestry were identified by chance. Blood stored for other purposes, notably screening for Tay Sachs, a heritable disease, was available for research. Other mutations in the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes are specific to certain groups, generally isolated populations such as those in Iceland or Finland. How will knowledge that common diseases are associated with socially identifiable populations affect the treatment of those individuals? But more importantly, how will an increasingly sophisticated knowledge of molecular genetics affect our understanding of the nature of “difference” among human groups?…

…In this paper we provide a strong critique of the continued use of race as a legitimate scientific variable. We offer an historical analysis of how the concept of race has changed in the United States and discuss the reification of race in health research. We discuss how genetic technology has been deployed in “proving” racial identity, and describe the consequences of locating human identity in the genes. The implications of the continued use of race in the new genomic medicine—in particular the creation of racialized diseases—is highlighted. We warn about the consequences of a shift toward population-based care, including targeted genetic screening for racially identified “at-risk” groups, including the potential for stigmatization and discrimination. A less commonly identified hazard is the epistemological turn towards genetic reductionism. We suggest that the application of a naive genetic determinism will not only reinforce the idea that discrete human races exist, but will divert attention from the complex environmental, behavioral, and social factors contributing to an excess burden of illness among certain segments of the diverse U.S. population. The intersection of the genomics revolution with the health disparities initiative should serve as a catalyst to a long overdue public policy debate about the appropriate use of the race concept in
biomedical research and clinical practice…

Read the entire article here.

Reading Series: Quantifying Bloodlines

Brooklyn Historical Society
Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations
Othmer Library
Saturdays, 2013-11-16, 2013-12-07 and 2014-01-25; 15:00-18:00 EST (Local Time)

Quantifying Bloodlines is a monthly reading group organized by anthropologist and oral historian Jennifer Scott.  Join others interested in exploring the relationship between biology and race, as we discuss three widely acclaimed books. Each work offers different examples of tracing family history—through a surname, through biological cells, through a specific geographic locale, through four generations of women’s lives. Through stories, we will discuss how we segment heritage and explain descent, paying close attention to past and existing ideas of purity, racial and economic privilege, and scientific thinking.

All sessions meet in the Othmer Library at the Brooklyn Historical Society. Light refreshments will be provided.

Sign up for individual sessions for $20, or join us for all three at a discounted price of $45! All sessions are available for a sliding scale fee, and no-one will be turned away for lack of funds.

What’s Biology Got to Do with It? The Social Life of Genetics
November 16th, 2013, 3:00 PM
Reading: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot
Guest Speaker: Sociologist Ann Morning, author of The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference

What’s Purity Got to Do with It? Searching Family History and Genealogy
December 7th, 2013, 3:00 PM
Reading: The Fiddler on Pantico Run: An African Warrior, His White Descendants, A Search for Family by Joe Mozingo

What’s History Got to Do with It? Evolving Classifications of Race
January 25th, 2014, 3:00 PM
Reading: Cane River by Lalita Tademy

Quantifying Bloodlines Reading and Discussion Series is co-sponsored by MixedRaceStudies.org

For more information, click here.

Geneticists and the Biology of Race Crossing

Science Magazine
Volume 182, Number 4114 (1973-11-23)
pages 790-796
DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4114.790

William B. Provine, Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor
Cornell University

Geneticists changed their minds about the biological effects of race crossing

Geneticists in England and the United States clearly reversed their published remarks on the effects of race crossing between 1930 and 1950. The reversal occurred in two steps. First came the change in the 1930’s from a condemnation of wide race crosses to an agnostic view. The second change, from the agnostic view to the belief that wide race crosses were at worst biologically harmless, took place during and shortly after World War II.

The entire reversal occurred in the light of little new compelling data from studies of actual human race crosses. The lack of new data is unsurprising. Few geneticists wished to initiate experiments that took three human generations to complete. And controlled race crosses are hard to arrange, even with government grants. What might be more surprising was the willingness of geneticists to make such positive statements about race crossing when they had so little reliable genetic evidence.

I interviewed or wrote to ten prominent geneticists who worked on human genetics between 1930 and 1950. Not one believed that new evidence on race crossing was the primary reason why geneticists changed their minds about the effects of race crossing. One plausible explanation, that the rise of “population thinking” (44) caused geneticists to change their minds, does not fit the evidence. Castle was no more of a “population” thinker than East, yet they differed radically in their conclusions about race crossing. What, then, did cause geneticists to change their minds?

Most important was the revulsion of educated people in the United States and England to Nazi race doctrines and their use in justifying extermination of Jews. Few geneticists wanted to argue, as had the Nazis, that biology showed race crossing was harmful. Instead, having witnessed the horrible toll, geneticists naturally wanted to argue that biology showed race crossing was at worst harmless. No racist nation could misuse that conclusion. And geneticists did revise their biology to fit their feelings of revulsion.

Geneticists’ ideas about the related question of hereditary mental differences between races is perhaps undergoing a similar development to that seen earlier in their ideas about race crossing. In 1951, judging from the response to the Unesco second statement on race and comments in genetics literature, most geneticists agreed with Muller that races probably differed in significant average mental traits. By 1969, when Arthur Jensen advocated this view in his controversial article (45), most geneticists who spoke publicly on the issue had adopted an agnostic position. Knowledge of hereditary racial differences in IQ had scarcely changed since 1951, but society had changed considerably in racial attitudes. It will be interesting to see if during the next several decades geneticists will argue, on the basis of little additional evidence, that hereditary mental differences between races do not exist.

I am not condemning geneticists because social and political factors have influenced their scientific conclusions about race crossing and race differences. It is necessary and natural that changing social attitudes will influence areas of biology where little is known and the conclusions are possibly socially explosive. The real danger is not that biology changes with society, but that the public expects biology to provide the objective truth apart from social influences. Geneticists and the public should realize that the science of genetics is often closely intertwined with social attitudes and political considerations…

Read or purchase the article here.

New faculty: Amy Non links health disparities to genetics and environment

Research News @ Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
2012-11-30

Liz Entman, (615) 322-NEWS

For decades, researchers have struggled to identify the root causes behind racial disparities in health. Amy Non, assistant professor of anthropology, takes a multidisciplinary approach.

A molecular anthropologist specializing in epigenetics, the study of how environment and behavior affect the expression of genes, her work integrates genetics, anthropology and public health.

For example, why are African Americans at greater risk for many chronic diseases? “We don’t really know what’s causing it—whether it’s their genetic ancestry or whether it’s something about their social or cultural environment,” Non said. She has found no evidence that African genetic ancestry plays a role and is now trying to identify psychosocial mechanisms—such as stress—that may contribute to these disparities.

Stress triggers a release of hormones that can lead to inflammation or dysregulation of other biological processes, she said. Prolonged exposure to stress can permanently interfere with the genes that regulate these hormones, which can have long-term consequences on a person’s health.

Read the entire article here.

Education, Genetic Ancestry, and Blood Pressure in African Americans and Whites

American Journal of Public Health
August 2012, Volume 102, Number 8
pages 1559-1565
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300448

Amy L. Non, Assistant Professor of Anthropology,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

Clarence C. Gravlee, Associate Professor of Anthropology;  affiliate appointments in the Department of Behavioral Science and Community Health
University of Florida, Gainesville

Connie J. Mulligan, Professor of Anthropology; Associate Director, University of Florida Genetics Institute
University of Florida, Gainesville

• Objectives. We assessed the relative roles of education and genetic ancestry in predicting blood pressure (BP) within African Americans and explored the association between education and BP across racial groups.
• Methods. We used t tests and linear regressions to examine the associations of genetic ancestry, estimated from a genomewide set of autosomal markers, and education with BP variation among African Americans in the Family Blood Pressure Program. We also performed linear regressions in self-identified African Americans and Whites to explore the association of education with BP across racial groups.
• Results. Education, but not genetic ancestry, significantly predicted BP variation in the African American subsample (b = –0.51 mm Hg per year additional education; P = .001). Although education was inversely associated with BP in the total population, within-group analyses showed that education remained a significant predictor of BP only among the African Americans. We found a significant interaction (b = 3.20; P = .006) between education and self-identified race in predicting BP.
• Conclusions. Racial disparities in BP may be better explained by differences in education than by genetic ancestry. Future studies of ancestry and disease should include measures of the social environment. (Am J Public Health. 2012; 102:1559–1565. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300448)

In recent decades, researchers have struggled to determine the causes of racial disparities in health. Many biomedical researchers have speculated that underlying genetic differences between races may contribute to these disparities. With the increasing availability of high-throughput genotyping platforms, a wealth of genomic data is now available to help address this issue. One consequence is that more researchers are estimating genetic ancestry to capture a presumed genetic basis of racial disparities in health. However, any associations found between genetic ancestry and disease could alternatively be explained by unmeasured environmental factors that are also associated with African genetic ancestry and contribute to health disparities, such as socioeconomic status (SES), neighborhood environment, and psychosocial factors including perceived stress or discrimination. Therefore, to avoid unwarranted inferences about the magnitude of genetic influences on health disparities, it is critical for any analysis of ancestry and disease to include appropriate social–environmental variables.

Social–environmental factors may be especially important when one is studying a complex disease such as hypertension. Complex diseases, by definition, involve multiple environmental and genetic causes, as well as interactions within and between them. Many studies have identified important social–environmental influences on racial inequalities in hypertension, such as SES, psychosocial stressors, and neighborhood environment, whereas other studies have begun to identify relevant genetic variants, such as those in the rennin–angiotensin–aldosterone axis and the adrenergic system. Few studies, however, have examined genetic and environmental factors simultaneously. The limited scope of this research to date has slowed progress toward explaining racial inequalities in hypertension and other complex diseases.

To address the relevance of both genetic and environmental factors in racial inequalities in hypertension, we tested associations between genetic ancestry, education, and blood pressure (BP) among Whites and African Americans in the Family Blood Pressure Program (FBPP) study. A previous analysis of this data set by Tang et al. found no evidence of a statistically significant association between African genetic ancestry and blood pressure. They concluded nonetheless that the results were “suggestive of genetic differences between Africans and non-Africans that influence blood pressure, but such effects are likely to be modest compared to environmental ones.” No environmental variables were included in their study, however. Here we reexamine the FBPP data set to test how the addition of education affects the association between ancestry and BP in African Americans. We also explored the association between education and blood pressure across racial groups. We hypothesized that education would show a greater association with BP than would African ancestry among African Americans, and that the association between education and BP may vary by racial and gender groups…

Read the entire article here.

Race and ancestry in biomedical research: exploring the challenges

Genome Medicine 2009
Volume 1, Number 8 (2009-01-21)
DOI: 10.1186/gm8

Timothy Caulfield
Faculty of Law and School of Public Health Research, Health Law Institute
University of Alberta

Stephanie M Fullerton
Department of Medical History and Ethics and Department of Genome Sciences
University of Washington School of Medicine

Sarah E Ali-Khan
Program on Life Sciences Ethics and Policy, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University Health Network
University of Toronto

Laura Arbour
Faculty of Medicine, Island Medical Program
University of British Columbia

Esteban G. Burchard
Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences and Department of Medicine, Divisions of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacogenetics, Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, and Clinical Pharmacology
University of California, San Francisco

Richard S. Cooper
Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Stritch School of Medicine
Loyola University

Billie-Jo Hardy
Program on Life Sciences Ethics and Policy, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University Health Network
University of Toronto

Simrat Harry
Faculty of Law and School of Public Health Research, Health Law Institute
University of Alberta

Robyn Hyde-Lay
Genome Alberta, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Jonathan Kahn
Hamline University School of Law

Rick Kittles
Department of Medicine, Section of Genetic Medicine, Department of Human Genetics
University of Chicago

Barbara A. Koenig
Program in Professionalism & Bioethics
Mayo College of Medicine

Sandra S. J. Lee
Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics
Stanford University Medical School

Michael Malinowski
Paul M Hebert Law Center
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

Vardit Ravitsky
Department of Medical Ethics and Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Pamela Sankar
Department of Medical Ethics and Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Stephen W. Scherer
for Applied Genomics, The Hospital for Sick Children, and Department of Molecular Genetics
University of Toronto

Béatrice Séguin
Leslie Dan School of Pharmacy; Program on Life Sciences Ethics and Policy, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University Health Network
University of Toronto

Darren Shickle
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Guilherme Suarez-Kurtz
Pharmacology Division
Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Abdallah S. Daar
Program on Life Sciences Ethics and Policy, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University Health Network; Department of Public Health Sciences and of Surgery; McLaughlin Centre for Molecular Medicine; Department of Medicine
University of Toronto

The use of race in biomedical research has, for decades, been a source of social controversy. However, recent events, such as the adoption of racially targeted pharmaceuticals, have raised the profile of the race issue. In addition, we are entering an era in which genomic research is increasingly focused on the nature and extent of human genetic variation, often examined by population, which leads to heightened potential for misunderstandings or misuse of terms concerning genetic variation and race. Here, we draw together the perspectives of participants in a recent interdisciplinary workshop on ancestry and health in medicine in order to explore the use of race in research issue from the vantage point of a variety of disciplines. We review the nature of the race controversy in the context of biomedical research and highlight several challenges to policy action, including restrictions resulting from commercial or regulatory considerations, the difficulty in presenting precise terminology in the media, and drifting or ambiguous definitions of key terms.

Correspondence

Recent advances in biomedical research promise increasing insights into complex contributions to traits and diseases, and there is hope that these will lead to global health benefits [1,2] . Analytical and social-justice considerations both recommend thoughtful assessment of the role of social identity, particularly racial or ethnic identity, in the design, conduct and dissemination of clinical and basic science research. Controversies ranging from James Watson’s comments on racial differences in intelligence [3] to the adoption of racially targeted pharmaceuticals, such as the African-American heart-failure drug BiDil [4-7] , remind us that use of the concept of race in biomedical research can have far-reaching, often unanticipated social consequences.

The problem of race in scientific research is not a new one, and the issue seems to perpetually reappear and remain fundamentally unresolved [8] . We are, however, entering a new era in which the fruits of initiatives, such as the Human Genome Project [9,10] , the International Haplotype Map Project [11] , and the recently proposed 1000 Genomes Project [12] , promise to elaborate more fully than ever before the nature and extent of human genetic variation and its relation to social identity. A recent interdisciplinary workshop, ‘Ancestry in health and medicine; expanding the debate’, hosted by the Alberta Health Law Institute and the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, in Toronto, Canada, sought to debate the current status and concerns surrounding these new scientific data, how we relate genetic variation to individual and population-level differences in observable traits, and what this might mean for the effective addressing of significant disparities in health status and disease. A central motivating consideration was how best to secure the anticipated benefits of genetic and related forms of biomedical research in the face of inevitable misunderstandings or misuse concerning genetic variation and race.

Here, we draw together the perspectives of the scholars who participated in the workshop, who have considered the race issue from the vantage point of a variety of disciplines: anthropology, bioethics, clinical medicine, ethical, social, cultural studies, genetic epidemiology, genome sciences, global heath research, law and the social sciences. We review the nature of the race controversy in the context of biomedical research and highlight several challenges to policy action…

Read the entire correspondence here.

Prematurity and Low Birth Weight as Potential Mediators of Higher Stillbirth Risk in Mixed Black/White Race Couples

Journal of Women’s Health
Volume 19, Issue 4 (2010-04-26)
pages 767–773.
DOI:  10.1089/jwh.2009.1561

Katherine J. Gold, M.D., M.S.W., M.S.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Sonya M. DeMonner, M.P.H.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Paula M. Lantz, Ph.D.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Rodney A. Hayward, M.D.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Objective: Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events. We evaluated risk of fetal death for mixed race couples compared with same race couples and examined the role of prematurity and low birth weight as potential mediating risk factors.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using data from the 1998–2002 California Birth Cohort to evaluate the odds of fetal death, low birth weight, and prematurity for couples with a mother and father who were categorized as either being of same or different racial groups. Risk of prematurity (birth prior to 37 weeks gestation) and low birth weight (<2500 g) were also tested to see if the model could explain variations among groups.

Results: The analysis included approximately 1.6 million live births and 1749 stillbirths. In the unadjusted model, compared with two white parents, black/black and black/white couples had a significantly higher risk of fetal death. When all demographic, social, biological, genetic, congenital, and procedural risk factors except gestational age and birth weight were included, the odds ratios (OR) were all still significant. Black/black couples had the highest level of risk (OR 2.11, CI 1.77-2.51), followed by black mother/white father couples (OR 2.01, CI 1.16-3.48), and white mother/black father couples (OR 1.84, CI 1.33-2.54). Virtually all of the higher risk of fetal death was explainable by higher rates of low birth weight and prematurity.

Conclusions: Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.

Read the entire article here.

The Correspondence Between Interracial Births and Multiple-Race Reporting

American Journal of Public Health
Volume 92, Number 12 (December 2002)
pages 1976–1981

Jennifer D. Parker, PhD
Office of Analysis, Epidemiology, and Health Promotion
National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland

Jennifer H. Madans, PhD, OD Co-Deputy Director / OD Associate Director for Science / OPBL Associate Director
Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services
Centers for Disease Control

• Objectives. Race-specific health statistics are routinely reported in scientific publications; most describe health disparities across groups. Census 2000 showed that 2.4% of the US population identifies with more than 1 race group. We examined the hypothesis that multiple-race reporting is associated with interracial births by comparing parental race reported on birth certificates with reported race in a national health survey.
• Methods. US natality data from 1968 through 1998 and National Health Interview Survey data from 1990 through 1998 were compared, by year of birth.
• Results. Overall multiple-race survey responses correspond to expectations from interracial births. However, there are discrepancies for specific multiple-race combinations.
• Conclusions. Projected estimates of the multiple-race population can be only partially informed by vital records. (Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1976–1981)

Eliminating racial disparities is an important national health objective; as a result, many policy and summary reports report race-specific health statistics to monitor trends and identify problem areas. Scientific research papers analyze race-specific data in hopes of understanding the disparities and, ultimately, finding ways to reduce them.

In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a revision to the long-standing directive for the collection of race and ethnicity data within the federal statistical system, known as OMB-15. Among other modifications designed to reflect the changing racial and ethnic profile in the United States, the 1997 standard requires that new data collections allow individuals to report 1 or more race groups when responding to a query on their racial identity. Analysts examining previously available data hypothesized that up to 2% of respondents to surveys or administrative collections would report 2 or more groups under the new standard. About 2.4% of the US population, nearly 7 million people, reported 2 or more race groups in the 2000 decennial census.

The impact of multiple-race reporting on statistics used for health policy and research is not yet known. It is likely that multiple-race respondents differ from each other and from their single-race counterparts on many measures of health and access to care. The extent of these differences will depend on many factors. All considered, multiple-race reporting will influence public health policy for both the newly tabulated multiple-race groups and the remaining single-race groups, which will be changed as a result of a wider choice of racial identification. Interracial births have increased over the past 3 decades. In the early 1970s, 1.4% of infants were born to parents who reported different race groups; by 1998, this percentage had increased to 4.3%. It would be reasonable to assume that individuals with parents of different races would identify with and report more than 1 group when responding to surveys and other data collections. However, how interracial births affect multiple-race reporting is unclear.

This report compares year- and race-specific national estimates of interracial births with year-specific survey estimates of multiple-race reporting. We compared the distribution of parental race for births from 1968 through 1998 with the reporting of more than 1 race for survey respondents in the 1990–1998 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) who were born from 1968 through 1998. If all individuals with interracial parents reported both race groups on the survey, we would expect the distribution of multiple-race responses on the NHIS to coincide with the distribution of interracial births from birth records for the appropriate age–year combination. For example, the race distribution for births in 1970 would correspond to the race reported among the respondents who were aged 20 years in the 1990 NHIS, who were 21 in the 1991 NHIS, and so on. We would also expect that the inclusion of individuals with 1 or both parents who themselves identify with more than 1 race group may increase the percentages of multiple-race responses in the NHIS even more. Although neither the NHIS nor the birth certificate were developed to provide national race distributions, both data sources are routinely used to provide national estimates of races-specific health outcomes…

Read the entire article here.

Unraveling the Concept of Race in Brazil: Issues for the Rio de Janeiro Cooperative Agreement Site

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
Volume 30,  Issue 3, 1998 
Special Issue: HIV/AIDS Interventions For Out-of-Treatment Drug Users
pages 255-260
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.1998.10399700

Hilary L. Surratt
The Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies
University of Delaware

James A. Inciardi (1939-2009), Co-Director of the Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies; Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice
University of Delaware

Scholars throughout the Americas have spent much of the 20th century studying race and its meaning in Brazil. Racial identities in Brazil are dynamic concepts which can only be understood if situated and explored within the appropriate cultural context. Empirical evidence of the fluidity of racial identification quickly came to the authors’ attention within the context of a prevention initiative targeting segments of the Rio de Janeiro population at high risk for HIV/AIDS. Because the main objective of this program was to slow the spread of AIDS through an intervention designed to promote behavioral change, comparisons of client data at the baseline and follow-up assessments for the core of the analyses. Through quality control procedures used to link client information collected at different points in time, it was revealed that 106 clients, or 12.5% of the follow-up sample, had changed their racial self-identification. The authors’ attempts to engage project staff in a dialogue about the fluidity of racial identity among these clients have provided some insight into what might be called the “contextual redefinition” of race in Brazil. Within the framework of this study, the ramifications of this phenomenon are clear. Racial comparisons of HIV risk, sexual activity, drug use, and behavioral change, which are part and parcel of U.S.-based research, would appear to be of little utility in this setting.

Read or purchase the article here.