Ethno-racial categorisations for biomedical studies: the fair selection of research participants and population stratification.

IF 1.3 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Synthese Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1007/s11229-024-04769-8
Tomasz Żuradzki, Joanna Karolina Malinowska
{"title":"Ethno-racial categorisations for biomedical studies: the fair selection of research participants and population stratification.","authors":"Tomasz Żuradzki, Joanna Karolina Malinowska","doi":"10.1007/s11229-024-04769-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We argue that there are neither scientific nor social reasons to require gathering ethno-racial data, as defined in the US legal regulations if researchers have no prior hypotheses as to how to connect this type of categorisation of human participants of clinical trials with any mechanisms that could explain alleged interracial health differences and guide treatment choice. Although we agree with the normative perspective embedded in the calls for the fair selection of participants for biomedical research, we demonstrate that current attempts to provide and elucidate the criteria for the fair selection of participants, in particular, taking into account ethno-racial categories, overlook important epistemic and normative challenges to implement the results of such race-sorting requirements. We discuss existing arguments for and against gathering ethno-racial statistics for biomedical research and present a new one that refers to the assumption that prediction is epistemically superior to accommodation. We also underline the importance of closer interaction between research ethics and the methodology of biomedicine in the case of population stratifications for medical research, which requires weighing non-epistemic values with methodological constraints.</p>","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"204 4","pages":"130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Synthese","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04769-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We argue that there are neither scientific nor social reasons to require gathering ethno-racial data, as defined in the US legal regulations if researchers have no prior hypotheses as to how to connect this type of categorisation of human participants of clinical trials with any mechanisms that could explain alleged interracial health differences and guide treatment choice. Although we agree with the normative perspective embedded in the calls for the fair selection of participants for biomedical research, we demonstrate that current attempts to provide and elucidate the criteria for the fair selection of participants, in particular, taking into account ethno-racial categories, overlook important epistemic and normative challenges to implement the results of such race-sorting requirements. We discuss existing arguments for and against gathering ethno-racial statistics for biomedical research and present a new one that refers to the assumption that prediction is epistemically superior to accommodation. We also underline the importance of closer interaction between research ethics and the methodology of biomedicine in the case of population stratifications for medical research, which requires weighing non-epistemic values with methodological constraints.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物医学研究的民族-种族分类:公平选择研究参与者和人口分层。
我们认为,如果研究人员事先没有假设如何将临床试验参与者的这种分类与任何可以解释所谓的种族间健康差异和指导治疗选择的机制联系起来,那么要求收集美国法律规定的人种数据既没有科学理由,也没有社会理由。尽管我们同意公平选择生物医学研究参与者的呼吁中所包含的规范性观点,但我们证明,目前试图提供和阐明公平选择参与者的标准,特别是考虑到民族-种族类别的标准,忽视了在实施这种种族分类要求的结果时所面临的认识论和规范性方面的重要挑战。我们讨论了支持和反对在生物医学研究中收集民族-种族统计数据的现有论点,并提出了一个新的论点,即假设预测在认识论上优于通融。我们还强调了在医学研究中进行人口分层时,研究伦理与生物医学方法之间更紧密互动的重要性,这需要权衡非认识论价值与方法论限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Synthese
Synthese 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
471
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Synthese is a philosophy journal focusing on contemporary issues in epistemology, philosophy of science, and related fields. More specifically, we divide our areas of interest into four groups: (1) epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science, all broadly understood. (2) The foundations of logic and mathematics, where ‘logic’, ‘mathematics’, and ‘foundations’ are all broadly understood. (3) Formal methods in philosophy, including methods connecting philosophy to other academic fields. (4) Issues in ethics and the history and sociology of logic, mathematics, and science that contribute to the contemporary studies Synthese focuses on, as described in (1)-(3) above.
期刊最新文献
The hybrid account of activities The once and always possible Psychophysical neutrality and its descendants: a brief primer for dual-aspect monism Definite totalities and determinate truth in conceptual structuralism A naturalist approach to social ontology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1