Marginalized measures: The harmonization of diversity in precision medicine research.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1177/03063127241288498
Melanie Jeske, Aliya Saperstein, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Janet K Shim
{"title":"Marginalized measures: The harmonization of diversity in precision medicine research.","authors":"Melanie Jeske, Aliya Saperstein, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Janet K Shim","doi":"10.1177/03063127241288498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The production of large, shareable datasets is increasingly prioritized for a wide range of research purposes. In biomedicine, especially in the United States, calls to enhance representation of historically underrepresented populations in databases that integrate genomic, health history, demographic and lifestyle data have also increased in order to support the goals of precision medicine. Understanding the assumptions and values that shape the design of such datasets and the practices through which they are constructed are a pressing area of social inquiry. We examine how diversity is conceptualized in U.S. precision medicine research initiatives, specifically attending to how measures of diversity, including race, ethnicity, and medically underserved status, are constructed and harmonized to build commensurate datasets. In three case studies, we show how symbolic embrace of both diversity and harmonization efforts can compromise the utility of diversity data. Although big data and diverse population representation are heralded as the keys to unlocking the promises of precision medicine research, these cases reveal core tensions between what kinds of data are seen as central to 'the science' and which are marginalized.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241288498","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The production of large, shareable datasets is increasingly prioritized for a wide range of research purposes. In biomedicine, especially in the United States, calls to enhance representation of historically underrepresented populations in databases that integrate genomic, health history, demographic and lifestyle data have also increased in order to support the goals of precision medicine. Understanding the assumptions and values that shape the design of such datasets and the practices through which they are constructed are a pressing area of social inquiry. We examine how diversity is conceptualized in U.S. precision medicine research initiatives, specifically attending to how measures of diversity, including race, ethnicity, and medically underserved status, are constructed and harmonized to build commensurate datasets. In three case studies, we show how symbolic embrace of both diversity and harmonization efforts can compromise the utility of diversity data. Although big data and diverse population representation are heralded as the keys to unlocking the promises of precision medicine research, these cases reveal core tensions between what kinds of data are seen as central to 'the science' and which are marginalized.

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
边缘化措施:精准医学研究中多样性的协调。
为了广泛的研究目的,制作大型、可共享的数据集越来越受到重视。在生物医学领域,尤其是在美国,为了支持精准医学的目标,要求在整合了基因组、健康史、人口统计学和生活方式数据的数据库中提高历史上代表性不足人群的代表性的呼声也日益高涨。了解影响此类数据集设计的假设和价值观,以及构建数据集的实践,是社会调查的一个紧迫领域。我们研究了美国精准医学研究计划中如何将多样性概念化,特别关注了如何构建和协调包括种族、民族和医疗服务不足状况在内的多样性衡量标准,以建立相称的数据集。在三个案例研究中,我们展示了象征性地接受多样性和协调工作会如何损害多样性数据的效用。尽管大数据和多元化人群代表被誉为开启精准医学研究前景的钥匙,但这些案例揭示了哪些数据被视为 "科学 "的核心,哪些数据被边缘化之间的核心矛盾。
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
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Beyond samplism: Rethinking the field in exposure science Making citizens, procedures, and outcomes: Theorizing politics in a co-productionist idiom. The techno-politics of computing the mind: Opening the black box of digital psychiatry. Categorical misalignment: Making autism(s) in big data biobanking. Marginalized measures: The harmonization of diversity in precision medicine research.
×
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