Diversity's Pandemic Distractions.

Jonathan Kahn
{"title":"Diversity's Pandemic Distractions.","authors":"Jonathan Kahn","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pandemic diseases have a nasty history of racialization. COVID-19 is no exception. Beyond the obvious racist invocations of the \"China virus\" or the \"Wuhan Flu\" are subtler racializing dynamics that are often veiled in more benign motives but are nonetheless deeply problematic. The racialization of COVID-19 proceeded along two distinct trajectories each of which threatened to reinforce inaccurate biologized conceptions of race while diverting attention from the social, legal, and political forces historically structuring race-based health disparities. First, early on as significant racial disparities in disease incidence and mortality became evident, a frame of race-based genetic difference came to the fore as a possible explanation. Second, as vaccine development ramped up there came widespread calls for racially \"diversifying\" clinical trials for the vaccines being tested. The rationales for such diversification were varied but tended to reinforce genetic frames of racial difference. Most common was the assertion (without substantial evidence) that vaccines might work differently in Black or Brown bodies and so racial diversity in trials was imperative for reasons of safety and efficacy. Derrick Bell cautioned 20 years ago that \"the concept of diversity … is a serious distraction in the ongoing efforts to achieve racial justice.\" (Derrick Bell, <i>Diversity's Distractions</i>, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1622, 1622 (2003).) This article explores the dynamics of how the concept of \"diversity\" racialized responses to COVID-19 and considers their broader implications for understanding and responding to racial disparities in the face of pandemic emergencies and beyond. In the short term, vaccine developers did a decent job of enrolling minorities in their clinical trials and the vaccines have proven to have the same safety and efficacy across races. In the long term, diversity in the biomedical context of pandemic response not only distracts attention from important structural causes of health injustice, but it also focuses attention on the genetics of disparities in a manner that has the potential to reinforce pernicious and false ideas of essential biological difference among racial groups. This article argues that an uncritical embrace of the idea of diversity in analyzing and responding to emergent health crises has the potential to distract us from considering deeper historical and structural formations contributing to racial health disparities. It proceeds first by exploring the dynamics through which initial responses to racial disparities in COVID-19 became geneticized. It will then move on to unpack the rationales for such racialization, examine their merits (or lack thereof), and consider their implications for developing an equitable response to pandemic emergencies. The next section will examine the subsequent racialization of clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines through the concept of \"diversity.\" It then moves on to explore how the geneticization of COVID-19 racial disparities laid the foundations for a similar geneticization of race in vaccine development. It will argue that in failing to clearly distinguish social and biological rationales for diversity, such framings, while generally well-intentioned, are poorly supported and work in tandem with the geneticization of racial disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality to locate the causes of disparities in the minds and bodies of minoritized populations; again this distracts attention from the historical and structural forces contributing to such disparities. The article concludes by recognizing a certain intractability to the problems of using race in biomedical research and practice, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. It offers modest suggestions for improvement that could have significant practical effects if taken to heart by researchers, clinicians, and policy makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":73212,"journal":{"name":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","volume":"32 1","pages":"149-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733320/pdf/nihms-1812706.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pandemic diseases have a nasty history of racialization. COVID-19 is no exception. Beyond the obvious racist invocations of the "China virus" or the "Wuhan Flu" are subtler racializing dynamics that are often veiled in more benign motives but are nonetheless deeply problematic. The racialization of COVID-19 proceeded along two distinct trajectories each of which threatened to reinforce inaccurate biologized conceptions of race while diverting attention from the social, legal, and political forces historically structuring race-based health disparities. First, early on as significant racial disparities in disease incidence and mortality became evident, a frame of race-based genetic difference came to the fore as a possible explanation. Second, as vaccine development ramped up there came widespread calls for racially "diversifying" clinical trials for the vaccines being tested. The rationales for such diversification were varied but tended to reinforce genetic frames of racial difference. Most common was the assertion (without substantial evidence) that vaccines might work differently in Black or Brown bodies and so racial diversity in trials was imperative for reasons of safety and efficacy. Derrick Bell cautioned 20 years ago that "the concept of diversity … is a serious distraction in the ongoing efforts to achieve racial justice." (Derrick Bell, Diversity's Distractions, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1622, 1622 (2003).) This article explores the dynamics of how the concept of "diversity" racialized responses to COVID-19 and considers their broader implications for understanding and responding to racial disparities in the face of pandemic emergencies and beyond. In the short term, vaccine developers did a decent job of enrolling minorities in their clinical trials and the vaccines have proven to have the same safety and efficacy across races. In the long term, diversity in the biomedical context of pandemic response not only distracts attention from important structural causes of health injustice, but it also focuses attention on the genetics of disparities in a manner that has the potential to reinforce pernicious and false ideas of essential biological difference among racial groups. This article argues that an uncritical embrace of the idea of diversity in analyzing and responding to emergent health crises has the potential to distract us from considering deeper historical and structural formations contributing to racial health disparities. It proceeds first by exploring the dynamics through which initial responses to racial disparities in COVID-19 became geneticized. It will then move on to unpack the rationales for such racialization, examine their merits (or lack thereof), and consider their implications for developing an equitable response to pandemic emergencies. The next section will examine the subsequent racialization of clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines through the concept of "diversity." It then moves on to explore how the geneticization of COVID-19 racial disparities laid the foundations for a similar geneticization of race in vaccine development. It will argue that in failing to clearly distinguish social and biological rationales for diversity, such framings, while generally well-intentioned, are poorly supported and work in tandem with the geneticization of racial disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality to locate the causes of disparities in the minds and bodies of minoritized populations; again this distracts attention from the historical and structural forces contributing to such disparities. The article concludes by recognizing a certain intractability to the problems of using race in biomedical research and practice, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. It offers modest suggestions for improvement that could have significant practical effects if taken to heart by researchers, clinicians, and policy makers.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多样性的流行干扰。
流行病有种族化的恶劣历史。新冠肺炎也不例外。除了对“中国病毒”或“武汉流感”的明显种族主义称呼之外,还有更微妙的种族化动态,这些动态往往隐藏在更善意的动机中,但仍然存在严重问题。新冠肺炎的种族化沿着两条不同的轨迹发展,每一条轨迹都有可能强化不准确的生物种族概念,同时转移人们对历史上构建基于种族的健康差异的社会、法律和政治力量的注意力。首先,在疾病发病率和死亡率方面的显著种族差异变得明显的早期,一种基于种族的基因差异框架就成为了一种可能的解释。其次,随着疫苗开发的加快,人们普遍呼吁对正在测试的疫苗进行种族“多样化”的临床试验。这种多样化的理由多种多样,但往往会强化种族差异的遗传框架。最常见的是(在没有实质性证据的情况下)断言,疫苗在黑人或棕色人种体内的作用可能不同,因此出于安全性和有效性的原因,试验中的种族多样性是必不可少的。Derrick Bell在20年前警告说,“多样性的概念……严重分散了正在进行的实现种族正义的努力。”本文探讨了“多样性”概念如何使对新冠肺炎的反应种族化的动态,并考虑了它们对理解和应对疫情紧急情况及其后的种族差异的更广泛影响。在短期内,疫苗开发商在招募少数族裔参与临床试验方面做得很好,而且疫苗已被证明在不同种族之间具有相同的安全性和有效性。从长远来看,应对疫情的生物医学背景下的多样性不仅分散了人们对健康不公正的重要结构性原因的注意力,而且还将注意力集中在差异的遗传学上,这种方式有可能强化种族群体之间本质生物差异的有害和错误观念。这篇文章认为,在分析和应对突发健康危机时,不加批判地接受多样性的概念,可能会分散我们对导致种族健康差异的更深层次的历史和结构形成的考虑。它首先通过探索对新冠肺炎种族差异的初步反应成为遗传的动力。然后,它将继续解开这种种族化的理由,审查其优点(或不足),并考虑其对制定公平应对疫情紧急情况的影响。下一节将通过“多样性”的概念研究新冠肺炎疫苗临床试验的后续种族化。然后继续探讨新冠肺炎种族差异的基因化如何为疫苗开发中类似的种族基因化奠定基础。它将争辩说,由于未能明确区分多样性的社会和生物学理由,这种框架虽然总体上是善意的,但却得不到很好的支持,并与新冠肺炎发病率和死亡率种族差异的基因化相结合,以找出少数族裔群体身心差异的原因;这再次分散了人们对造成这种差异的历史和结构力量的注意力。文章最后承认,在生物医学研究和实践中,特别是在公共卫生紧急情况下,使用种族问题存在一定的棘手性。它提供了适度的改进建议,如果研究人员、临床医生和政策制定者认真考虑,可能会产生重大的实际效果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity's Pandemic Distractions. Different but Same: A Call for a Joint Pro-Active Regulation of Cross-Border Egg and Surrogacy Markets. TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD?: EXPLORING NON-DISCLOSURE OF GENETIC INFORMATION IN LIFE INSURANCE APPLICATIONS AS GROUNDS FOR POLICY RESCISSION. AMERICA NEEDS THE TREAT ACT: EXPANDING ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE MEDICATION FOR TREATING ADDICTION. FIRST Do No HARM: PROTECTING PATIENTS THROUGH IMMUNIZING HEALTH CARE WORKERS.
×
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