“It is regrettable but true that researchers have used and abused science to justify racist beliefs and practices.” Thus begins there‘editorial Of Natureone of the most prestigious scientific journals, in which he announces the need for greater attention from researchers in handling delicate concepts such as those related to ethnicity and other social characteristics, increasingly present in biomedical research as well. The risk to be avoided is that science and the communication of its results fuel prejudices and racism.
Clinical research stratifies patients into groups sharing similar genetic-molecular characteristics, diseases, habits, socio-demographics and so on, on the basis of increasingly stringent criteria in view of the so-called personalization of medicine, which aims to identify interventions of prevention, diagnosis and therapy aimed at the single individual because each case is different from the other. Among these criteria, there are also ethnic origins. There are many important reasons, it reads on Natureto consider them. In fact, even if the ethnic approach in medicine seems to give its best for those diseases attributable to specific gene variants, in reality the scientific literature shows that some pathologies have a higher incidence, vulnerability factors and different symptoms in some subgroups and understanding why is important. At the same time, we need to be aware that “people of color and minorities face discrimination in education, at work and elsewhere. These situations must be – and are – studied, so that the problems can be better understood and solutions can be found.
The appeal is asmall step to ensure that research does not inadvertently harm underrepresented groups». Something similar had already happened for the sex and gender of the subjects, the subject of numerous recommendations only recently. Consider that only for thirty years has the inclusion of an adequate number of women in clinical studies by the American Institutes of Health (NIH) been mandatory. Until 1993, the results of biomedical research were obtained from trials conducted on white males, a subpopulation not representative of the patients who would later take the drugs.
Naturewhich had already recognized its role in perpetrating discrimination (Whoa recent editorial), urges authors today to «consider the potential that research has to cause harm». The goal is “respect for the dignity and rights of the various groups of people”. One move that is welcome but “not necessarily revolutionary” is the comment of Angela Saini, a recognized British science journalist of Indian origins who has long been working on these issues. In an email, you write to us: «The magazine Nature is following in the footsteps of scientific institutions and funding bodies that they’re already asking researchers to think more carefully and critically about how they approach racial data». Saini, bestselling author Inferior. How science has penalized womenin his latest essay entitled Superior. The return of the myth of race, explains how in the Enlightenment, with the birth of modern science, the white European male man began to study and categorize populations to justify slavery, colonialism and barbarism. It is precisely due to the work of science, therefore, that the idea of race, which is based on arbitrary categories chosen just then, still appears so real and tangible to us today, despite the fact that for well over half a century scientists have been repeating to us that race is a social construct. «Race is often misused and inaccurate by scientists, so yes, there is still a lot to do. On the plus side, the situation has improved in recent years, with more researchers thinking critically about the use of race in research.” In this, we ask her about the role scientific journals play: «They are involved in improving standards and quality in science, but there is also a need for funding bodies to ensure good practice and for institutions to ensure that their researchers are not engaged in pseudoscience or shoddy research. And, of course, journalists are also important as they constitute one layer of that vigilance. Everyone must do their part to ensure that the public can trust scientists».