3 ms·

One might respond along the lines of: "why are we investing in ways to operationalize a concept of 'superiority' in the first place?" The long lesson from the

One might respond along the lines of: "why are we investing in ways to operationalize a concept of 'superiority' in the first place?" The long lesson from the history of this research is that it produces garbage wrapped in a thin veneer of credibility, and becomes a weapon to justify or deepen real existing problems. It doesn't matter if it gets debunked eventually, the problem is how it is used now." edit: (I don't know that I'm happy with either pole in this debate, but it seems like a good thing to worry about)

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago
> One might respond along the lines of: "why are we investing in ways to operationalize a concept of 'superiority' in the first place?" Becomes sometimes it's important. The efficacy of modern medicine is not uniform across ethnic groups. To deny this fact would effectively be to deliberately withhold treatment from some groups of people. Does that seem fair and just to you? - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/ - https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pharmacogenetics-personalized-medicine-and-race-744/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pharmacogenetics-p...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  That's not fair, they should encourage people to include: > Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations) or in case it's due to the team they should also probably encourage: > Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia) Hopefully if thay do that won't be portrayed as a bad thing by anyone.

yakshaving_jgt 4y ago

> One might respond along the lines of: "why are we investing in ways to operationalize a concept of 'superiority' in the first place?" Becomes sometimes it's important. The efficacy of modern medicine is not uniform across ethnic groups. To deny this fact would effectively be to deliberately withhold treatment from some groups of people. Does that seem fair and just to you? - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/ - https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pharmacogenetics-personalized-medicine-and-race-744/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/pharmacogenetics-p...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
That's not fair, they should encourage people to include: > Diverse research participants (e.g., understudied or underserved populations) or in case it's due to the team they should also probably encourage: > Diverse members of the research team (e.g., those from underrepresented sociodemographic backgrounds, from an array of career stages, from outside the United States, or with professional affiliations that are not typical at SPSP such as predominately undergraduate serving institutions, minority-serving institutions, or outside academia) Hopefully if thay do that won't be portrayed as a bad thing by anyone.