Response to comments on 'A post-genomic surprise'.

In response to the seven authors who offered comments on my paper, I have tried to synthesize and distill common themes. Foremost among them is the charge to look forward, not only to consider probable developments and implications for how this 'molecular reinscription of race' will unfold in forensics and clinical medicine, but as well to suggest how the discipline of Sociology can and should respond. But as several of the commentators noted, this is not just a matter for a single discipline, but should be fertile ground for coordinated empirical investigation by such fields as the Social Studies of Science, Anthropology of Medicine, and Critical Race Theory.

A post-genomic surprise. The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine.

The completion of the first draft of the Human Genome Map in 2000 was widely heralded as the promise and future of genetics-based medicines and therapies - so much so that pundits began referring to the new century as 'The Century of Genetics'. Moreover, definitive assertions about the overwhelming similarities of all humans' DNA (99.9 per cent) by the leaders of the Human Genome Project were trumpeted as the end of racial thinking about racial taxonomies of human genetic differences.

Social diversity in humans: implications and hidden consequences for biological research.

Humans are both similar and diverse in such a vast number of dimensions that for human geneticists and social scientists to decide which of these dimensions is a worthy focus of empirical investigation is a formidable challenge. For geneticists, one vital question, of course, revolves around hypothesizing which kind of social diversity might illuminate genetic variation-and vice versa (i.e.

Do health and forensic DNA databases increase racial disparities?

Peter Chow-White and Troy Duster examine the question of whether the "digital divide" in health and forensic DNA databases is contributing to racial disparities.

Race, genetics, and disease: questions of evidence, matters of consequence.

This special issue of Studies of Science highlights ongoing debates concerning race, genomics, and disease. Some of the papers examine the production of disease etiology research, pharmaceutical drug response, or DNA genealogy tests, while others analyze institutional consequences and challenges arising from contemporary biomedicine, such as medical education and recruiting subjects for clinical research. In this introduction, we outline major issues that provide background and foreground for the specific studies that follow, and end with a brief description of the papers.

Lessons from history: why race and ethnicity have played a major role in biomedical research.

Before any citizen enters the role of scientist, medical practitioner, lawyer, epidemiologist, and so on, each and all grow up in a society in which the categories of human differentiation are folk categories that organize perceptions, relations, and behavior. That was true during slavery, during Reconstruction, the eugenics period, the two World Wars, and is no less true today. While every period understandably claims to transcend those categories, medicine, law, and science are profoundly and demonstrably influenced by the embedded folk notions of race and ethnicity.

The case for strategic international alliances to harness nutritional genomics for public and personal health.

Nutrigenomics is the study of how constituents of the diet interact with genes, and their products, to alter phenotype and, conversely, how genes and their products metabolise these constituents into nutrients, antinutrients, and bioactive compounds. Results from molecular and genetic epidemiological studies indicate that dietary unbalance can alter gene-nutrient interactions in ways that increase the risk of developing chronic disease. The interplay of human genetic variation and environmental factors will make identifying causative genes and nutrients a formidable, but not intractable, challenge.

Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences.

Among biomedical scientists, there is a great deal of controversy over the nature of race, the relevance of racial categories for research, and the proper methods of using racial variables. This article argues that researchers and scholars should avoid a binary-type argument, in which the question is whether to use race always or never. Researchers should instead focus on developing standards for when and how to use racial variables.

Research ethics for mental health science involving ethnic minority children and youths.

In response to U.S. Public Health Service projects promoting attention to disparities in the outcomes of mental health treatments, in July 2001, the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Fordham University Center for Ethics Education convened a group of national leaders in bioethics, multicultural research, and ethnic minority mental health to produce a living document to guide ethical decision making for mental health research involving ethnic minority children and youths.