“The New Biopolitics of Race and Health” by Dorothy Roberts of Northwestern University School of Law

Disparity and Health Inequities- Introduction

In Chicago

• 1/3 of blacks would not have died if rates of black and white deaths were equal
• black women are 2X more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (even though whites are more likely to get it)
• black women are not more susceptible, white women just had more access to new technologies from 1996-2004

Globally

• 50% of black woman wouldn’t have died of breast cancer if rates were equal
• Rates of child mortality (before the age of 5) is 6/1000 in high-income countries, 88/1000 in developing countries, 120/1000 in poor countries
• In the U.S, there were  83,570 excess black deaths (the number of deaths that could be prevented in the U.S if the black-white mortality gap were eliminated)

New Biopolitics of Race

• Different approaches to the WHY behind health inequalities
• One explanation is to treat race as a biological category, which attributes disparate health outcomes to racial differences
• Roberts says this approach is denying the impact of race on society and reinforces racial inequality
• Human Genome Project showed no evidence of racial divisions (Bill Clinton, Francis Collins, Craig Ventor all noted this at the conclusion of the project)
• For some reason, the results of the Human Genome Project are now being geared towards research involving the differences of race (on a genetic level) and health. Nicholas Wade of the New York Times said researchers are now being “forced to confront a treacherous issue: the genetic differences between human races”. Roberts says this is ridiculous, and that none of the results of the project suggest this line of research.
• Somehow, she says, the reasoning is that the 0.1% genetic difference in people’s genomes accounts for race which accounts for unequal health outcomes. Roberts says this argument is ridiculous.

Research

• Flawed studies about genetic differences, race, and health have gained lots of media attention

1. Study done that supposedly proved that genetics were the cause of blacks having more preterm babies. The researchers said the experiment was independent of social constraints, but they only controlled a few things. Without proof, or any scientific backing, they leapt to the conclusion and created a theory that genetics were the cause of the difference in the number of preterm babies between black and whites. This highly flawed study made it to a New York Times headline.

• Millions of dollars are being invested into genetics and race research (especially from the U.S and U.K). Roberts mentioned this article

Drugs

If genes are the cause of health inequities, there are 3 ways to address this

1. nothing we can do, blame nature
2. gene therapy
3. drugs

This last option has gained a lot of attention. Roberts described the history of  BiDil, which is a heart disease prevention drug that is specifically made for blacks. The drug is actually just two generic drugs put together, and was originally patented for anyone. The FDA only patented the drug once it was specifically marketed for blacks. The FDA said this was a “step towards personalized medicine”. The original goal of the Human Genome Project was to provide personalized medicine, but the FDA is now using race as a proxy for genetic difference, while waiting for legitimate drug treatment differences based on people’s individualized genotypes. Dr. Steve Nissen, of the FDA, said himself, “We’re using self-identified race as a surrogate for genetic markers”. Roberts says this is unfounded and inappropriate. Obviously, the FDA is using race and health concerns for it’s own commercial advantage.

• race as a category in biomedical and human gentic varation research
• race specific pharmaceuticals
• genetic ancestry testing
• DNA forensic and biobanks
• reproduction-assisting technologies (eggs and sperm grouped by race)

What “They’re” Saying

This new theory says that racial differences are real at the molecular level, but constructed at the social level. Treating race as an ideology, rather than a scientific truth, is what causes social tensions (the example of political correctness). People are starting to believe that social justice is actually working against improving health through genetics!

What Dorothy Roberts is Saying

• Why would we ever divide cell lines by race? The idea that we should divide people by race as a biological category is engrained. But we are seperated by society, not by genetics. “Race is a political category, not a biological one”.
• Inequity is a product of the social and political situation, and is not a “natural” difference.  Inequity is unjust and calls for social change, not solutions involving individual choice (like race-based drugs).
• Social justice is a way of achieving better health, and genetics and social justice should not be pitted against each other.
• “A More just World would be a Healthier One”

Corporate Captilism vs. Intrinsic Nature of Race

What is causing this change in thinking? Roberts’ says it is a combination of both corporate capitilism (whatever sells, example of BiDil) and the perputuating defintion of racial order. Ever since race was invented, the idea that some people are naturally inferior has persisted. The very function of race was to create political division.  The evidence of  natural divisions is now manifesting in genetics. This sort of manifestation has been happening for years (ex. Tuskiki experiments in the 1970’s) and just because it’s said to be based in science doesn’t mean it is unbiased or justified. The two components are working together to spread this ideology, one has “a hand in the pharmaceutical industry” and one is based on “the usefulness of race in America”.

Zoe and Dorrie