For 1. In reference to health research, there is never one “direct” cause to any problem. In a multi-variate model, the idea is to understand how the myriad of issues contribute to a problem and determine effective interventions based on what the data show. And like any scientific approach, you must have complete control over your variables at the most elemental level in order — that means you must know what they mean, know that they are measuring exactly what you intend for them to measure, and know that you are measuring absolutely everything that is contributing to your outcome. Only then can you be sure that your results are not skewed. We view racial categories so routinely that we rarely question what they mean — when in reality, they mean NOTHING, or at least, they mean nothing in terms of what we think they are suppose to mean. Even worse, when we set out to do research, we don’t clearly define what we are attempting to measure within that variable. Plain and simple: it’s not good science. You shouldn’t take anything for granted — you should know what it is and what it is measuring. And question, question, revisit, change, and question again. That is the practice of a good scientist.

For example, in your study — granted, I’m guessing it was for market issues, which is much different both in epistemology and in how you were conceptually approaching your study hypothesis — but none the less, in your study, how did you define race? Was it on skin color? If so, then what about Black Latinos? Was anyone that speaks Spanish, regardless of skin color, categorized as Hispanic? If so, then was race based on linguistic differences, or skin color? What about folks from the Indian subcontinent? Were they lumped with Asians? How about Hawaiians? Who was included and why? In health research, these are the kinds of considerations that come into play. In health research, where we are looking for what makes certain people more unhealthy than others, who you put in which groups matters a lot. In your example, it sounds like you are approaching race from a race ecology viewpoint (i.e.: race as defined by environment — versus public health, where the epidemiologic assumption has been that we are studying race as a genotypic phenomenon). Race ecology is a more popular and growing science that is just reaching public health studies. (Actually, I would LOVE to apply race ecology principles to health outcomes — probably something like birthweight — stratified by race and neighborhood through the NOLA area… studies have suggested that the more racially segregated an urban area, the worse the health outcomes for ALL races. NOLA is just about the perfect place to test this… IMO.) ANYWAY. The biomedical model public health works from is somewhat antiquated in how it approaches stuff like race — mostly because the hold on the excuse of genetics is just way too easy. Tempting to just chalk it up to genetics and move on, rather than really be forced to study the nuances of environment and social causes of health inequalities. The bottom line is that the “why?” of persistent health inequalities is simply much too difficult to easy capture in a statistical survey, we simply don’t have the tools or conceptualization of the mechanisms to really know how to measure it… so it’s easier to just say it’s genetics and move on. But the policy implications can be terrible.

2. Population geneticists have been working with theories of “continental races” as the reasons for things like sickle cell (1 in 12 African Americans are carriers) — nonwhites are commonly lactose intolerant (highest in Asians, if I remember right?) But the bottom line is that the science is completely inconclusive. I really respect Richard Cooper’s work on genetics, race, and public health — he is a cardiology specialist and epidemiologist and approaches science ethically and rationally. There is an article that specficcally addresses your question that I like… it’s a few years old now (2003) but very succinctly brings all of the issues together. I’m pretty sure it’s on his website (or I can send you the article in PDF) — the link that you want is the 2003 International Journal of Epidemiology Commentary on Race, it’s called something like “New Wine, Old Bottles”. http://www.meddean.luc.edu/depts/prevmed/Main/Faculty/RSC.htm

2. I’m curious how our genes (I’m not an MD so educate me on this one) are not influenced by race. Essentially, the majority of jewish people I know are lactose intolerant which has to be some type of a genetic mutation at some point based on their religious and racial background.