1. Anthony Valdez
Dr. Mary Scoggin
Anthropology 410
Review of Arthur L. Whaley’s Ethnicity/Race, Ethics, and Epidemiology
Whaley, Arthur L. "Ethnicity/race, Ethics, and Epidemiology." Journal of the National Medical Association,
95.8 (2003): 736-742.
A number of authors have contributed to the use of ethnicity/race as an etiologic quantity in
medical research. Despite great contention, ethnicity/race is a much-studied variable in epidemiology,
and epidemiologists particularly agree that using these guidelines is beneficial to the overall health of
certain minority groups. Arthur L. Whaley’s article, Ethnicity/Race, Ethics, and Epidemiology, argues that
because there is little consensus about what self-reported ethnicity/race represents, the racial
disparities reported are biased and incorrect and contribute to stereotypes known as “race medicine.”
Whaley explains that researchers have failed to establish guidelines to use ethnicity/race
appropriately in epidemiological research. Whaley outlines his article in 3 easy to follow categories. He
attempts to make clear the limitations on ethnicity/race that underline the genetic and socioeconomic
scopes, how cultural magnitudes facilitates understanding of race differences in health-related
outcomes, and deliberates analyses in health status of ethnic groups to European Americans from and
ethical standpoint. Furthermore, he continues to say that lack of attention to the cultural perspective
encourages the current discourse and that cultural ideologies of individualism and racism weaken the
validity of epidemiologic research in health promotion and disease prevention.
In the first major category he talks about genetic vs. socioeconomic explanations for the use of
ethnicity/race. Currently, it is widely accepted that some diseases attack disproportionately in some
ethnic/racial groups; however, the explanations for these differences are a matter of debate. Whaley

2. explains that race continues to be a factor even in socioeconomic status when race should not matter.
Some epidemiologists believe that the reason race still exists is because race has some sort of genetic
basis. I agree with Whaley when he explains that this mindset “epitomizes the prevailing view of
ethnicity/race in the field of epidemiology as either a proxy measure of socioeconomic factors or an
expression of genotypic differences between racial groups.” I believe, as do Whaley, that this current
underdeveloped discourse explains the genetic differences that physician incorrectly push for. One
explanation Whaley emphasizes that explains this dichotomous thinking in epidemiology is the
identification of risk factors at the individual level.
Whaley proposes that emphasizing individual risk factors (i.e. genes) has too many assumptions
for it to be validated. He thinks that using an individual approach creates limitations. One argument he
formulates is paying attention to individual risk factors ignores the social conditions that impact
population health. Although I agree with his argument to a point, I believe that concentrating on
individual risk factors at the genetic level is a better alternative to the current discourse. He continues to
say that the reason why epidemiologists concentrate on the individual, is because of the current
ideology of individualism that dominates the American culture, and that goes into the next category on
how cultural magnitudes facilitates understanding of race differences.
According to Whaley, “individualism, pertinent to the current discussion involves a normative or
value orientation that emphasizes individual ideology over group interests. Whaley believes that this
ethical value and ideology dominates the current medical practices. He also states that “individual
freedom and responsibility are organizing themes in health promotion and disease prevention.”
Currently, the misuse of ethnicity/race in epidemiologic research is one of the causes of racial disparities
in healthcare. Although I agree with Whaley that concentrating on individual risk factors does not take
into account the social conditions one lives, I fail to see the alternative.

3. One other thing Whaley touches on is how culture is divided into two components, heritage and
adaptations with most epidemiologists focusing on the latter. Epidemiologists fail to realize that these
two construct interact with each other a concept that is drilled into physical anthropologists from the
begging. Whaley argues that when researchers emphasize heritage, they minimize cultural contributions
to the interpretations of racial disparities in health-related outcomes. As a result, ethnic/racial groups
are misrepresented as being overall unhealthy, opposed to having unhealthy behaviors that everybody
has. I feel that epidemiology has become too science based, with few anthropologists contributing to
the conversation. Whaley believes that an ignorant view on cultural dimensions and how ethnicity/race
is used culturally is one of the driving forces of health disparities, and I would have to agree with him.
Whaley suggests that epidemiologists do harm when they provide genetic explanations explicitly
or implicitly, for racial disparities in health-related outcomes. I tend to agree with him, however,
ethnicity/race is a cultural construct and up for individual interpretation. Until epidemiologist s can
create a unified non-biased way of measuring ethnicity/race, we should stick to individualized
healthcare, a concept that Whaley is against. However, if the alternative is epidemiologists unknowingly
contributing to the current health disparities, I will stick to individual factors.