10 The consensus about race is however, being revised because of genetic epidemiology, and particularly pharmacogenetics (so called ethno-pharmacology). 7– 9 Current consensus is that race has comparatively little scientific value as there is more genetic variation within than between groups 4 but that it is an important political and psychosocial concept.
6 However, the bulk of genetic differences (90% to 95%) occur within populations, and not between continental grouping, and the genes responsible for different physical characteristics (such as skin colour and facial features) that underpin race are few and rarely relate to either behaviour or disease. 5 In the USA the collection of data on race is well established and is used widely for epidemiological, clinical, and planning purpose. 1 Buffon first introduced the concept of race into biological literature in 1749, which was explicitly regarded as an arbitrary classification, serving only as a convenient label and not a definable scientific entity.
The traditional scientific concept of race refers to biological homogeneity as defined by a few phenotypical features. 4 While there is a conceptual distinction between race and ethnicity, these terms are often used interchangeably or as synonyms.
Then we outline the heterogeneity within African populations in Europe and the USA and then we discuss the terms used in medical and epidemiological research.īoth race and ethnicity are difficult concepts. In this paper, we first briefly consider the concepts of race and ethnicity that underlie classifications and terminology. 3 Our general approach to terminology is described in the appendix. This is also a companion paper to Bhopal and Donaldson’s on the term White.
This paper develops the debate called for by Bhopal in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health recently, and specifically tackles terminology in relation to African origin populations. 1, 2 Despite much debate, broad terms such as Black, African, or Black African are still entrenched in scientific writings that may be both offensive and inaccurate. The terms and concepts of ethnicity need to be explicitly defined to permit better understanding of research and to facilitate regional and international comparisons. Research on race, ethnicity, and health is growing in Western Europe, following the longer tradition in North America. This paper calls for debate on appropriate terminologies for African descent populations and concludes with the proposals that (1) describing the population under consideration is of paramount importance (2) the word African origin or simply African is an appropriate and necessary prefix for an ethnic label, for example, African Caribbean or African Kenyan or African Surinamese (3) documents should define the ethnic labels (4) the label Black should be phased out except when used in political contexts. This paper outlines the heterogeneity within African populations, and discusses the strengths and limitations of the term Black and related labels from epidemiological and public health perspectives in Europe and the USA. Broad terms such as Black, African, or Black African are entrenched in scientific writings although there is considerable diversity within African descent populations and such terms may be both offensive and inaccurate.