While most researchers do not claim to know the exact root of health disparities, all believe genomics will increasingly play a central role where other fields have failed. Though researchers might want to start with strict genomic populations, with minority health research there is an even greater impetus to make sampled populations, genomic populations, and target markets correspond. So while these scientists use self-devised taxonomies, they increasingly seek answers to racial health disparities in dominant cultural terms. In fact, their sense of what comprises the category of “minority” and “minority health” rests on the patterns of social stratification that the U.S. government aims to address with its Census taxonomy. I consistently heard scientists shuttle between their own preferred terms, the government’s terms, and the color-coded terms that they avoid when designing their own studies. Slippages like these point to greater conceptual flimsiness between what is perceived as biological versus genomic, and between goals for research inclusion and inclusion in public health.
– Catherine Bliss, “Racial taxonomy in genomics” Social Science & Medicine 73:1019-1027
