Changing pattern of use of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ in scientific literature

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Sir—The International Journal of Epidemiology1 has raised an important question on the shifting preferences in the use of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ in scientific literature. The importance of recognizing these terms as two distinct concepts has been stressed.2 Chaturvedi argued that ‘ethnicity’ is scientifically preferable to race. As the genetic variation between ‘racial’ groups is small, categorization based on biological criteria is inaccurate and misleading in indicating variation in health and disease. Instead, a complex construct such as ethnicity—which surprisingly is still not used in MedLine MeSH heading3—is scientifically preferable.2, 4 Studying ethnic variations in health, although socially sensitive, may help to determine aetiology, tackle inequalities, assess need, make public health plans and direct resource allocation.1, 4 The lack of consistency in terminology and poor understanding of the concepts may, however, hamper progress in this field and make international collaboration more difficult.4 Ten years ago Sheldon and Parker reported that the use of ‘ethnic groups’ and ‘race’ as variables in the health literature from 1985 to 1990 had markedly increased but that studies on racism were rare.5 We have updated and expanded Sheldon and Parker’s observations.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: