ArticleBMC medical ethics2014
Human genetic research, race, ethnicity and the labeling of populations: recommendations based on an interdisciplinary workshop in Japan.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is pharmacogenetics being racialized? An investigation into the reinscription of racial beliefs in modern biomedicine.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2025Article
- (Not So) Lost in Translation: Considering the GA4GH Diversity in Datasets Policy in the Japanese Context.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- A scoping review of guidelines for the use of race, ethnicity, and ancestry reveals widespread consensus but also points of ongoing disagreement.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Time- and Race-Specific Haematological Reference Intervals for Healthy Volunteer Trials: A Retrospective Analysis of Pooled Data From Multiple Phase I Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Lung cancer health disparities.Carcinogenesis · 2018Review
- Consent, ethics and genetic biobanks: the case of the Athlome project.BMC genomics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 16 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA challenge in human genome research is how to describe the populations being studied. The use of improper and/or imprecise terms has the potential to both generate and reinforce prejudices and to diminish the clinical value of the research. The issue of population descriptors has not attracted enough academic attention outside North America and Europe. In January 2012, we held a two-day workshop, the first of its kind in Japan, to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue between scholars in the humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, and genetics to begin an ongoing discussion of the social and ethical issues associated with population descriptors. DISCUSSION: Through the interdisciplinary dialogue, we confirmed that the issue of race, ethnicity and genetic research has not been extensively discussed in certain Asian communities and other regions. We have found, for example, the continued use of the problematic term, "Mongoloid" or continental terms such as "European," "African," and "Asian," as population descriptors in genetic studies. We, therefore, introduce guidelines for reporting human genetic studies aimed at scientists and researchers in these regions.
conclusionWe need to anticipate the various potential social and ethical problems entailed in population descriptors. Scientists have a social responsibility to convey their research findings outside of their communities as accurately as possible, and to consider how the public may perceive and respond to the descriptors that appear in research papers and media articles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.