wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Anna Geer from Oakland, CA November 22, 2008 - 06:27PM

  When I turned on the radio and heard a discussion about racial health disparities, I was intrigued. However, as I listened further, I was disappointed to hear such a cursory and dichotomizing treatment of an issue as serious as health inequity. I would have liked to hear a more nuanced analysis and synthesis of Dr. Cohn and Dr. Cooper's research. While they draw distinct conclusions and employ distinct methods, it seems to me that both ultimately are concerned with ways to explain and therefore reduce racial health disparities. I would submit that tracking the disproportinality of cases of hypertension among African Americans is critical, but equally critical is the assertion that race is not the sole explanation for this. This should not mean that we wipe our hands clean of the allegation that race was the primary determinant. This means that more questions should be asked because we still need to understand why African Americans are impacted so disproportionately by hypertension and nearly all other chronic diseases. If, as Dr. Cooper suggests, diet is the factor most predictive of hypertension, shouldn't the next questions consider the various factors that impact diet, such as income and access to healthy foods.

  I appreciate that this discussion may have extended beyond the scope of today's theme of "race," but because racial health inequities are so prevalent in our country, I believe it is an issue that deserves a more thorough treatment.

  
  
• [2] Phiip Margolis from Brooklyn November 29, 2008 - 08:05AM

  We will never get to the depths of “race” and the role it plays in our society if we continue along non-scientific, politically correct, and ideologically driven paths. “Health inequity” is serious and so is “Income and access to healthy foods”. However, to get at the truth, or at least to a deeper version of it than we have now, the first thing we need to do is stop passing the buck. Hypertension in blacks is related to access to healthy food, is related to income, is related to racism, is related to white people, is related to … STOP!! We are not here to free associate and do cosmic poetry, nor are we here to figure out why there is an economic disparity between whites and blacks, or to apologize for slavery. We are here to acknowledge only that “racial” differences between people exist, as a matter of empirical reality. All we need to do is ‘recognize’ facts, not interpret them. This is ‘science’, not sociology or liberal arts.

  
  
• [3] Jim Labbe from Portland, Oregon December 03, 2008 - 11:48PM

  Wait a minute Philip. Are you saying we are not here to try to understand the bioloigical and health related differences attributable to genetic ancestry and attributable to historic and contemporary racism?

  
  
• [4] Amy from San Francisco, CA December 09, 2008 - 02:50AM

  Who is the "well known" female lawyer in the BiDil symposium clip? Is this Sandra Soo-Jin Lee? The only woman in the story is not identified!?!

  Also, I think a good biomarker debate would have been a little less off beat than the stories you chose. If women are more likely to die from a type of cancer if they are asian vs white, and we know they respond to particular drugs differently if they have a given marker that is predominant in asian communities, why not screen for the marker? In this light, "race" becomes just one of the many factors that could pop up in a personalized medicine profile (and personalized medicine is the "wave of the future," right)? Biomarkers with "racial" distributions would be only one of many things screened for. They may or may not be present in any given individual with an asian lineage (or what have you), and may not be any more important than a wide number of personal markers. In this light, many of the "continuum" theories of gender might apply to race. You can't take a person and make a decision about their biochemistry based on race, but there might still be different distributions of markers within a racial group (and of course whether or not the marker predicts disease outcomes is another question, and whether the tumor is even there to present markers in the first place may have just as much to do with environmental exposures that carry racial and socioeconomic implications, and possibly other stress and lifestyle issues that stem from the positioning of one racial group within a given culture). This is a very different type of debate than the one you carried out during the BiDil story.

  
  
• [5] Alexandra from Montclair, NJ December 10, 2008 - 01:33AM

  Let me preface my comments with the fact that I truly love Radiolab!

  But, I have to say I was disappointed in the segment on BiDil. First off, there is no reason why a drug should ever be approved for a specific race since there are no diseases that occur solely in certain genetic populations of humanity.

  Yes, certain genetic populations have higher prevalence, but even white people can have sickle cell anemia. Thus, until a disease or condition is identified that afflicts only a certain genetic group (and it definitely isn't heart failure!) all drugs should be approved for all of humanity.

  I know you touched on this in the debate but you really failed to drive this home. Also, you failed to note that heart failure is the end product of obesity, a disorder which occurs in higher rates of minorities, including African-Americans, which has a lot more to do with diet, nutritional education, access to open space, and income disparity than race. I think Radiolab should have at least acknowledged this fact.

  
  
• [6] Annette Miller from Fort Collins CO December 16, 2008 - 01:33PM

  Can't the drugs be tested with a broad sample and then evaluated using the empirical genetic data highlighted in the first segment? This seems a much more objective way to group physiologically different human populations for the purpose of determining if these populations show real differences in drug efficacy.

  
  
• [7] Brandie from East Coast December 19, 2008 - 11:24PM

  First, I <3 RadioLab.

  Second, I was waiting and waiting and waiting for someone to clarify what definition of "race" doctors were using in the context of the Bidil trials. I remember when the drug came out, then, too, I kept waiting for an explanation of the categories.

  It seems like such a fundamental flaw: the groups are self reported. We heard, in one of the other segments, how wrong we can be when we assume someone's genetic history based on appearances, so what groups, exactly, are these studies monitoring? In the Bidil study, the conclusion is that the drug yields better results in people who consider themselves Black. What does that mean? Dark skinned? Kinky haired? We all know how mixed up people -- especially black people in America -- can be without even knowing it.

  The most disheartening aspect, in my opinion, is that maybe there really is a genetic basis for certain treatments, but the actual group is ignored in favor of what is, in effect, a social construct. Not to say that anyone knows how much genes play in "race," but to lump together in some kind of assumed biological category myself, Barack Obama, and the gentleman from the earlier segment who found out he had NO African markers in his DNA, is misinformed, to say the least.

  Third, I <3 RadioLab.

  
  
• [8] Nathan from Pacific Northwest December 22, 2008 - 12:09PM

  Is Malcom Gladwell saying that West Indians are genetically faster, but as a whole simply "want it" more? Did he really address the fact that Jamaicans are winning on such a greater margin?

  
  
• [9] Claire March 25, 2009 - 09:13PM

  I think you have the wrong link for the Facing History School. Yours takes me to some strange Amazon page for books on derivatives...eek! I did find the Facing History School page by googling it and that is wicked cool... yeah, I live in Vermont.

  
  
• [10] Greg from Bend, OR July 18, 2009 - 08:01PM

  As we consider racial identities, we should be cautious in the jungle. We cop or deny race for many reasons and the result is a disturbing failure to hold to any logical pattern that might shine a light for medical purposes and much more.

  A blazing example arose on this program as a comment was made about a Lebanese cast member possibly "passing for a Jew". As Abraham and Sarah were natives of Mesopotamia (Iraq), they were 100% Arab. Yet, thru the magic of identity theft and identity death, the claim of Abraham's lineage is almost exclusively held by the followers of his Old Time Religion (Judaism), no matter what % of the bloodline.

  A genetic study has been made of the earliest bodily remains of the ancient inhabitants of the "Holy Lands", with altars to the God of Abraham. By a preponderance of the exclusive genetic markers, The present day Lebanese population is of most direct descendancy from these Hebrews, as compared to other identifiable possible descendancy communities.

  Why shouldn't your Lebanese colleague pass for "Jewish"? Despite the attempt by the Nazis to further segregate their victims, Jews were no more than a religious sub-group of a number of regional and religious groupings of the earlier period Arabic population. That identity has been confused by inter-marriage in Europe, sociological forces and plain xenophobia.

  There is much more information available, now, than even 10 years ago. These claims of identity have clear application to aboriginal claims to land and ancestry. But we seem to be moving away from the facts, perhaps for obvious reasons. Please look for the definition of Semite and make note of its regular misusage. It is of no small consequence and usage is quickly changing the definition/ identity. I don't see "winners".