↓ Skip to main content

Avoiding Racial Essentialism in Medical Science Curricula

Overview of attention for article published in The AMA Journal of Ethic, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
173 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Avoiding Racial Essentialism in Medical Science Curricula
Published in
The AMA Journal of Ethic, June 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.peer1-1706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lundy Braun, Barry Saunders

Abstract

A wave of medical student activism is shining a spotlight on medical educators' sometimes maladroit handling of racial categories in teaching about health disparities. Coinciding with recent critiques, primarily by social scientists, regarding the imprecise and inappropriate use of race as a biological or epidemiological risk factor in genetics research, medical student activism has triggered new collaborations among students, faculty, and administrators to rethink how race is addressed in the medical curriculum. Intensifying critiques of racial essentialism are a crucial concern for educators since bioscientific knowledge grounds the authority of health professionals. Central ethical issues-racial bias and social justice-cannot be properly addressed without confronting the epistemological problem of racial essentialism in bioscience teaching. Thus, educators now face an ethical imperative to improve academic capacities for robust interdisciplinary teaching about the conceptual apparatus of race and the recalibration of its use in teaching both genetics and the more pervasive and urgent social causes of health inequalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Psychology 6 7%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 23 26%