Carlos Cardenas-Iniguez, PhD Reassesses Definitions and Interpretations around Race and Ethnicity in Neuroimaging Research

What are the ethical considerations we should bear in mind as we conduct research? Postdoctoral scholar Carlos Cardenas-Iniguez, PhD, is deliberating on the growing availability of large-population human biomedical datasets and the ways in which the research practices behind them may further stigmatize historically minoritized groups.

Cardenas-Iniguez, a neuroscientist in the Department of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, recently published recommendations in Nature Neuroscience to guide scientists on research practices to counteract existing harmful biases that impact how minority groups are perceived in studies. This publication arose from his work within the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, comprising of approximately 12,000 children and their families, where he started to question the characterization of socio-demographics across research activities.

“Let’s go back to the basics! How are we talking about race and ethnicity, and can we improve our approach, because historically science has not done a good job,” he appraises.

Cardenas-Iniguez and his colleague and fellow neuroscientist Marybel Robledo Gonzalez, PhD, collated key terms for discussing and promoting equitable analytical models in neuroscience, and assessed the research landscape to understand how race and ethnicity are defined, how they are measured, and their use in neuroscience research.

Cardenas-Iniguez explains that during discussions with researchers in working groups within and outside the ABCD study, there was variability in determining what ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ represented. “There is an assumption that we should always be measuring race and ethnicity in scientific samples and including them in statistical analyses, yet we are not having enough conversations about them as categories, what they represent, or their historical context,” he divulges.

“While large-population datasets allow us to gather great insights and specificity on diverse populations, they have also moved away from important conversations about the implications of social context,” he explains. The outcome has been research that continues to perpetuate systemic biases. Cardenas-Iniguez advises that with the provision of large studies providing dense data on diverse individuals across the US, a sophisticated grasp of demographic constructs is required beyond simple categorical variables. “There has not been enough work to update and integrate what all the constructs mean, and more information is needed to provide context,” he assesses.

His first recommendation is to ‘define race and ethnicity as socially constructed concepts that are dependent on social, political and historical forces.’ Cardenas-Iniguez and Gonzalez propose ten additional recommendations, guiding scientists through a checklist on responsible conceptualization, use, and reporting of race and ethnicity in neuroscience research.

“Essentially, if you are not questioning your methods, you are contributing to this ongoing erasure. We have to continue to critically evaluate and invest in adopting new ways of thinking, new forms of categorizing, measuring, interpreting and then communicating these different terms,” he concludes.

Below is a summary of the recommendations made for the responsible use and communication of race and ethnicity in neuroimaging research:

1. Define race and ethnicity as socially constructed concepts whose meaning originates and is dependent on social, political, and historical forces.
2. Provide clear categorization and coding rationale for race and ethnicity variables and include race and ethnicity information about study populations.
3. Avoid using race and ethnicity as proxies for social and environmental forces and directly measure those variables instead.
4. Justify the inclusion of race and/or ethnicity in statistical models and avoid including them by default.
5. Race and ethnicity should not be equated with genetic ancestry.
6. Evaluate biases in population representation and participation, measurements, patterns of missingness and generalizability.
7. Avoid ‘health equity tourism’ by acknowledging prior equity work and interrogating upstream causes instead of simply exploring ‘race and ethnicity effects.’
8. Champion strength-based approaches, instead of deficit-based, when reporting on minoritized groups and prioritize the inclusion of minoritized voices in the research process.
9. Develop a plan for responsible use and communication of race and ethnicity in your research process.
10. Embrace that responsible use and communication of race and ethnicity requires continuous intention and engagement.
11. Challenge standard conventions in the scientific process that are harmful to minoritized groups.

The authors and their research are supported by funding from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities.