11–20 of 24 posts
A dermatologist friend of mine trained in a virtually all-white area and then got a job in a place that wasn't. Apparently it was a significant adjustment caring for patients with darker skin.
Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.
The Economist is catching up
I was reading that testing often happens on men for medications because their biochemistry is fairly constant in a month. Fluctuating hormones complicated drug testing. This seemed to me to miss testing a scenario that affects about half the population.
It's not a single scenario; that seems to minimise the complexity.
I was reading (I think it was the book The Innovator's Prescription) that a lot of medical R&D happens in the US. I wonder how that impacts this sort of testing. I bet that medical R&D happening in a more distributed nature around the world would engage more diversity for testing.
Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.
In the very first paragraph of that story it reported on the failure of a common and important diagnostic tool to function properly on people with darker skin. The Economist is catching up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ska: everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated
> everything in medical literature is fact and in no way fiscally motivated It's hard to imagine a net financial benefit for many of the studies. Of course it's not perfect. But dismissing something like this out of had for what, (vague ideological reasons?) is irrational. There is good research in the area, and you are free to read it. There is some poor research in the area too, such is life. It's not even suggesti…
solutions floated:
#1 Double the diversity candidates in your testing pool (ie: use a testing group that it non-representative of any naturally occurring environment) #2 Use novel technologies like "real-time ultrasonic scanning" #3 "Transparency for medical algorithms" (sounds like a precept to industry regulation which is notoriously anti-competitive)
Doesn't take a lot to imagine the biases at play here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a single scenario; that seems to minimise the complexity.
There are many scenarios because there are variations in our genetics. I was reading (I think it was the book The Innovator's Prescription) that a lot of medical R&D happens in the US. I wonder how that impacts this sort of testing. I bet that medical R&D happening in a more distributed nature around the world would engage more diversity for testing.
Sure. Distributing the research and testing internationally would be the best case. But if you're only testing in one single place then not many locations are as ethnically diverse as US metropolitan areas.
A dermatologist friend of mine trained in a virtually all-white area and then got a job in a place that wasn't. Apparently it was a significant adjustment caring for patients with darker skin.
There's also a false belief, common among doctors and other medical professionals, that darker skin is thicker/tougher. (to be 100% clear, it only differs from lighter skin in pigment and no other characteristics).
A dermatologist friend of mine trained in a virtually all-white area and then got a job in a place that wasn't. Apparently it was a significant adjustment caring for patients with darker skin.
There's also a false belief, common among doctors and other medical professionals, that darker skin is thicker/tougher. (to be 100% clear, it only differs from lighter skin in pigment and no other characteristics).
Even The Economist is pushing Critical race theory (CRT) now. What a time to be alive.