Recent research suggests racial classification is responsive to social stereotypes, but how this affects racial classification in national vital statistics is unknown. This study examines whether cause of death influences racial classification on death certificates. We analyze the racial classifications from a nationally representative sample of death certificates and subsequent interviews with the decedents' next of kin and find notable discrepancies between the two racial classifications by cause of death. Cirrhosis decedents are more likely to be recorded as American Indian on their death certificates, and homicide victims are more likely to be recorded as Black; these results remain net of controls for followback survey racial classification, indicating that the relationship we reveal is not simply a restatement of the fact that these causes of death are more prevalent among certain groups. Our findings suggest that seemingly non-racial characteristics, such as cause of death, affect how people are racially perceived by others and thus shape U.S. official statistics.

It is commonly believed that race is perceived through another's facial features, such as skin color. In the present research, we demonstrate that cues to social status that often surround a face systematically change the perception of its race. Participants categorized the race of faces that varied along White–Black morph continua and that were presented with high-status or low-status attire. Low-status attire increased the likelihood of categorization as Black, whereas high-status attire increased the likelihood of categorization as White; and this influence grew stronger as race became more ambiguous (Experiment 1). When faces with high-status attire were categorized as Black or faces with low-status attire were categorized as White, participants' hand movements nevertheless revealed a simultaneous attraction to select the other race-category response (stereotypically tied to the status cue) before arriving at a final categorization. Further, this attraction effect grew as race became more ambiguous (Experiment 2). Computational simulations then demonstrated that these effects may be accounted for by a neurally plausible person categorization system, in which contextual cues come to trigger stereotypes that in turn influence race perception. Together, the findings show how stereotypes interact with physical cues to shape person categorization, and suggest that social and contextual factors guide the perception of race.

It is commonly believed that race is perceived through another's facial features, such as skin color. In the present research, we demonstrate that cues to social status that often surround a face systematically change the perception of its race. Participants categorized the race of faces that varied along White-Black morph continua and that were presented with high-status or low-status attire. Low-status attire increased the likelihood of categorization as Black, whereas high-status attire increased the likelihood of categorization as White; and this influence grew stronger as race became more ambiguous (Experiment 1). When faces with high-status attire were categorized as Black or faces with low-status attire were categorized as White, participants' hand movements nevertheless revealed a simultaneous attraction to select the other race-category response (stereotypically tied to the status cue) before arriving at a final categorization. Further, this attraction effect grew as race became more ambiguous (Experiment 2). Computational simulations then demonstrated that these effects may be accounted for by a neurally plausible person categorization system, in which contextual cues come to trigger stereotypes that in turn influence race perception. Together, the findings show how stereotypes interact with physical cues to shape person categorization, and suggest that social and contextual factors guide the perception of race.

PURPOSE: To identify meanings of and challenges to enacting equitable diversification of genomics research, and specifically precision medicine research (PMR), teams. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 102 individuals involved in three U.S.-based precision medicine research consortia and conducted over 400 observation hours of their working group meetings, consortium-wide meetings, and conference presentations. We also reviewed published reports on genomic workforce diversity (WFD), particularly those relevant to the PMR community. RESULTS: Our study finds that many PMR teams encounter challenges as they strive to achieve equitable diversification on scientific teams. Interviewees articulated that underrepresented team members were often hired to increase the studys capacity to recruit diverse research participants, but are limited to on-the-ground staff positions with little influence over study design. We find existing hierarchies and power structures in the academic research ecosystem compound challenges for equitable diversification. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that meaningful diversification of PMR teams will only be possible when team equity is prioritized as a core value in academic research communities.

Scientists have identified a diversity gap in genetic samples and health data, which have been drawn predominantly from individuals of European ancestry, as posing an existential threat to the promise of precision medicine. Inadequate inclusion as articulated by scientists, policymakers, and ethicists has prompted large-scale initiatives aimed at recruiting populations historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Despite explicit calls to increase diversity, the meaning of diversity - which dimensions matter for what outcomes and why - remain strikingly imprecise. Drawing on our document review and qualitative data from observations and interviews of funders and research teams involved in five precision medicine research (PMR) projects, we note that calls for increasing diversity often focus on representation as the goal of recruitment. The language of representation is used flexibly to refer to two objectives: achieving sufficient genetic variation across populations and including historically disenfranchised groups in research. We argue that these dual understandings of representation are more than rhetorical slippage, but rather allow for the contemporary collection of samples and data from marginalized populations to stand in as correcting historical exclusion of social groups towards addressing health inequity. We trace the unresolved historical debates over how and to what extent researchers should procure diversity in PMR and how they contributed to ongoing uncertainty about what axes of diversity matter and why. We argue that ambiguity in the meaning of representation at the outset of a study contributes to a lack of clear conceptualization of diversity downstream throughout subsequent phases of the study.