Krieger Nancy
Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2005 Dec;95(12):2155-60. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.067108. Epub 2005 Oct 27.
In the current US political climate, conservative foundations are seeking to frame debates over determinants of racial/ethnic health disparities as a matter of "politically correct" unscientific ideology (concerning the health impacts of discrimination) vs scientific yet "politically incorrect" expertise rooted in biological facts (concerning genes). I draw on historical and contemporary examples to place conservative polemics in context, and also highlight fundamental flaws in their arguments involving the use of spurious categories (e.g., Caucasian), logical fallacies, temporal fallacies, and an erroneous emphasis on gene frequency over gene expression. The larger goal is to strengthen development of a more critical, reflexive, and rigorous science capable of generating evidence useful for rectifying--rather than perpetuating--social disparities in health.
在当前美国的政治氛围中，保守派基金会试图将关于种族/族裔健康差异决定因素的辩论，框定为“政治正确”的非科学意识形态（关于歧视对健康的影响）与基于生物学事实的科学但“政治不正确”的专业知识（关于基因）之间的较量。我借助历史和当代的例子来剖析保守派的论战，同时也指出他们论点中的根本缺陷，这些缺陷涉及使用虚假类别（如白种人）、逻辑谬误、时间谬误，以及错误地将重点放在基因频率而非基因表达上。更大的目标是加强发展一门更具批判性、反思性和严谨性的科学，使其能够产生有助于纠正——而非延续——健康方面社会差异的证据。
