Bhopal R, Donaldson L
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Medical School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Am J Public Health. 1998 Sep;88(9):1303-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.9.1303.
The request for scientifically appropriate terminology in research on race, ethnicity, and health has largely bypassed the term White. This and other words, such as Caucasian, are embedded in clinical and epidemiological discourse, yet they are rarely defined. This commentary analyzes the issue from the perspective of the epidemiology of the health of minority ethnic and racial groups in Europe and the United States. Minority groups are usually compared with populations described as White, Caucasian, European, Europid, Western, Occidental, indigenous, native, and majority. Such populations are heterogeneous, the labels nonspecific, and the comparisons misleading. Terminology that reflects the research purpose-for examples, reference, control, or comparison--is better (unlike White, these terms imply no norm, allowing neither writers nor readers to make stereotyped assumptions about the comparison populations. This paper widens the debate on nomenclature for racial and ethnic groups. Many issues need exploration, including whether there is a shared understanding among the international research community of the terms discussed.
在种族、族裔与健康研究中，对科学恰当术语的要求在很大程度上绕过了“白人”这一术语。“白人”以及其他一些词汇，比如“高加索人”，虽在临床和流行病学论述中根深蒂固，但却很少被定义。本评论从欧美少数族裔和种族群体健康流行病学的角度分析这一问题。少数群体通常与被描述为白人、高加索人、欧洲人、欧罗巴人种、西方人、西方、西方原住民、本土人及多数群体的人群进行比较。这类人群具有异质性，标签不明确，比较具有误导性。反映研究目的的术语——例如，参照、对照或比较——更好（与“白人”不同，这些术语不暗示任何规范，不让作者或读者对比较人群做出刻板假设）。本文拓宽了关于种族和族裔群体命名法的辩论。许多问题有待探索，包括国际研究界对所讨论术语是否有共同理解。
