Research suggesting that “voluntary bias” among white doctors leads to poorer outcomes for black newborns has become a cornerstone in discussions about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in academic medicine.
One claim from a study published by the National Academy of Sciences in August 2020 indicated that the mortality rate for black newborns decreases by 58% when treated by black physicians. This study, which gained traction during the Black Lives Matter movement, was highlighted for its significant impact within the academic community. Interestingly, it’s ranked among the top 5% of research for its influence.
However, authors of the study reportedly made significant methodological errors, according to the Manhattan Institute, which pointed out that overlooking cases of very low birth weight newborns skewed the findings about racial factors influencing infant mortality rates. This oversight was eventually revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request. Furthermore, one of the co-authors left their position under allegations of plagiarism and incompetence.
A recent report from Do No Harm indicates that despite the critical flaws in the original research, it continues to shape opinions in the medical community. The leading journal has repeatedly cited this research in support of DEI initiatives, raising concerns about identity politics within medical research and practice.
Overall, the study has garnered 786 citations in scientific literature, according to Google Scholar, with 66 of those occurring this year alone. While it’s not the only study advocating that workplace diversity enhances clinical outcomes, it is certainly the most prominent.
The report outlines how flawed science that aligns with predetermined policy objectives can permeate research and media, calling for a reevaluation of existing literature that supports DEI in medical education. Kingsbury, the research director at Do No Harm, noted that this narrative has bolstered various DEI initiatives, perpetuating the notion of racial consensus.
Moreover, the PNAS study has been referenced in legal contexts, including an amicus brief to the Supreme Court by various medical associations, including the American Association of Medical Colleges. It became a focal point in opposition to challenges about affirmative action in medical school admissions.
Numerous respected journals, such as the Journal of Pediatrics and Academic Medicine, have cited studies advocating for the idea that DEI programs lead to better clinical outcomes. The report suggests that these studies inform policy guidance across professional bodies.
A notable instance is the citation of the PNAS study in a 2024 guidance by the US obstetricians and gynecologists’ committee, emphasizing that prevailing care systems potentially jeopardize marginalized communities and result in avoidable deaths.
Despite some organizations pulling back on DEI programs in response to political shifts, the Medical Association has been slow to pivot its guidance. Kingsbury emphasized the importance of these organizations, stating that they set industry standards and influence policy.
This case also casts a shadow on the integrity of scientific journals, exposing potential flaws in peer review processes, as the National Academy has yet to retract the study.
Kingsbury further commented on the perceived liberal bias in scientific publications, suggesting that claims about racial consensus could often be overstated. He argued that it’s oddly acceptable to assert the benefits of racial consensus based on limited studies while dismissing broader evidence.
