This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Dorothy A. Nelson, PhD
Henry Ford Hospital Detroit, Mich

JAMA. 1991;265(22):2957.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Tb the Editor.—

The study by Klag et al¹ typifies a common fallacy in epidemiologic studies: the assumption of concordance of genetically variable traits in human populations.² In fact, the distributions of different traits are typically discordant. A common misconception is that if a trait or disease is more or less prevalent in blacks, it must be related to skin color, since this is how we classify individuals into races. It is not widely appreciated that race is a social construct, not a biologically meaningful one; therefore, one should study sociocultural variables to help explain observed racial differences in disease prevalence.2 Klag et al demonstrate this very convincingly. Unfortunately, the casual reader may be left with the impression that a link has been found between skin color and disease.

In our own work,^3,4 we have sought to refute the equally illogical claim that osteoporosis is associated with decreased skin pigmentation because it is more prevalent in whites. In this case, there is some logical biochemical con . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?