African-American women are less likely to develop breast cancer than Caucasian women, but they are more likely to die of the disease.
Latinos in Los Angeles have much higher rates of diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma -- eye diseases that could potentially blind them -- than Caucasians in that city.
Mexican-Americans have a far higher chance of suffering a stroke than whites.
These three little snippets of information, drawn from studies published this week in medical journals, demonstrate that race can be a significant factor in determining health outcomes.
A lot of research is being done to better understand racial and cultural differences in incidence rates, disease progression, access to care and health outcomes -- at least in the United States.
In Canada, we tend to shy away from exploring these differences, to our detriment.
In a multicultural society, being colour-blind is a laudable goal -- at least from a social perspective -- but it is doubtful that it makes for better health care.
In fact, it is precisely because Canada is a multicultural, socially progressive country that more effort and money should be invested in exploring racial, cultural and socioeconomic differences in how we get sick and injured and, more important, using that knowledge to fashion prevention programs and improve care, both generally and for specific minority groups.
Of course, the research on racially specific differences needs to be legitimate and useful. This has nothing to do with crackpot theories like those of professor J. Philippe Rushton, who concocted a strange gauge of racial superiority based on brain size, penis length and the like.
This kind of racist quackery makes us uncomfortable, and rightfully so, but it should not prevent exploration of serious issues.
Why do aboriginal people have much higher rates of HIV-AIDS and alcoholism? Why do Pacific Islanders who become obese have far worse physical problems than those in other ethnic groups? What can be done to improve the care of people with sickle cell anemia, a disorder that strikes primarily blacks, or thalassemia, a blood disorder that hits principally people of Mediterranean descent? And how many more genetic conditions like Tay-Sachs disease (which strikes primarily Ashkenazi Jews and French-Canadians) can be prevented?
Of course, terms like "black," "Hispanic," "Caucasian," "Asian" and "aboriginal" are imprecise; more than anything else, these terms are bureaucratically convenient. But there are nonetheless some biologically and genetically important differences between these groups.
The new breast cancer research, published this week in the journal Cancer, showed that tumours in African-American and Caucasian women are physically different, likely because of genetic difference in a tumour suppressor gene called p53.
Until now, the sharp differences in breast cancer survival rates among black and white women were attributed solely to lifestyle and economic factors.
While social determinants such as income play a key role in health outcomes, we must be careful not to use race as a proxy for socioeconomic status.
The research on high rates of serious eye disease among Latinos, published in the journal Ophthalmology, did not determine the cause for this racial disparity (except to suggest it was linked to high rates of diabetes among Latinos), but it did provide good epidemiological data, and suggest that public-health programs targeted at this ethnic group are required to prevent a high rate of blindness in the future.
For its part, the study on the high stroke rate among Mexican-Americans, published in the journal Neurology, debunked the belief that high levels of diabetes in the community were to blame. In fact, it suggests there might be risk factors for stroke other than high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking and diabetes that have not been explored.
These three papers are mere snapshots, but they show that probing racial differences in health outcomes can have implications for everyone -- regardless of race.
For the longest time, health research was conducted principally on men -- white men. Women, children and minorities suffered as a result.
In the health field, we need to explore and understand our differences, not paper them over, even if some of this research is going to make us uncomfortable.
The U.S. government's principal research-funding agency, the National Institutes of Health, has created the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities to do so.
The Canadian Institutes for Health Research would do well to follow suit.
There is no shortage of issues that are pertinent and vital to the good health of the racial and ethnic minorities that form our wonderful cultural mosaic. The knowledge this research provides would make for a better health-care system, and a healthier Canada.