Ian Peebles

One of the many debates in the philosophy of race is whether we should eliminate or conserve discourse, thought, and practices reliant on racial terms and categories (i.e., race-talk). In this paper, I consider this debate in the context of medicine. The recent resurgence in anti-racist activism and the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted philosophers, medical professionals, and the public to (re)consider race, its role in long-standing health disparities, and the utility of race-based medicine. In what follows, I argue that while utility is insufficient for adjudicating permissible uses of race in medicine, eliminativism is neither necessary nor sufficient for dealing with the sort of ills associated with race-based medicine. I, then, use a virtue-based framework to adjudicate morally permissible uses of race in medicine. In doing so, I demonstrate the limitations of eliminativism, offer a decision procedure for determining morally permissible uses of race, and demonstrate that the debate regarding eliminating or preserving race-talk need not depend on conclusive answers to metaphysical questions regarding race.

Racial and ethnic disparities exist for many nervous system disorders that are intervention targets for neuromodulation investigators. Yet, to date, there has been both a lack of racial and ethnic diversity and a lack of emphasis on diversity in neuromodulation research. In this paper, we suggest three potential reasons for the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in neuromodulation research: 1) the lack of diversity in the neuromodulation workforce, 2) incompatibility between the technologies employed and phenotypic traits (e.g., hair texture) commonly present in minoritized populations, and 3) minoritized populations’ reluctance to participate in clinical trials. We argue that increasing diversity in the neuromodulation workforce, in conjunction with mutual collaboration between current neuromodulation researchers and underrepresented communities in neuromodulation, can aid in removing barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuromodulation research. This is important, because greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuromodulation research brings with it the development of novel, yet safe and effective, treatment approaches for brain disorders and enhances the rigor and generalizability of discoveries in the field.