This is the FIRST video in the Race in Medicine series! In this video, I describe how we recognized and identified the extent of racialization of disease in this widely used medical school textbook. I also describe the work we are doing to correct this systemic problem.

The VINDICATE mnemonic (V=Vascular, I=Infections/Inflammator, N=Neoplastic, etc) is a useful tool for medical students learning a systematic approach to differential diagnosis. What if we added a D for Diverse/Disparate populations? Would that help us avoid the pitfalls of race-based medicine and see each of our patients in their individual contexts as opposed to part of a socially defined race? Watch the video and give it a try!

One of the challenges when talking about race in medicine is defining race. It is important to recognize that the term “biological race” is often conflated with the concept of socially defined race. This video will help make these two terms clearer for you!

As you bring a discussion of race into your medical school or practice, you will doubtless get some pushback, particularly from older physicians who have been steeped in the tea of “biological race exists” for decades. This video will give you some context for why health disparities exist.

This is a bit of a personal story and reflects my evolution in addressing race in the pathology curriculum at Duke. Since I learned medicine in an era in which biological race was a cornerstone of teaching, I didn’t initially recognize the importance of removing race from pathology vignettes. My thinking will continue to evolve, perhaps due to comments/suggestions from you! I'm not sure if this works as a "stand alone" video; I HIGHLY recommend that you watch the other titles in the Race in Medicine series first.

This video is a true labor of love. I spent more than 20 hours researching the murky history of keloids, diving deep into the literature as far back as 1931, to uncover the systemic racism that has pervaded the scientific literature to this day. Keloids may seem like a trivial topic: they aren’t deadly, they don’t metastasize, they aren’t neoplastic. But because of their association with pigmented skin, they fit into a narrative of structural racism. This video demonstrates the lengths we must go to in order to determine the scientific truth.

This video will provide context to the statement, " “The overall prevalence of [severe combined immunodeficiency] is approximately 1 in 65,000 to 1 in 100,000, but it is 20 to 30 times more frequent in some Native American populations.” from the 10th edition of Robbins Basic Pathology. The statement, while factual, feels a bit like a "factoid" to me. Without context, it is just something else to show up on an exam question. I address the origins and migration of the Athabascan peoples, details of the Long Walk of the Navajo, the evolutionary consequences of population bottlenecks and how an understanding of all of this can lead to better patient care.

There is a strong association between European ancestry and cystic fibrosis: about 1 in 27 European Americans are carriers for this disease, compared to 1 in 79 African Americans and 1 in 48 Hispanic Americans (depending on the screening test!). Why did this develop? Are there consequences to patients when we teach a curriculum that emphasizes socially defined race as a risk factor for certain diseases (race-based medicine)?