We have over 12,000 students, from over 100 countries, within one of the safest campuses in the UK


93% of Lancaster students go into work or further study within six months of graduating

Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Social inclusivity versus analytical acuity?
View graph of relations

« Back

Social inclusivity versus analytical acuity?: A qualitative study of UK researchers regarding the inclusion of minority racial/ethnic groups in biobanks

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article


  • Andrew Smart
  • Richard Tutton
  • Richard Ashcroft
  • Paul A. Martin
  • Andrew Balmer
  • Richard Elliot
  • George T. H. Ellison
Journal publication date2008
JournalMedical Law International
Number of pages22
Original languageEnglish


This paper examines how the drive to include minority ethnic groups in biomedical research raises challenging questions for the governance of some biobanks. Using findings from a qualitative study with researchers working at 10 UK biobanks that have been designed to explore common complex diseases, our study highlights the potential discordance between the twin imperatives of ‘social inclusivity’ and ‘analytical acuity’. While the researchers interviewed were keen to include minority ethnic groups in their research, they were also concerned that this could have deleterious effects on the precision of their analyses. In our discussion of these findings we show that there remains considerable debate as to the impact of including participants from minority ethnic groups on analytical acuity. Nevertheless, a principle of justice requires that potential participants from all ethnic groups should be given the opportunity to participate in and benefit from biomedical research, and UK law requires public bodies (including research councils) to demonstrate that there is no unintentional or unjustifiable ‘racial’ discrimination in their activities. Researchers' concerns about analytical acuity could result in calls for study designs that examine every ‘different’ ethnic group, which would have consequences for the governance of some biobank studies and for efforts to challenge the discredited yet resilient idea that differences between ethnic groups are innate, essential and immutable.