Abstract
The use of human diversity classifications like race, ethnicity, ancestry, or migration background entails a range of scientific as well as social consequences, therefore, a careful application is vital. In this article, we present results from a systematic literature review and subsequent quantitative content analysis based on 546 papers focusing on classifications applied in life sciences studies at German research institutions. Our aim is to capture a snap-shot of current classification practices applied to categorize humans across various disciplines and fields in a specific national context that remains underexposed in this regard. The review substantiates a) the results from earlier studies that point to heterogeneity, inconsistency and vagueness of human classifications used in the life sciences, and b) underlines the presumed specificity of the German science context, where the term “race” is comparatively little used. Our findings stress the need for German researchers to partake in the ongoing international debate on the practice of human classification in the life sciences to advance the international and interdisciplinary transferability of scientific results and, first and foremost, to avoid unintended effects such as overgeneralization, racialization, and stigmatization.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by a grant by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), funding number 01GP1790.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data used in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
