Limits on Language Could Complicate Studies

Requests that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adjust terminology related to gender and race have not been confirmed, but such changes, if implemented, would have implications for infectious disease research, according to experts.

In February, the New York Times reported that terms including race, disparity, and health equity should not be used in writing performance evaluations, but that this directive was subsequently removed.

The potential spillover of any avoidance of terminology related to race and gender in scientific research has yet to unfold.

“Restricting language tied to race, gender, and equity could impair the ability of researchers to analyze disparities in disease burden, vaccine uptake, and treatment outcomes,” said Jeff Goad, PharmD, MPH, professor of pharmacy practice at the Chapman University School of Pharmacy, Irvine, California, in an interview. 

Implications for Funding and Study Design

“The inability to use precise terms could also hinder funding approvals and peer-reviewed publishing, as many leading medical journals and funding agencies encourage authors to address health disparities and equity in their submissions,” Goad told Medscape Medical News. The CDC’s website retains a page on health equity from 2src24, defining it as CDC defines health equity as “the state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health.” 

However, “it’s important to realize that equity pertains to more than just race and ethnicity but includes other social determinants of health, including income, where you live, and access to healthcare,” Goad said. 

“If restrictions were to persist, there could be a shift toward broad epidemiologic studies that avoid subgroup analyses, rather than research explicitly examining how infectious diseases disproportionately affect specific populations,” said Goad. “For example, studies on racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, CDC recommended Mpox vaccination for gay and bisexual populations, and access to vaccines among underserved communities may be deprioritized,” he said.

Public Health and Disease Prevention

Public health research could be impacted by language restrictions as well, Goad told Medscape Medical News. “Banning words does not eliminate problems; it just makes problems harder to solve,” he said. “Public health research relies on precise language to develop effective interventions,” he added. “If terms related to race, gender, diversity, and equity are restricted, researchers may struggle to identify vulnerable populations, leading to less focused disease prevention efforts,” he said.

Over time, less focused infectious disease research could undermine disease surveillance and effective resource allocation, which could increase health inequities in outbreak response and vaccine distribution, Goad added. “Ultimately, we rely on data generated from research to close health gaps and improve infectious disease prevention efforts,” he said.

Goad disclosed serving as an advisor for Valneva and Moderna and as a speaker for Merck.