It’s saying they’re pushing sun screen for people who don’t really need it.
This is 2 paragraphs after the one I quoted and it says it even more clearly: “And yet they are being told a very different story, misled into believing that sunscreen can prevent their melanomas, which Weller finds exasperating. “The cosmetic industry is now trying to push sunscreen at dark-skinned people,” he says. “At dermatology meetings, you get people standing up and saying, ‘We have to adapt products for this market.’ Well, no we don’t. This is a marketing ploy.””
> “I think that sun-protection advice,” [David Leffel, Yale] told me, “has always been directed at those most at risk”—people with fair skin or a family history of skin cancer. “While it is true that people with olive skin are at less risk, we do see an increasing number of people with that type of skin getting skin cancer. But skin cancer… is very rare in African Americans… and although they represent a spectrum of pigmentation, [they] are not at as much risk.”
Your original comment was effectively ‘why does everything have to be about race?’ and it matters in this context.
You say “systemic racism”, I say “the article cites one guy and gives his voice more weight than an entire industry body in order to contort this into a story about (maybe) racism”.
Science is messy. Doctors are very cautious by training and experience. So yes, they encourage everyone to use sunscreen until the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests otherwise. This is not racism in any form. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
> No real science is performed to test their validity.
This is a ludicrous argument. Which scientific experiment do you want me to perform, exactly, to discover the definition of racism? It's a word, not a physical law.
> To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.
And a true scottsman would never put sugar in his porridge, yes, yes.
It's generally a damned good principle to live by. We know for certain that higher UV exposure = higher risk of melanoma. It may be a lower risk for people with darker skin, but where do you draw the line for how dark is dark enough to not need to bother with sunscreen? The article states that it's rare in African Americans, but not nonexistent. In the absence of other evidence, why not avoid UV exposure?
This article presents emerging studies that suggest that UV exposure does have some direct benefits and that avoiding it may be especially harmful to people with darker skin. If there's enough evidence to support the findings, the AAD should absolutely change its advice. That's the scientific process. The article uses the example of margarine to illustrate the point; we've gotten it wrong before.
Given the above, are you certain that the term "racism" is accurate here? What can we attribute to bias that can't be explained by a lack of scientific evidence?
Maybe the world needs a variant of Hanlon’s razor: never attribute to racism that which is adequate explained by stupidity (or incompetence or the desire to promote one’s product or profession, etc.).
The US tried /extremely/ hard to take 'color-blindness' as the solution to centuries of explicit racism. And it failed rather completely. There's two effects at play: a) the 'true' racists learned how to keep being horrible without ever explicitly talking about race, and b) we wound up with lots of 'data gaps' around race by ignoring real differences. This data gap is arguably at the root of what's called structural racism.
(Incidentally, an incredibly similar dynamic has played out with the rights of women. I'm currently reading Caroline Criado-Perez's 'Invisible Women' which is about a huge range of areas where the 'default' is male, and the resulting gaps in data about women lead to poor outcomes.)
So I'd say the article points to a particular kind of structural racism: That the medical advice for white people is assumed to also be good for people of color.
Maybe? The article is trying pretty hard to say that the medical advice is wrong for white people too. Of course, it’s plausible that the article is wrong, white people should use sunscreen, and black people (at least in Northern climates?) should not.
Here’s a more clear-cut example of structural racism in medicine:
https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2021posts/black-people-are-thr...