Connect with us

Economics

The data hinted at racism among white doctors. Then scholars looked again

Published

on

BLACK BABIES in America are more than twice as likely to die before their first birthday than white babies. This shocking statistic has barely changed for many decades, and even after controlling for socioeconomic differences a wide mortality gap persists. Yet in 2020 researchers discovered a factor that appeared to reduce substantially a black baby’s risks. In their study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), they wrote that “when Black newborns are cared for by Black physicians, the mortality penalty they suffer, as compared with White infants, is halved.”

This striking finding quickly captured national and international headlines, and generated nearly 700 Google Scholar citations. The study was widely interpreted–incorrectly, say the authors–as evidence that newborns should be matched to doctors of the same race, or that white doctors harboured racial animus against black babies. It even made it into the Supreme Court’s records as an argument in favour of affirmative action, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (mis)citing the findings. A supporting brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges and 45 other organisations mentioned the study as evidence that “For high-risk black newborns, having a black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug.”

Now a new study seems to have debunked the finding, to much less fanfare. A paper by George Borjas and Robert VerBruggen, published last month in PNAS, looked at the same data set from 1.8m births in Florida between 1992 and 2015 and concluded that it was not the doctor’s skin colour that best explained the mortality gap between races, but rather the baby’s birth weight. Although the authors of the original 2020 study had controlled for various factors, they had not included very low birth weight (ie, babies born weighing less than 1,500 grams, who account for about half of infant mortality). Once this was also taken into consideration, there was no measurable difference in outcomes.

The new study is striking for three reasons. First, and most important, it suggests that the primary focus to save young (black) lives should be on preventing premature deliveries and underweight babies. Second, it raises questions about why this issue of controlling for birth weight was not picked up during the peer-review process. And third, the failure of its findings to attract much notice, at least so far, suggests that scholars, medical institutions and members of the media are applying double standards to such studies. Both studies show correlation rather than causation, meaning the implications of the findings should be treated with caution. Yet, whereas the first study was quickly accepted as “fact”, the new evidence has been largely ignored.

The reason why white doctors at first looked like such a “lethal” combination with black babies, say the authors of the recent paper, was that a disproportionately high share of underweight black babies were treated by white doctors, while a disproportionately high share of healthy-weight black babies were treated by black doctors. Being born severely underweight is one of the greatest predictors of infant death. Just over 1% of babies in America are born weighing less than 1,500 grams, but among black babies the rate is nearly 3%.

The fact that the original authors shared their data and workings with their challengers should be commended, as should PNAS’s decision to publish this second paper and a guest commentary. In it Theodore Joyce, from City University of New York, offers several reasons why the authors and their reviewers might have missed this critical factor, including that it was technically hard to tease out of the data. Yet as a final possible reason, he notes that the original article was published two months after the murder of George Floyd. “Reviewers are only human, and these events may have affected how the results were interpreted,” he concludes.

That a flawed social-science finding which fitted neatly within the zeitgeist was widely accepted is understandable. Less understandable is that few people now seem eager to correct the record. The new study has had just one Google Scholar citation and no mainstream news coverage. This suggests that opinion-makers have, at best, not noticed the new article (it was published a month ago; The Economist only spotted it when the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, last week put out an explanatory note). At worst, they have deliberately ignored it.

None of this means that a physician’s race–or their sex–is never relevant. Several studies have shown that shared identity between doctor and patient can improve communication, trust, patient experience and compliance with doctors’ orders. A study in 2018 of black men in Oakland found that those treated by a black doctor were more likely to bring up specific health concerns and undergo invasive screening than those treated by a white doctor. It would be particularly valuable to look at whether the race of a woman’s obstetrician has any impact on her baby’s outcomes.

Mr Borjas and Mr VerBruggen end on an optimistic note, observing that science has “the capacity for self-correction, and scientists can facilitate this by being open with their methods and data”. Science journalists can help, too.

Economics

Germany’s economy chief Reiche sets out roadmap to end turmoil

Published

on

09 May 2025, Bavaria, Gmund Am Tegernsee: Katherina Reiche (CDU), Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy, takes part in the Ludwig Erhard Summit. Representatives from business, politics, science and the media are taking part in the three-day summit. Photo: Sven Hoppe/dpa (Photo by Sven Hoppe/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Picture Alliance | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

Germany needs to take more risks and boost its stagnant economy with a decade of investment in infrastructure, German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Katherina Reiche said Friday.

“The next decade will be the decade of infrastructure investments in bridges, in energy infrastructure, in storage, in maritime infrastructure… telecommunication. And for this, we need speed. We need speed and investments, and we need private capital,” Reiche told CNBC’s Annette Weisbach on the sidelines of the Tegernsee summit.

While 10% of investments could be taken care of with public money, the remaining 90% relied on the private sector, she said.

The newly minted economy minister also addressed regulation coming from Brussels, warning that it could hinder companies from investments and start-ups from growing if it is too restrictive. Germany has had to learn that investments comes with risks “and we have to kind of be open for taking more risks,” she said.

Watch CNBC's full interview with German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche

“This country needs an economic turnaround. After two years of recessions the previous government had to announce again [a] zero growth year for 2025 and we really have to work on this. So on the top of the agenda is an investor booster,” the minister added.

Lowering energy prices, stabilizing the security of energy supply and reducing bureaucracy were among the key points on the agenda, Reiche said.

Germany’s economy contracted slightly on an annual basis in both 2023 and 2024 and the quarterly gross domestic product has been flipping between growth and contraction for over two years now, just about managing to avoid a technical recession. Preliminary data for the first quarter of 2025 showed a 0.2% expansion.

Forecasts do not suggest much of a reprieve from the sluggishness, with the now former German government last month saying it still expects the economy to stagnate this year.

This is despite a major fiscal U-turn announced earlier this year, which included changes to the country’s long-standing debt rules to allow for additional defense spending and a 500-billion-euro ($562.4 billion) infrastructure package.

Several of Germany’s key industries are under pressure. The auto industry for example is dealing with stark competition from China and now faces tariffs, while issues in housebuilding and infrastructure have been linked to higher costs and bureaucratic hurdles.

Trade is also a key pillar for the German economy and therefore uncertainty from U.S. President Donald Trump’s changing tariff policies are weighing heavily on the outlook.

Continue Reading

Economics

Andrew Bailey on why UK-U.S. trade deal won’t end uncertainty

Published

on

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey attends the central bank’s Monetary Policy Report press conference at the Bank of England, in the City of London, on May 8, 2025.

Carlos Jasso | Afp | Getty Images

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was heading for more economic uncertainty, despite the country being the first to strike a trade agreement with the U.S. under President Donald Trump’s controversial tariff regime.

“The tariff and trade situation has injected more uncertainty into the situation… There’s more uncertainty now than there was in the past,” Bailey told CNBC in an interview.

“A U.K.-U.S. trade agreement is very welcome in that sense, very welcome. But the U.K. is a very open economy,” he continued.

That means that the impact from tariffs on the U.K. economy comes not just from its own trade relationship with Washington, but also from those of the U.S. and the rest of the world, he said.

“I hope that what we’re seeing on the U.K.-U.S. trade side will be the first of many, and it will be repeated by a whole series of trade agreements, but we have to see that happen of course, and where it actually ends up.”

“Because, of course, we are looking at tariff levels that are probably higher than they were beforehand.”

Trump unveils United Kingdom trade deal, first since ‘reciprocal’ tariff pause

In Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Report released Thursday, the word “uncertainty” was used 41 times across its 97 pages, up from 36 times in February, according to a CNBC tally.

The U.K. central bank cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point on Thursday, taking its key rate to 4.25%. The decision was highly divided among the seven members of its Monetary Policy Committee, with five voting for the 25 basis point cut, two voting to hold rates and two voting to reduce by a larger 50 basis points.

Bailey said that while some analysts had perceived the rate decision as more hawkish than expected — in other words, leaning toward holding rates elevated than slashing them rapidly — he was not surprised by the close vote.

“What it reflects is that there are two sides, there are risks on both sides here,” he told CNBC.

“We could get a much more severe weakness of demand than we were expecting, that could then pass through to a weaker outlook for inflation than we were expecting.”

“There’s a risk on the other side that we could get some combination of more persistence in the inflation effects that are gradually working their way through the system,” such as in wages and energy, while “supply capacity in the economy is weaker,” he said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Trump knocks down a controversial pillar of civil-rights law

Published

on

IN THE DELUGE of 145 executive orders issued by President Donald Trump (on subjects as disparate as “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness” and “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads”) it can be difficult to discern which are truly consequential. But one of them, signed on April 23rd under the bland headline “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”, aims to remake civil-rights law. Those primed to distrust Mr Trump on such matters may be surprised to learn that the president’s target is not just important but also well-chosen.

Continue Reading

Trending