This writing is terrible. How is a meter biases against “race”? Does the meter give an incorrect reading for a light skinned black person but a better reading for a dark skinned white person of the same color?
Is there a more accurate but still commonly used word that most english speakers would understanding as roughly grouping people by the shade of their skin?
Also is it possible that it does break down across the same lines we'd draw for "race?" For example I have pretty dark skin for my national origin, am usually, but not always, considered white at first glance. There are certainly black people with skin as light as mine, but our "tones" are usually quite different. It's not absurd to me that details like that could affect sensors like this.
It would have been factually accurate since it's skin color that's the issue.
Of course Arstechnica already knew that.
Look at the FDA documents linked in the article. The FDA says "The committee will discuss ongoing concerns that pulse oximeters may be less accurate in individuals with darker skin pigmentations."
It was never really about race, it was about skin color (the two are loosely associated), but Artechnica knows that "race" gets more clicks I assume.
I like to call these types of authors "racial carpetbaggers" - unscrupulous opportunists using race to further their own aims.
Little effort is needed to provoke outrage about racial discrimination, I think that it's up to good citizens, particularly journalists or those with a 'loud voice' to make sure that they don't stir the pot and create unneeded tensions and hatred for no good reason other than more clicks.
It would take a lot to make me believe that the wording wasn't purposeful.
When I was growing up, I was one of the few white kids in my circle of friends. One of the kids was always beating his chest on how the white man is keeping the brown man down. This is exactly the type of nonsense he would bring up.
The pulse oximeter wasn't purposely designed to give false readings to darker people.
Huh ? There are no "white people" or "black people". Just take a look at the people around you: everyone has its own colour given by genetics, sun exposure, origin, diet (a sick liver darkens a bit your skin for example). I've seen people with a skin like milk chocolate.
They just did a quick testing to get the aproval and called it a day. Testing is hard and expensive.
I see a bias. However, maybe the testing was done only on poor white people because that's what the testing company employed (due to operating in a poor country with no significant "coloured" people population). Everybody wants to save money. Test results almost do not matter if the test is "done". Especially when "best practice" comes from SW.