(Daily Caller News Foundation) – An unsound study alleging that white doctors are responsible for worse clinical outcomes with black newborns because of “spontaneous bias” serves as a tentpole propping up diversity, equity and inclusion in academic medicine, a new report by nonprofit Do No Harm argues.
The disparity in mortality rates between black newborns and white newborns declines by 58% if the black newborns are under the care of black physicians, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in August 2020. Hundreds of media outlets, which were gripped at the time by the Black Lives Matter movement, covered the “debunked” paper, which ranks in the top 5% of studies over the last five years in terms of impact in the lay press, according to a data aggregator used by scholars called Altmetric.
But the coauthors of the study made a major methodological error, according to the Manhattan Institute, finding that controlling for very low birth weight newborns nullified the apparent effect of racial concordance on infant mortality. The authors buried an inconvenient data point in the appendix, a Freedom of Information Act request by Do No Harm further revealed in March 2025. Finally, one of the coauthors – a star academic heading a new center for health equity – left her university in April amid accusations from her staff of plagiarism and incompetence.
Now, the new report by Do No Harm shows the lasting impact of the study in the scientific literature despite its serious flaws. The flagship journals of prestigious medical associations often cited the paper in articles that advocate for affirmative action in medical school admissions and DEI programs for physicians, according to Do No Harm, which opposes identity politics in medical research and clinical practice.
In all, the study has received 786 citations in the scientific literature, Google Scholar shows. Sixty-six citations occurred this year.
The study is far from the only one to argue that a diverse workforce improves clinical outcomes through what may be commonly called cultural competence, but which the scientific literature describes as “racial concordance.” Yet the PNAS study is undoubtedly among the most influential.
The study provides a case study in how unsound science that serves a predetermined policy goal can permeate the scientific literature, the halls of academia and the media, the report argues. Its centrality to the scientific literature justifying DEI in academic medicine should provoke a second look at that scientific literature, according to Ian Kingsbury, director of Research at Do No Harm.
“This was holding up much of the DEI enterprise. It’s the foundational study in racial concordance mythology,” Kingsbury said.
The PNAS study even made its way into an amicus brief to the Supreme Court by dozens of medical associations led by the Association of American Medical Colleges in favor of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the study in her dissent in the case.
But many prestigious journals published by major medical associations have also cited the study to support the premise that DEI programs supporting racial concordance improve clinical outcomes, the report alleges, including the American Academy of Pediatrics’ journal Pediatrics, Academic Medicine, the Journal of Neurosurgery and the Journal of Graduate Medical Education.
The study crops up in the policy guidance issued by these professional societies and in the policy papers written by think tanks, the report states.
For instance, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ “Committee on Advancing Equity in Obstetric and Gynecologic Health Care” cited the PNAS study in a 2024 guidance that states physicians should “acknowledge that the current system providing care for obstetric and gynecologic patients causes harm, particularly for marginalized and minoritized communities, and contributes to preventable and premature death.”
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not respond to requests for comment.
Medical associations have been slow to change course on DEI guidance, even as many of their members’ institutions have pulled back or eliminated DEI programs in response to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order..
“What these organizations say is really important. They set the standards for their field and produce and disseminate policy,” said Kingsbury.
The enduring impact of the study also raises questions about the rigor of scientific journals and exposes the fallibility of peer review, according to Do No Harm. PNAS has not retracted the study.
When it comes to allegations of liberal bias in scientific journals, the racial concordance field may be “ground zero,” Kinsgbury said.
“You can see the ideological bent of this. For some reason it’s completely acceptable for journals – in order to make the claim that racial concordance is beneficial – to cite one or two bad studies, ignoring the weight of the evidence,” he said.
