A widely cited study suggesting black newborns are more likely to survive when treated by black doctors is now under scrutiny after evidence emerged that a key data point was deliberately omitted. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2020, has been used to justify affirmative action policies and the push for racial diversity in medical training.
Newly obtained internal notes reveal that the lead author, Brad N. Greenwood, acknowledged that white newborns had lower mortality rates when treated by white doctors but chose to exclude the finding. In a note to his co-authors, Greenwood wrote, “I’d rather not focus on this. If we’re telling the story from the perspective of saving black infants, this undermines the narrative.” The omitted data can still be found in the appendix of the study but was not included in the main analysis.
The study had originally concluded that racial concordance—patients being treated by doctors of the same race—reduced the mortality gap between black and white newborns by 58%. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson referenced the study in her dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, arguing that it supported affirmative action in education and healthcare.
A 2024 replication effort, however, found serious methodological flaws. Researchers determined that the original study failed to control for very low birth weight newborns—those at the highest risk of death. When this control was applied, the study’s key finding was no longer statistically significant.
Further, emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request indicate Greenwood viewed weaker statistical results as “bad news.” In one email, he wrote that fixing a coding error made the correlation between physician race and newborn mortality weaker, yet still insisted, “I think there is enough to tell a story here.”
Critics argue that the study exemplifies politically motivated research that distorts scientific findings to fit a predetermined narrative. The study has been cited over 500 times in academic literature and was widely covered by major media outlets. Time Magazine even named one of its co-authors, Rachel Hardeman, as one of the most influential people of 2024.
With universities facing legal challenges and scaling back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, scrutiny of race-based research is increasing. Some experts say this study highlights the risks of allowing political agendas to shape medical science.
