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.
