Honestly I have no idea which would have a better outcome, but I know both would have a great impact. My assumption would be the second one if I had to pick though, for example as an African American I have a sickle-cell trait and thus I shouldn't have kids with someone who also has that trait, and African American's in general have a higher likelihood of that trait. This is fortunately one of the well understood minority cases and therefore I can take action on it, but for many other genetic/ethnic dispositions to harm, they are quite unknown.

If I ever figure out which would be better I'll let you know! Or if someone else chimes in.

Since development of medications is such a heavily regulated industry, it seems to me the correct course of action is through regulation. Require a testament of some sort of the drugs' tested effects on different races. Or maybe require that test groups be representative of the population.

110% agree. The government has actually had a mandate out for publicly funded research since 1993, but only have enforcement rules been enacted and we have yet to see if they will be followed through on.

For research done by private institutions (Pharma, Biotech, etc.) there is no mandate and it's on the researcher to make it a thing.

* All Minorities, not one minority, and technically I believe all funded research should reflect the populations that exist rather than focusing on one, and take the various genetic backgrounds into account when developing treatments.