The (Mis)appropriation of Biological Anthropology in Race Science and the Implications for Forensic Anthropology

Most biological anthropologists acknowledge that phenotypic human variation is distinct from human race. However, there is the potential for the research on human variation to be (mis)interpreted by the public as a reification of biological races. To explore this possible misuse, this study is a content analysis of articles (n = 1146) in the prominent race science journals Mankind Quarterly; The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies; and The Occidental Quarterly. The goal is to investigate how race science employs research in biological and forensic anthropology to justify arguments. Articles were evaluated according to country affiliation, discipline, data sets, racial/ethnic terminology, position on racial hierarchy, position on racial segregation and eugenics, focus of study, views of scientific community, and the average power index (PI). Additionally, specific examples of (mis)appropriation are highlighted. Though the primary discipline represented in these publications is psychology, biological anthropology maintains a presence. Skeletal and dental traits, genetics, and paleoanthropological data are used to argue for biological racial differences and taxonomic distinctions. The research of forensic ancestry estimation was regularly used to legitimize the concept of biological race. While the PIs of the articles are low, they are present on the internet and circulate within social media. The continued use of biological anthropology to reinforce racial essentialism should force practitioners to question the ethical implications of their research. Finally, we provide discussion regarding shiftsin methodology and terminology to address how biological and forensic anthropologists can rectify the damage this research may directly and indirectly cause.

Explanation of Ancestry Estimation in Forensic Anthropology Textbooks

The way we teach about race and racism can have profound impacts on undergraduate learners, both positive and negative. Textbooks represent a space in which hidden curriculum about race can cement misconceptions and biologically essentialist thinking, leading to the ongoing support of practices that harm racially minoritized populations. In this study, I critically examine five popular introductory level, undergraduate, forensic anthropology textbooks, with attention to chapters on ancestry estimation, and offer recommendations for supplementary or alternative content. Specific coverage of core concepts related to race and ancestry estimation practices in forensic anthropology are evaluated, as well as the order of presentation and consistency of key messages. Though each chapter focuses on distinct examples and approaches, none cover all of the concepts or present a consistent message about ancestry estimation as it pertains to the biological race concept. In particular, messaging within each chapter demonstrates some ambiguity in the distinction between race and ancestry, while also presenting a narrative through which racial typology practices are delineated as “in the past” and distinct from current ancestry estimation practices. These results demonstrate a need, at the undergraduate level, for a more explicit discussion of the biological race myth in lieu of traditional approaches that focus on demonstrating the practicality and validity of such methods. Finally, detailed presentations of ancestry estimation

Ancestry Studies in Forensic Anthropology: Back on the Frontier of Racism

One of the parameters forensic anthropologists have traditionally estimated is ancestry, which is used in the United States as a proxy for social race. Its use is controversial because the biological race concept was debunked by scientists decades ago. However, many forensic anthropologists contend, in part, that because social race categories used by law enforcement can be predicted by cranial variation, ancestry remains a necessary parameter for estimation. Here, we use content analysis of the Journal of Forensic Sciences for the period 2009–2019 to demonstrate the use of various nomenclature and resultant confusion in ancestry estimation studies, and as a mechanism to discuss how forensic anthropologists have eschewed a human variation approach to studying human morphological differences in favor of a simplistic and debunked typological one. Further, we employ modern geometric morphometric and spatial analysis methods on craniofacial coordinate anatomical landmarks from several Latin American samples to test the validity of applying the antiquated tri-continental approach to ancestry (i.e., African, Asian, European). Our results indicate groups are not patterned by the ancestry trifecta. These findings illustrate the benefit and necessity of embracing studies that employ population structure models to better understand human variation and the historical factors that have influenced it.

Reconstructing Sociogenomics Research: Dismantling Biological Race and Genetic Essentialism Narratives

We detail the implications of sociogenomics for social determinants research. We focus on education and race because of how early twentieth-century scientific eugenic thinking facilitated a range of racist and eugenic policies, most of which helped justify and pattern racial and educational morbidity and mortality disparities that remain today, and are central to sociological research. Consequently, we detail the implications of sociogenomics research by unpacking key controversies and opportunities in sociogenomics as they pertain to the understanding of racial and educational inequalities. We clarify why race is not a valid biological or genetic construct, the ways that environments powerfully shape genetic influence, and risks linked to this field of research. We argue that sociologists can usefully engage in genetics research, a domain dominated by psychologists and behaviorists who, given their focus on individuals, have mostly not examined the role of history and social structure in shaping genetic influence.

Does the human microbiome tell us something about race?

This paper critically discusses the increasing trend in human microbiome research to draw on the concept of race. This refers to the attempt to investigate the microbial profile of certain social and ethnic groups as embodied racial traits. Here, race is treated as a necessary category that helps in identifying and solving health challenges, like obesity and type-2 diabetes, in ‘western’ or indigenous populations with particular microbial characteristics. We are skeptical of this new environmentalist trend to racialize human bodies due to two reasons: (i) These race studies repeat outdated historical narratives, which link especially nutrition and race in ways that are prone to stir stereotypical and exclusionary views on indigenous groups. (ii) The concept of biological race used here is taxonomically problematic and conceptually inconsistent. It leads to a view in which human races are constituted by other non-human species. In addition, this approach cannot group biological individuals into human races and decouples races from ancestry. To support this critique, we draw on case studies of microbiome research on indigenous groups in Latin America.

Bioethicists Should Be Helping Scientists Think About Race

In this essay, I argue that bioethicists have a thus-far unfulfilled role to play in helping life scientists, including medical doctors and researchers, think about race. I begin with descriptions of how life scientists tend to think about race and descriptions of typical approaches to bioethics. I then describe three different approaches to race: biological race, race as social construction, and race as cultural driver of history. Taking into account the historical and contemporary interplay of these three approaches, I suggest an alternative framework for thinking about race focused on how the idea of race functions socially. Finally, using assisted reproductive technologies as an example, I discuss how bioethicists and scientists might work together using this framework to improve not only their own but broader perspectives on race.

Medical Violence, Obstetric Racism, and the Limits of Informed Consent for Black Women

This Essay critically examines how medicine actively engages in the reproductive subordination of Black women. In obstetrics, particularly, Black women must contend with both gender and race subordination. Early American gynecology treated Black women as expendable clinical material for its institutional needs. This medical violence was animated by biological racism and the legal and economic exigencies of the antebellum era. Medical racism continues to animate Black women’s navigation of and their dehumanization within obstetrics. Today, the racial disparities in cesarean sections illustrate that Black women are simultaneously overmedicalized and medically neglected—an extension of historical medical practices rooted in the logic of biological race. Though the principle of informed consent traditionally protects the rights of autonomy, bodily integrity, and well-being, medicine nevertheless routinely subjects Black women to medically unnecessary procedures. This Essay adopts the framework of obstetric racism to analyze Black women’s overmedicalization as a site of reproductive subordination. It thus offers a critical interdisciplinary and intersectional lens to broader conversations on race in reproduction and maternal health.