The new biological anthropology: Bringing Washburn's new physical anthropology into 2010 and beyond-The 2008 AAPA luncheon lecture

Biological anthropology's critical engagement with genomics, evolution, race/racism, and ourselves: Opportunities and challenges to making a difference in the academy and the world

Biological anthropology can, and should, matter in the Anthropocene. Biological anthropologists are interested in human biology and the human experience in a broader ecological, evolutionary, and phylogenetic context. We are interested in the material of the body, the history of the body, and interactions of diverse bodies, communities, ecologies, and evolutionary processes. However, the cultural realities of bodies, histories, communities, livelihoods, perceptions, and experiences are as central to the endeavor and inquiry of biological anthropology as are their material aspects. Biological anthropology is a constant dialectic between the cultural and the biological. In this essay, I argue that Biological Anthropology has much to offer, a history to contend with, and a future that matters. To illustrate this, I highlight theoretical and methodological issues in genomics, evolutionary theory and connect them to the study of Race and Racism to emphasize specific arenas where Biological Anthropology has a great capacity, and a strong obligation, to play a central role. However, Biological Anthropology also has substantive internal issues that hinder our ability to do the best possible science. If we are to live up to our potential and make a difference in the 21st century we need to ameliorate our structural shortcomings and expand our voice, and impact, in academic and public discourse. The goal of this perspective is to offer suggestions for moving us toward this goal.

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human-Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at "preserving the integrity" of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in "human-wildlife conflict" or more recently "human-wildlife interactions" and compare it to what anthropology terms "multispecies ethnography." In the biological sciences, human-wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human-nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary "multispecies lens" in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human-primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

What does variation in primate behavior mean?

Interest in intraspecific behavioral variation has grown with concerns about the ability of primates to adapt to the rapidly changing ecological and demographic conditions that threaten their survival. Now, in addition to identifying the causes and phylogenetic distribution of normative, species-specific behavior patterns for interspecific comparisons, there is widespread recognition of the need to incorporate intraspecific variation. This variation is evident across groups and populations of the same species as well over the long histories of single groups of long-lived, socially complex animals with overlapping generations. Yet, analyses of both cross-sectional and longitudinal data require explicit criteria about how to classify and interpret behavioral variation, and must be sensitive to the limitations of space-for-time substitutions in these comparisons. Current approaches have made great advances, but there remains an urgent challenge of understanding intraspecific variation in a way that will facilitate the development of new predictive models to assess population resilience and extinction risks in the face of climate change and other anthropogenic influences.