Language use in ancestry research and estimation

Exploring the relationship between admixture and genetic susceptibility to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in two Latin American cohorts

Contemporary research on the genomics of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often underrepresents admixed populations of diverse genomic ancestries, such as Latin Americans. This study explores the relationship between admixture and genetic associations for ADHD in Colombian and Mexican cohorts. Some 546 participants in two groups, ADHD and Control, were genotyped with Infinium PsychArray®. Global ancestry levels were estimated using overall admixture proportions and principal component analysis, while local ancestry was determined using a method to estimate ancestral components along the genome. Genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) was conducted to identify significant associations. Differences between Colombia and Mexico were evaluated using appropriate statistical tests. 354 Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and Single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) related to some genes and intergenic regions exhibited suggestive significance (p-value < 5*10e-5) in the GWAS. None of the variants revealed genome-wide significance (p-value < 5*10e-8). The study identified a significant relationship between risk SNPs and the European component of admixture, notably observed in the LOC105379109 gene. Despite differences in risk association loci, such as FOXP2, our findings suggest a possible homogeneity in genetic variation's impact on ADHD between Colombian and Mexican populations. Current reference datasets for ADHD predominantly consist of samples with high European ancestry, underscoring the need for further research to enhance the representation of reference populations and improve the identification of ADHD risk traits in Latin Americans.

Human identification: an investigation of 3D models of paranasal sinuses to establish a biological profile on a modern UK population

Medical imaging is a valuable source for facilitating empirical research and provides an accessible gateway for developing novel forensic anthropological methods for analysis including 3D modelling. This is especially critical for the United Kingdom (UK), where methods developed from modern UK populations do not currently exist. This study introduces a new approach to assist in human identification using 3D models of the paranasal sinuses. The models were produced from a database of 500 modern CT scans provided by University College London Hospital. Linear measurements and elliptic Fourier coefficients taken from 1500 three-dimensional models across six ethnic groups assessed by one-way ANOVA and discriminant function analysis showed a range of classification rates with certain rates reaching 75-85.7% (p < 0.05) in correctly classifying age and sex according to size and shape. The findings offer insights into the potential for employing paranasal sinuses as an attribute for establishing the identification of unknown human remains in future crime reconstructions.

Forensic anthropologists and estimates of skeletal completeness: The impacts of training and experience

Forensic anthropologists engage with numerous and diverse stakeholders in their casework. Regarding the recovery of human remains, these stakeholders may be interested in quantifying or qualifying the amount of remains recovered. How forensic anthropologists respond to such questions, whether verbally or in written reporting, has the potential to impact the trajectory of a case. However, communications about skeletal completeness are rarely discussed within the field. Current data-collection procedures recommend the use of inventories. This approach may be less feasible for complicated assemblages involving commingling or high degrees of fragmentation. Numerous methods exist to quantify the amount of skeletal remains present in complex or larger assemblages, but it remains unclear to what extent forensic anthropologists utilize these methods and whether factors like degree of expertise influence analysts' ability to report skeletal completeness consistently and precisely. A study was designed to examine differences between public and professional perceptions of skeletal completeness, presenting images of incomplete bones and skeletal remains. Survey participants were asked to assess the completeness of the remains in each image. Few patterns were observed regarding photographs of skeletal assemblages, but distinct differences were observed among individual bones between respondents with different degrees of expertise. These responses reflect potentially unexamined assumptions underlying assessments of incomplete bones and skeletal assemblages. This highlights the necessity of standardizing how we report estimates of completeness within the forensic anthropology community and how we discuss these results with external stakeholders. Completeness estimates must be either removed from reports and bench notes or annotated and cited clearly, as is standard with other aspects of forensic anthropological analysis. Several methods are summarized, with recommendations for integrating them into casework.

Investigating identification disparities in forensic anthropology casework

Forensic anthropology is shifting to reflect on the impact of its practices within the criminal justice context in important ways. Here, we contribute to this essential work by examining how decedent demographics as well as estimations of biological profile components are related to identification trends in forensic anthropology cases. The study uses data from more than 1,200 identified and unidentified forensic anthropology cases from three agencies (together representing a nation-wide sample). We found the following: i) multivariate analyses indicated that decedent sex, age, and race and/or ethnicity are not related to case identification rates in the pooled United States sample, ii) when identification rate differences do occur, they appear to be smaller effects, more agency-specific, and/or related to the context of a particular agency, iii) for the agency-specific sample with available data, there was no consistent evidence for a discrepancy in the duration of an identification investigation based on a decedent's sex, age, or race and/or ethnicity, iv) forensic anthropological estimations of sex, age, and ancestry can improve the odds of identification for decedents, although these are small effects, and v) reporting an ancestry estimation does not appear to impact decedent race representation among resolved unidentified person cases. Although previous studies have identified demographic discrepancies in other areas of the criminal justice system, the results presented here suggest that decedent demographic estimation practices by forensic anthropologists in general do not appear to be related to discrepancies in identification trends, but more research is needed to examine whether these findings hold. Contextual factors and practices specific to each investigative agency likely contribute to identification trends.

Objectivity is a myth that harms the practice and diversity of forensic science

•

Forensic science data are theory laden; pure scientific objectivity is a myth.

•

Upholding this myth marginalizes forensic scientists with subjective positionalities

•

Objectivity rhetoric is exclusive; ethical forensic science needs diverse perspectives.

•

Espousing objectivity prevents us from supporting the communities we serve.

•

Mitigated objectivity acknowledges implicit bias, constraining it via quality control.

The need to incorporate human variation and evolutionary theory in forensic anthropology: A call for reform

In 1992, Norm Sauer called for a language shift in which practitioners would move away from the socially loaded term "race" and replace it with the less provocative term "ancestry." While many heeded the call and moved towards ancestry in their research and reports, the actual approach to research and analysis did not change. In response to this change, there was a large growth in ancestry estimation method development in the early decade of the 2000s. However, the practice of ancestry estimation did not adequately incorporate evolutionary theory in interpretation or trait selection and continued with little critical reflection. In the past decade, there has been an increase in ancestry validation methods with little critique of the "race" concept or discussion of modern human variation or reference samples. To advance, forensic anthropologists need to reckon with the practice of ancestry estimation as it is currently practiced. We are calling for another reform in the axiom focusing on evolutionary theory, population history, trait selection, and population-level reference samples. The practice needs to abandon the terms ancestry and race completely and recalibrate to an analysis of population affinity. Population affinity is a statistical approach based on the underlying population structure that would allow the understanding of how microevolutionary forces act in concert with historical events (e.g., colonization, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, etc.) to shape modern human variation. This is not to be confused with geographic ancestry that all too often can be perceived as interchangeable with social race and as an affirmation of the biological concept of race. It is time to critically evaluate the social and scientific implications of the current practice of ancestry estimation, and re-frame our approach to studying and analyzing modern human variation through a population structure approach.

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.

Evaluating population affinity estimates in forensic anthropology: Insights from the forensic anthropology database for assessing methods accuracy (FADAMA)

Using a sample of anonymized U.S. forensic anthropology cases (n = 251) from the FADAMA database, we assess the degree of concordance between decedents' social identifiers and anthropologists' continental-based classifications. We report high success rates (>90%) that generally support previous findings, yet we acknowledge the limitations of assessing "ancestry" accuracy based on resolved cases and draw attention to situations in which our methods fail. For example, forensic anthropologists achieve just 20% accuracy when classifying individuals as "other" or "mixed"-problematic categories that we argue should be rejected. Leveraging our findings, we ask: what are we really estimating when we perform a skeletal assessment of "ancestry" in the US context? We argue that the "ancestry estimates" historically and routinely produced in forensic anthropology instead give information on population affinity: a measure of how similar a given case is to one among several socially relevant groups of interest. Distancing forensic anthropology from genetics and other disciplines that estimate ancestry, the approach of population affinity assesses similarities to both social and biological groupings, potentially at a fine-grained level, attempting to account for the complex histories, shared biologies, and wide ranges of diversity that characterize our communities and our casework. Population affinity is a flexible and inclusive approach that more accurately describes current forensic anthropological analyses of human variation. Going forward, we must acknowledge and build on the contributions of previous scholars as we work together toward our shared goal of theoretically grounded analyses of human variation that accurately and equitably serve all casework decedents.

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Since the professionalization of US‐based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases. Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board‐certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories. Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal‐based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.