The most important research presented at the AAPA meetings

And the most depressing.

So then we looked at the rate at which women and men experience sexual harassment and assault. 59% of our sample reported it, with women having a three times greater risk than men. 19% of our sample reported sexual assault, but while women did again have greater numbers, the male sample size in this group (n = 1) was too small to test this statistically.

These are some of the preliminary findings from a survey administered by Kate Clancy, Katie Hinde, Robin Nelson and Julienne Rutherford. Anthropology is defined in many ways by its association with intense, sustained field work. It is one of the most exciting parts of the job, but it is a profoundly liminal space and one that has great potential for abuse. I will have more to say about these findings later, but for now, I will let Kate and colleagues get the conversation started:

Too many of us, the authors of this study included, have told ourselves and others that we just need to “suck it up,” just endure one more day, to keep our heads down and power through. Survival in field-based academic science can’t just be about who can put up with or witness abuse the longest – that is not an appropriate metric to measure who is the best at their science. From here on out, let’s commit to opening up conversations about these issues, rather than avoiding or talking around them. Let’s continue to be the progressive field that interrogates gender disparities, and lead the way for the rest of the field-based sciences.

UPDATE: John Bohannon writes up this story for Science

Posted in Anthropology | Tagged | Comments Off on The most important research presented at the AAPA meetings

Talking about data access at the 2013 AAPAs

This week is the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA), in Knoxville, Tennessee. My visit to this year’s meetings is going to be an abbreviated one, owing to the realities of leaving a 3-week old at home. Nevertheless, I am part of what promises to be a really interested panel Thursday afternoon, organized by Graciela Cabana and Benjamin Auerbach and sponsored by Wiley-Blackwell, on the future of biological anthropology.

When I was initially approached by Graciela and Ben my immediate inclination was to focus on the connection between fossil and genetic studies, something near and dear to my interests. But as I began putting together a talk, I realized that in thinking about the future of paleoanthropology, the current wave of new genetic research makes the question of whether or not traditional paleoanthropology has a future a legitimate one to ask. The exciting changes in the narrative of modern human origins that have come about the past several years have only been indirectly linked to new fossil discoveries or fossil analyses. Instead, they have been because of the application of genetic technologies and the production of evolutionary genetic data (yes – the Denisovan genome required the discovery of the Denisovan fossils, but the importance of these data for paleoanthropology come almost entirely from the genetic, not the fossil, data).

In my talk, I try to introduce the basic point that traditional fossil data and genetic data are actually wonderfully complementary and have the potential to dramatically improve our ability to thoroughly and substantively test evolutionary hypotheses. However, the ability to do this is undercut by the difficulty in accessing basic paleoanthropological data, unlike genetic data which is far more readily available.

In the end, the evolution of my talk led to it begin a talk about proposing a true paleoanthropological, open-access, database. If paleoanthropology wants to continue to play an important role in understanding human evolution, it needs to do a better job of making data accessible. So that is what the talk focuses on.

The organizers of the session wanted to try and make this group of talks different than the traditional AAPA podium presentations. What they settled on was urging presenters to use a pecha kucha format in their talks, 20 slides, 30 seconds per slide, automatic advancing, no exception. 30 seconds, it turns out, is not a lot of time. You can see that if you go through my script in the slide notes of my presentation. I will try to expand on some of the points I raise in the next few days here, hopefully incorporating some of the discussion generated by the talk tomorrow.

In the meantime, you can access the powerpoint slides, with attached talk, at this link. Also, follow the hashtag #AAPA2013 for more updates from the meetings.

Posted in Anthropology, Fossils, Genetics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Meeting season

Spring conference season is underway, beginning with the Paleoanthropology Society meetings which are going on right now, concurrently with the Society for American Archaeology (SAAs) meetings, in beautiful Hawaii. Kate Wong (@katewong) is tweeting the meetings, using the hashtag #paleo13.

Next week the American Association of Physical Anthropology (AAPAs) meetings are in Tennessee, concurrent with the Paleopathology and Human Biology meetings.

Posted in Anthropology | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Ten fingers, ten toes

One of the reasons I love teaching anthropology is that it is so easy to draw a direct connection between what we are studying the the real life experiences of my students. The actions of evolution are ubiquitous in the world around us. Human biological variation, though differentially noticed, is unavoidable once you are made aware of it.

The connection between the real world and my teaching has taken on a unique element this semester, however, owing to the birth of my first child. I have seen several other biological anthropologists go through this process, and it is always fascinating to watch them identify evolutionary stages of development in their child, as well as experience such evolutionarily critical events, like childbirth, in their own lives. It is no different for me, although in my case, the real coincidental alignment between life and teaching comes via my personal genomics course (Anth 314 – Human Biology and Society). As part of this course my students had the opportunity to get genotyping done via 23andme.com, a service that I took advantage of just prior to the start of the semester, as well.

So all semester long I have been waiting for my personal genetic data to come back. As the anticipated arrival date of the little one got closer, I amusedly tweeted that it was looking more and more like the arrival of my personal genetic information and first child were going to be simultaneous events. The birth of our son was a planned c-section, and on the day of the event, I opted to use my phone as the least cumbersome camera in the operating room. Everything related to the procedure went wonderfully and our son was officially born at 1:14 pm. Within a few minutes, I was snapping pictures of him under the warming lamp, watching him get his initial screening from the nurses. A few minutes later, I was holding him alongside my wife, placing him on my wife’s chest, and taking pictures of it all.

And then, at 1:29pm, the banner alert across my phone said, “Your 23andMe results are ready!”

Toes

There I was, holding this 8 pound, 6 ounce package of newly emerged perfection in my arms, and there at the tip of my fingers, was a window into the genetic endowment I had provided him.

Throughout the semester, one of the issues we have returned to repeatedly is the complex social and ethical issues raised by the reality that your genome is not solely your own. It is inherited from your parents, shared with your siblings, and passed on to your children. Genetic information about you, and the knowledge generated by it, is not bounded by your own existence. If I was a carrier for something dramatic, it would also mean that at least one of my parents were as well, and it would mean this creation in my arms stood a 50% chance of inheriting that trait.

The very first assignment in our course was to put together, to the best of each student’s ability, a detailed family medical history. I did this exercise alongside my students and reaffirmed that in addition to being remarkably long-lived, there are not many (if any) red flags in my family history. Family medical histories are a pretty good preview of your genome in many ways, so I did not have any particular anxieties about finding a genetic goblin within my own data (Razib Khan and John Hawks had some interesting comments on family medical histories last week, by the way). Nevertheless, the alignment of events connecting my life and my teaching reached a dramatic level unlike anything I have experienced previously.

Over the span of the next several days, as my wife and I began the process of meeting our son, introducing him to the rest of our family, and developing new sleep habits, I gradually began to explore my 23andme data. I found myself gravitating towards the things I already know about myself. Risk for melanoma (something I have twice been diagnosed with) – lower than average according to 23andMe’s data. Risk for migraines (something I have recently experienced) – also lower than average. Bitter taster, yes. Brown eyes, yes. Fast caffeine metabolizer, yes. Major future health concerns indicated by the million or so SNPs 23andMe had typed – not really (though there is one topic I might explore in more depth later).

The process of comparing the knowledge (or at least information) given to me by 23andMe and my own existing knowledge reflected another class topic that has come up repeatedly. How do we integrate different kinds of knowledge? Personal genetic or genomic information reflects, potentially, a vast amount of knowledge about the basic underlying structure of your biology (it certainly contains a lot of information, anyway). Meanwhile, throughout your own life, we all accumulate a certain experiential knowledge about who we are as biological creatures with “known” relationships. In those initial days in the hospital and in the two weeks since, I cannot help but acknowledge how much I privilege the experiential knowledge generated by seeing my son–watching him notice the world, hearing him cry, wiggling his ten little toes and grabbing hold of me with his surprisingly strong ten little fingers–over the abstract knowledge of my own genetic endowment.

Posted in Anthropology, Genetics, Teaching | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Ten fingers, ten toes

DNA is not “the 21st century fingerprint”

SCOTUSblog has a great recap of oral arguments this week at the Supreme Court in the case of Maryland v King (docket 12-207). At issue is whether or not the state, in this case the Maryland police, have the right to take and archive genetic data from individuals arrested on, but not yet convicted of, felony charges. The case is one of several potentially important cases related to genetics and DNA technology appearing before the Supreme Court this year, the most significant, arguably, being the Association of Molecular Pathology v Myriad genetics, which will potentially determine the fate of genetic patents (and resolve whether or not isolated DNA is a “product of nature” under the law).

According to the SCOTUSblog reporting, Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly raised the issue of DNA being “the 21st century fingerprint.” By this, Justice Alito presumably meant that DNA has great forensic ability to identify who an individual is and potentially establish their presence at the scene of a crime. This is true. Your DNA is in unique to you (though the vast majority of it is shared broadly by humanity as a whole).

But DNA is not a fingerprint. There are important fundamental differences between DNA and fingerprints that merit consideration in how they are viewed in both public and legal discourse. The biggest difference is that while your fingerprints might uniquely identify you, they do not say much, if anything, else about you. This is because your fingerprints are a downstream expression of your phenotype. Your fingerprints are not causative agents in any meaningful way. Your DNA, while being a wonderful unique identifier, is a pluripotent causative agent. Your DNA, rather than being a downstream expression of your phenotype, is a very much an upstream shaper of your phenotype. Depending on what traits you are looking at and your individual genetic material, your DNA has the potential to say very meaningful things about not only who you are but what phenotypic characters you possess or may possess in the future. For example, your DNA can give you a definitive expectation of developing or not developing Huntington’s Disease based on variation in the Htt gene on chromosome 4. Such definitive or direct relationships between genotype and phenotype represent a minority of potential traits one might be interested in, but nevertheless they exist. In general, the degree to which one’s genotype is directly and meaningfully informative of phenotype is probably vastly overestimated by the public as a whole, creating an exaggerated sense of fear around issues of genetic privacy. Nonetheless, research within genetics is continually adding to our knowledge of these relationships.

DNA is not a fingerprint. DNA is not merely a metric that can be used for identification purposes. DNA is a functional element that plays a major role in the downstream production of phenotypic variation. This is a point I would hope the Supreme Court would keep in mind in rendering its decision on this, and any future related cases.

Posted in Genetics | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on DNA is not “the 21st century fingerprint”

Biological Anthropology fieldwork experiences

I have linked previously to Kate Clancy’s discussion of sexual harassment and field work in anthropology. This is an important, though often unspoken, issue within anthropology. Particularly for those subfields that have group, field-site focused research, “the field” is a complex social place, often lacking the traditional social norms/taboos/constraints that exist in normal day to day life. For many anthropologists, this is part of the appeal of the field. I know that as an early graduate student, one of the things I loved about the field was that I was in a place where I had no access to electricity, hot water or the usual tools that guide my tasks on a daily basis (computer, phone, internet). For eight weeks at a time, it was liberating. I was also part of a fairly large, but close, international group of researchers, many young graduate students, at the site. The environment was immensely formative for me as a researcher, peer and person. But the potential upside of the liminal state of “the field” have corresponding downsides as well, often evidenced by blurred social boundaries coupled with clear hierarchical power structures. I made sure to include a lecture on field ethics during the Dmanisi Field school to make spoken some of these unspoken issues with my students.

All of which is a prelude to say that if you have had a field experience in biological anthropology, you should strongly consider filling out this survey put together by Kate Clancy and colleagues (Robin Nelson, Julienne Rutherford, Katie Hinde).

Survey link here

Posted in Anthropology, Archaeology | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Biological Anthropology fieldwork experiences

Differing ends of the class size spectrum

I am currently in a bit of an interesting situation regarding my own teaching. For the first time since arriving at Wellesley I am teaching a senior-level seminar (with a focus on personal genomics). By Wellesley standards, the 19 students in the class are actually on the larger end of the spectrum for this kind/level of class. From my perspective, the class is off to a great start in its first four weeks, with students showing a strong level of interest and commitment in the courses’s topics, coming to class prepared with interesting perspectives and questions, and doing the work in and out of class. A few of them have even tweeted about the class (#wcanth314).

At the same time, I am contemplating putting in a proposal to do a course through Wellesley’s new partnership with edX for the 2013-2014 academic year.

The two courses, structurally, could not possibly be more different. In my current seminar, I meet individually with students throughout the semester on a regular basis in addition to in-class time (much of which is devoted to unstructured discussion) and frequent e-mails/course platform conversations. My students are getting to take advantage of the fact that I am a readily available individual resource. Meanwhile, I get to engage in fairly free-flowing, creative teaching–the kind of teaching that not only forces me to critically examine why I think (and teach) what I do, but also opens me up to alternative viewpoints. This is perhaps the biggest single added-value of the small, liberal arts College experience.

If I teach a course through WellesleyX, my enrollment could be in the thousands, or an order of magnitude more than the largest courses I have previously taught (~150). The necessities of production planning for such a course require a precisely planned and structured course, week by week, months in advance. In a topical area open to some subjectivity, like human evolution, this is itself a challenge. But it is also just an extremely different process than planning a more open-ended, partially student-driven, seminar. Done well and successfully, however, it offers the opportunity to reach thousands of students, not at an individual level from my vantage point as instructor, but possibly from the view of a student. If students watch 30 hours of me speaking throughout the semester, they will surely get a pretty good insight into me, even if all I ever see of them is a discussion forum uniquename. Teaching in a massively open environment also opens you up to a level of professional scrutiny different than that of the typical peer review, publication and response system (see this story about a UC-Irvine MOOC).

The two courses cannot in any way be equivalent. They are different on nearly every level, and yet this should not be surprising as their aims, aside from the poorly delimited concept of “teaching,” are quite different. I remain skeptical of what, if anything, Wellesley provides to the arena as a liberal arts institution. But I remain intrigued by the aim to provide not something that stands in for traditional, in-class teaching, but sits complementary to it.

Posted in Anthropology, Teaching | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Differing ends of the class size spectrum

Interesting pedigrees

I am in the midst of examining and grading an assortment of personal pedigree assignments for my personal genomics course. It is always interesting to see the complexity of reality, particularly reality in a place that has considerable diversity in many respects like Wellesley. With these thoughts in my head, I thought this slideshow of some of President Obama’s extended family was pretty interesting to look at. I have used the picture below (typically with the President’s head hidden at first, asking if anyone can identify the man on the left) in my classes in discussions of race and ancestry and found it to be effectively confounding/surprising to students:

This is also a good chance to link to my previous exploration of real-world family structures

Posted in Demography | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Interesting pedigrees

Good advice

Given the recent chatter about reviving Neandertals, I think this is sage advice:

Posted in Fossils | Tagged , | Comments Off on Good advice

Social media in the classroom

Added to my introductory lectures this semester…

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , | Comments Off on Social media in the classroom