Received: 1 September 2020 | Accepted: 8 October 2020 DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.14616 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Commentary on: Bethard JD, DiGangi EA. Letter to the Editor—Moving beyond a lost cause: Forensic anthropology and ancestry estimates in the United States. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(5):1791–2. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14513. See Original Article here placed upon them by society, is incorporated into all aspects of their identity. There are no exceptions for the deceased; these labels ac- Editor, company one into the identification process (e.g., NamUs, NCIC, Recently, Drs. Bethard and DiGangi opened a dialogue on the ap- Death Certificates). As stated by Cunha and Ubelaker (7:90) [7], plication of ancestry estimation as part of the biological profile in “Since missing persons are frequently described using racial termi- forensic anthropology [1]. Ancestry estimation of human skeletal nology, forensic anthropologists are guided to use that terminology remains is routinely used to predict a probable social race based on as well.” Moreso than most fields, forensic anthropologists accept metric and morphological data from the skeleton. Anthropologists the race concept is far too simple for human biological variation accept the social construction of race and are acutely aware of its [8]. However, skeletal features can be used to make predictions harmful impact in American society, particularly with respect to the about probable social race groups because of their correlations to historic use of anthropology to promote scientific racism. When local population distributions. Importantly, the same morphologi- scientists fail to ‘call out’ racist ideas in their field, these ideas can cal features could also be used to classify groups defined by lan- become embedded within institutions and society, further reifying guage, nationality, or time period because those are all features that racist ideology [2]. In this context, we wish to respond to Bethard structure populations [9–12]. Research has assessed accuracy rates and DiGangi's request to open a conversation regarding the use of of ancestry estimations by forensic anthropologists and reported ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology and how it contributes correct ancestry estimates at 90.9% [13]. Contra to Bethard and to the identification process. In this letter, we provide a foundation DiGangi, these results highlight the strong concordance between for a conversation about ancestry as a means to encourage thought- genomic ancestry and self-reported race/ethnicity in the United ful discussion moving forward on the issues of redress, diversity, and States [14–16]. Further, ancestry estimation contributes to identi- multi-disciplinary collaboration. fying medicolegal significance of skeletal material (i.e., historic or Biological anthropologists have long rejected the validity of social modern) and plays a role in repatriation efforts [17–20]. race as biologically grounded and the racist ideas that were historically Bethard and DiGangi broach concerns on the use of race in modern embraced by members in the field [e.g., 3–6]. Still, anthropologists today U.S. society in general, and in forensic science and law enforcement in continue to salve the festering scars of erroneous race science borne particular; these are not new concerns in our field. Research has explored from their disciplinary forbearers. Science can reflect the subtle biases differential identification rates attributed to structural vulnerability in the of its practitioners, and mitigating these biases requires constant, in- demographic caseload of forensic anthropologists, both broadly [21] and tentional, and engaged effort. Whereas in the past, anthropologists ap- specific to the US–Mexico border [22–25]. Efforts have been made to proached human diversity with hierarchical models of superiority and develop reference databases for under-represented groups in the United immutability, researchers today investigate gradient patterns of human States, so that these groups are reflected within forensic anthropologi- variation, decouple social races from traits, implement probabilistic as- cal methods [26]. Forensic anthropologists strive to modify policies and sessments, and collect data from worldwide samples. procedures to better center marginalized or under-represented groups, As part of the medicolegal community seeking justice for the as well as collaborate with multiple agencies (e.g., NGOs) to increase the deceased and closure for the living, forensic anthropologists must rate of positive identifications of undocumented migrants [27]. Beyond delicately balance the complicated relationships between popu- addressing needs in the field, additional catalysts for these deeper ex- lation history, social constructs, and legal systems not only in an- plorations were likely the 2009 National Academy of Sciences Report cestry estimation, but in the totality of the biological profile. For and major legal rulings that demanded an increase in scientific rigor of ancestry, we link skeletal biology to a probable social race category. all forensic methods, including the development of probabilistic-based A person's social race, whether it is a self-identified label or one estimates and addressing cognitive bias and error analysis [28–33]. J Forensic Sci. 2021;66:417–420. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfo © 2020 American Academy of Forensic Sciences | 417 418 | LETTER TO THE EDITOR As part of these broad concerns, Bethard and DiGangi sug- authors of this response, are actively involved in communication gest that the inclusion of ancestry estimation may lead to systemic with our stakeholders (weekly in some cases), provide continuing problems in the investigation process. Yet, no empirical data indi- education training and services for medicolegal groups (law en- cate that forensic anthropological ancestry estimates promote ra- forcement, ABMDI, coroner training, etc.), and offer free speaking cially biased investigative outcomes. Before the discipline rushes to events to the public and interested parties. Additionally, many fo- dismantle the use of ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology rensic anthropologists maintain detailed databases of casework that casework, we encourage researchers to reflect on the contributory are used to monitor its progression through the identification pro- role these results play, or do not play, in the dynamic process of cess. Subsequently, the information can be used to cross-check the identification. The difficulties forensic anthropologists experience accuracy of biological profile estimates once positively identified. in using ancestry terminology, its impact on the solvability of cases, Forensic anthropologists are encouraged to contribute to databases and the utility of the ancestry estimation as dependent on the pop- dedicated to increasing reference samples so they better reflect so- ulation demographics have been recognized in published literature ciety (i.e., Forensic Data Bank) and/or for assessing method accuracy [21,34,35]. Ultimately, addressing systemic problems, as with the (i.e., FADAMA). “Missing White Woman Syndrome,” is a conversation that ought to at least include policy, victim advocacy, and medicolegal and law enforcement communities, along with all other relevant stakeholders. CO N C LU S I O N Anthropology can contribute to this discussion, but this is a much broader societal issue. Bethard and DiGangi's letter to the editor does not acknowledge the A specific recommendation by Bethard and DiGangi is to dis- long-standing trend in biological anthropology to rebut typological continue the application of cranial morphoscopic traits. The au- approaches and to interpret human biological diversity as impacted thors focus on cranial morphoscopic traits ostensibly because of by complex sociocultural forces and microevolutionary processes. In their typological history, but this history is not unlike other meth- the same way that Bethard and DiGangi challenged us to find data- ods. Both metric and morphological assessments of cranial form driven support that ancestry inferences aid investigative outcomes, were prominently used for typological goals in anthropology's we also should be seeking data-driven support for the claimed nega- disciplinary infancy (e.g., 34–41). The pseudoscientific creation tive impacts of ancestry on investigations. Asking, and adequately of typological methods of the 19th and 20th century has left an answering, these big-picture, real-world application questions is an uncomfortable legacy that modern anthropologists have inher- essential part of any scientific discipline and certainly would inform ited and must wrestle with. Researchers have recognized this past the future practice of forensic anthropology in a positive way, re- and work to understand the limitations of how the current traits gardless of the conclusions. were selected, have decoupled traits from social race groups, and Is there more work to be done? Yes, most certainly. Can we have ultimately shown how traits vary within and among popu- envision a biological profile without ancestry? For many of us, the lations (e.g., 42–51). Furthermore, and importantly, unlike typo- answer is conditionally no. We believe abandoning the estimation logical approaches, current methods are grounded in statistical of ancestry without proper evaluation within our discipline and con- analyses that provide probabilistic statements. These associated sultation with our stakeholders could harm cultural redress in our probabilities provide forensic anthropologists with guidelines on society and stagnate and dogmatize our discipline. Nevertheless, we the practical reality of their estimates and provide insight into the agree that there should be conversation and research conducted on limitations of the estimations. For example, the forensic anthro- these issues as a means to best combat complacency in an imperfect pologist may report ancestry as indeterminate, with more than system. We call on our colleagues to (a) continue to understand the one group as possibilities, and/or into broadly defined geographic genetic and environmental facets of the traits, features, and mea- groups. surements we assess for all aspects of the biological profile; (b) con- Bethard and DiGangi argue against the evolutionary and eco- textualize the practice of ancestry estimation within the biological geographic grounding of cranial morphoscopic traits central to fo- and cultural frameworks in which it exists today; (c) continue to edu- rensic anthropological application, but assume a notion of heredity cate ourselves, the public, law enforcement, students, and others on that is unreasonable in this context. Some, if not most, cranial mor- the evolutionary framework of human populations and the historic phoscopic traits are latent traits (i.e., interorbital breadth and nasal circumstances that lead to racial ideologies; (d) be engaged profes- width are visual assessments of cranial measurements) and as such, sionals and be active advocates for our cases; (e) implement best heritability estimates can be extrapolated from studies exploring the practices to ensure quality case results and traceability; (f) reject continuous and genetic data [51–58]. Hefner and Linde [52] provide manuscripts that contain racialized and racist science when submit- succinct descriptions of each morphoscopic trait and include such ted to scientific journals; and (g) have a conversation regarding the topics as heritability, historical development, gross anatomy, and responsibility anthropologists bear to redress this systemic problem. functional morphology in their discussion. Forensic anthropology is not practiced the same by everyone, Kyra E. Stull PhD1,2 everywhere. But many forensic anthropologists, including the Eric J. Bartelink PhD3 | LETTER TO THE EDITOR Alexandra R. Klales PhD 4 Gregory E. Berg PhD5 Michael W. Kenyhercz PhD2,5 Ericka N. L’Abbé PhD2 Matthew C. Go PhD6 Kyle McCormick PhD5 Carlos Mariscal PhD1 1 University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV, USA 2 University of Pretoria, Arcadia, South Africa Email: kstull@unr.edu 3 California State University, Chico, CA, USA 4 Washburn University, Topeka, KS, USA 5 Department of Defense POW/MIA A-ccounting Agency, Central Identification Laboratory, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI, USA 6 Supporting the Department of Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Central Identification Laboratory, SNA International, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI, USA ORCID Kyra E. Stull https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4541-6777 Eric J. Bartelink https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5050-4088 Gregory E. Berg https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4225-1783 Ericka N. L’Abbé https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6722-8814 Carlos Mariscal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6912-1319 REFERENCES 1. Bethard JD, DiGangi EA. Letter to the Editor—Moving beyond a lost cause: Forensic anthropology and ancestry estimates in the United States. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(5):1791–2. https://doi. org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513. 2. Marks J. Is science racist? Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2017. 3. American Anthropological Association. AAA statement on race. 1998. https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Conte nt.aspx?ItemNumber=2583. Accessed 8 Oct 2020. 4. American Association of Physical Anthropologists. AAPA statement on race and racism. 2019. https://physanth.org/about/posit ion-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/. Accessed 8 Oct 2020. 5. Race, Ethnicity, and Genetics Working Group. The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;77(4):519–32. 6. Society of Forensic Anthropologists (SOFA). Statement on race, racism, and diversity in forensic anthropology. 2020. http://www. sofai nc.org/in-the-news/state mento nrace racis mandd ivers ityin forensicanthropology. Accessed 8 Oct 2020. 7. Cunha E, Ubelaker DH. Evaluation of ancestry from human skeletal remains: A concise review. Forensic Sci Res. 2020;5(2):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2019.1697060. 8. Gravlee CC. How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. Am J Physical Anthropol. 2009;139(1):47–57. 9. Bamshad M, Wooding S, Salisbury BA, Stephens JC. Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race. Nat Rev Genet. 2004;5(8):598–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1401. 10. Hochman A. Racial discrimination: how not to do it. Stud Hist Philos Sci C. 2013;44(3):278–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. shpsc.2013.03.003. 419 11. Ousley S, Jantz R, Freid D. Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009;139(1):68–76. 12. Sauer NJ. Forensic anthropology and the concept of race: if races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them? Soc Sci Med. 1992;34:107–11. 13. Thomas RM, Parks CL, Richard AH. Accuracy rates of ancestry estimation by forensic anthropologists using identified forensic cases. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(4):971–4. https://doi. org/10.1111/1556-4029.13361. 14. Guo G, Fu Y, Lee H, Cai T, Harris KM, Li Y. Genetic bio-ancestry and social construction of racial classification in social surveys in the contemporary United States. Demography. 2014;51(1):141–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-013-0242-0. 15. Lao O, Vallone PM, Coble MD, Diegoli TM, Oven M, van Oven M, et al. Evaluating self-declared ancestry of U.S. Americans with autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA. Hum Mutat. 2010;31(12):E1875–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.21366. 16. Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, Kardia SLR, Zhu X, Brown A, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;76(2):268–75. 17. Hughes C, Juarez C, Zephro L, Fowler G, Chacon S. Past or present? Differentiating California prehistoric native American remains from forensic cases: An empirical approach. Intl J Osteoarchaeol. 2012;22(1):110–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.1192. 18. Jantz RL, Jantz LM. The remarkable change in Euro-American cranial shape and size. Hum Biol. 2016;88(1):56–64. https://doi. org/10.13110/humanbiology.88.1.0056 19. Jantz RL, Meadows Jantz L. Secular change in craniofacial morphology. Am J Hum Biol. 2000;12:327–338. 20. Ousley S, Billeck W. Federal repatriation legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repatriation. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005;128(S41):2–32. 21. Kimmerle EH, Falsetti A, Ross AH. Immigrants, undocumented workers, runaways, transients and the homeless: towards contextual identification among unidentified decedents. Forensic Sci Pol Manag. 2010;1(4):178–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1940904100 3636991. 22. Bartelink E. Identifying the difference: Forensic methods and the uneven playing field of repatriation. In: Latham K, O’Daniel A, editors. Sociopolitics of migrant death and repatriation. New York, NY: Springer; 2018:129–41. 23. Hinkes MJ. Migrant deaths along the California-Mexico border: an anthropological perspective. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00625.x 24. Hughes CE, Algee-Hewitt BFB, Reineke R, Clausing E, Anderson BE. Temporal patterns of Mexican migrant genetic ancestry: implications for identification. Am Anthrop. 2017;119(2):193–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12845. 25. Soler A, Beatrice JS. Expanding the role of forensic anthropology in a humanitarian crisis: An example from the USA-Mexico Border. In: Latham K, O'Daniel A, editors. Sociopolitics of migrant death and repatriation. Bioarchaeology and social theory. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018. p. 115–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31961866-1_9. 26. Spradley MK. Project IDENTIFICATION: developing accurate identification criteria for Hispanics. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2013. 27. Spradley MK, Herrmann NP, Siegert CB, McDaneld CP. Identifying migrant remains in South Texas: policy and practice. Forensic Sci Res. 2019;4(1):60–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2018.149 7437. 28. National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009. 420 | 29. Christensen AM, Crowder CM. Evidentiary standards for forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54(6):1211–1216. 30. Nikita E, Nikitas P. On the use of machine learning algorithms in forensic anthropology. Legal Med. 2020;47:101771. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2020.101771. 31. Ubelaker DH, Shamlou A, Kunkle A. Contributions of forensic anthropology to positive scientific identification: a critical review. Forensic Sci Res. 2018;4(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961 790.2018.1523704. 32. Wiersema J, Love JC, Naul LG. The influence of Daubert guidelines on anthropological methods and scientific identification in the medical examiner setting. In: Steadman DW, editor. Hard evidence: case studies in forensic anthropology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009:80–90. 33. Wiersema JM. Evolution of forensic anthropological methods of identification. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2016;6(3):361–9. https://doi. org/10.23907/2016.038. 34. Dunn RR, Spiros MC, Kamnikar KR, Plemons AM, Hefner JT. Ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology: a review. WIREs Forensic Science. 2020;2(4):e1369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1369. 35. Konigsberg LW, Algee-Hewitt BFB, Steadman DW. Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009;139:77–90. 36. Bhopal R. The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors: the birth of the scientific concept of race. BMJ. 2007;335(7633):1308–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39413.463958.80. 37. Broca P. Sur le volume et la forme du cerveau suivant les individus et suivant les races [On the volume and shape of the brain according to individuals and according to races]. Bulletins de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris. 1861;2:139–207, 301–21, 441–6. 38. Morton S. Crania Americana. Philadelphia, PA: Dobson; 1839. 39. Morton S. Catalogue of skulls of man, and the inferior animals, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Merrihew and Thompson Printers; 1849. 40. Retzius A. Ethnologische schriften von Anders Retzius: Nach dem tode des verfassers gesammelt [Ethnological writings by Anders Retzius: Collected after the author's death]. Stockholm, Sweden: P.A. Norstedt & Soner; 1864. 41. Shapiro H. The history and development of physical anthropology. Am Anthrop. 1959;61:371–9. 42. Atkinson ML, Tallman SD. Nonmetric cranial trait variation and ancestry estimation in Asian and Asian-derived groups. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(3):692–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14234. 43. Berg GE, Kenyhercz MW. Introducing human mandible identification [(hu)MANid]: a free, web-based GUI to classify human mandibles. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(6):1592–8. https://doi. org/10.1111/1556-4029.13479. LETTER TO THE EDITOR 44. Berg G, Ta’ala S, editors. Biological affinity in forensic identification of human skeletal remains: Beyond Black and White. Baco Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2015. 45. Go MC, Hefner JT. Morphoscopic ancestry estimates in Filipino crania using multivariate probit regression models. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2020;172(3):386–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa. 24008. 46. Hefner JT. The macromorphoscopic databank. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018;166(4):994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23492. 47. Hefner JT, Pilloud MA, Black CJ, Anderson BE. Morphoscopic trait expression in “Hispanic” populations. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60(5):1135–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12826. 48. Hurst CV. Morphoscopic trait expressions used to identify Southwest Hispanics. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57(4):859–65. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02080.x. 49. Scott GR, Pilloud M, Navega D, Coelho J. rASUDAS: a new webbased application for estimating ancestry from tooth morphology. Forensic Anthropology. 2018;1(1):18–31. https://doi.org/10.5744/ fa.2018.0003. 50. Spiros MC, Hefner JT. Ancestry estimation using cranial and postcranial macromorphoscopic traits. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(3):921– 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14231. 51. Harvati K, Weaver TD. Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006;288(12):1225–33. https://doi. org/10.1002/ar.a.20395. 52. Hefner JT, Linde KC. Atlas of human cranial macromorphoscopic traits. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Science & Technology; 2018. 53. Relethford JH. Craniometric variation among modern human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994;95(1):53–62. https://doi. org/10.1002/ajpa.1330950105. 54. Relethford JH. Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009;139:16–22. 55. Roseman CC. Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(35):12824–9. 56. Roseman CC. Random genetic drift, natural selection, and noise in human cranial evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2016;160(4):582– 92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22918. 57. Roseman CC, Weaver TD. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004;125(3):257–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10424. 58. Rosenberg NA. Genetic structure of human populations. Science. 2002;298(5602):2381–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.1078311.