Human genetic admixture through the lens of population genomics

Over the past 50 years, geneticists have made great strides in understanding how our species' evolutionary history gave rise to current patterns of human genetic diversity classically summarized by Lewontin in his 1972 paper, 'The Apportionment of Human Diversity'. One evolutionary process that requires special attention in both population genetics and statistical genetics is admixture: gene flow between two or more previously separated source populations to form a new admixed population. The admixture process introduces ancestry-based structure into patterns of genetic variation within and between populations, which in turn influences the inference of demographic histories, identification of genetic targets of selection and prediction of complex traits. In this review, we outline some challenges for admixture population genetics, including limitations of applying methods designed for populations without recent admixture to the study of admixed populations. We highlight recent studies and methodological advances that aim to overcome such challenges, leveraging genomic signatures of admixture that occurred in the past tens of generations to gain insights into human history, natural selection and complex trait architecture. This article is part of the theme issue 'Celebrating 50 years since Lewontin's apportionment of human diversity'.

Demography and the rise, apparent fall, and resurgence of eugenics

Demography was heavily involved in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century but, along with most other social science disciplines, largely rejected eugenic thinking in the decades after the Second World War. Eugenic ideology never entirely deserted academia, however, and in the twenty-first century, it is re-emerging into mainstream academic discussion. This paper aims, first, to provide a reminder of demography's early links with eugenics and, second, to raise awareness of this academic resurgence of eugenic ideology. The final aim of the paper is to recommend ways to counter this resurgence: these include more active discussion of demography's eugenic past, especially when training students; greater emphasis on critical approaches in demography; and greater engagement of demographers (and other social scientists) with biologists and geneticists, in order to ensure that research which combines the biological and social sciences is rigorous.

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.

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.

The Impact of Ancient Genome Studies in Archaeology

The study of ancient genomes has burgeoned at an incredible rate in the last decade. The result is a shift in archaeological narratives, bringing with it a fierce debate on the place of genetics in anthropological research. Archaeogenomics has challenged and scrutinized fundamental themes of anthropological research, including human origins, movement of ancient and modern populations, the role of social organization in shaping material culture, and the relationship between culture, language, and ancestry. Moreover, the discussion has inevitably invoked new debates on indigenous rights, ownership of ancient materials, inclusion in the scientific process, and even the meaning of what it is to be a human. We argue that the broad and seemingly daunting ethical, methodological, and theoretical challenges posed by archaeogenomics, in fact, represent the very cutting edge of social science research. Here, we provide a general review of the field by introducing the contemporary discussion points and summarizing methodological and ethical concerns, while highlighting the exciting possibilities of ancient genome studies in archaeology from an anthropological perspective.

Sociocultural determinants of health and wealth in historic African Americans

In this study, we examine the impacts of individual ancestry and socioeconomic status (SES) on health in historic African Americans through bioarchaeological means. We estimate ancestry from dental morphology and SES from the costs of coffin hardware. We include 188 adult individuals from Freedman's Cemetery in Dallas, Texas, and 2,301 individuals of African and European descent for comparison. Freedman's Cemetery functioned as the only cemetery available to freed people and their descendants between 1869 and 1907. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of dental morphological traits was used to estimate individual ancestry. LDA results were then used in Cox proportional hazards analysis to examine whether ancestry impacted mortality risk or SES. Ancestry was not found to impact SES. However, paralleling results from analysis of census mortality data, individuals with greater African ancestry on average have shorter lifespans and higher mortality hazards than individuals who have more European ancestry. This finding provides evidence for structural violence in this historic African American skeletal sample. The negative effects of social constructs are embodied and can be detected in skeletal samples through use of statistical methods combined with information about the cultural context in which people lived.