Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33460459›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of physical anthropology2021

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

Elizabeth A DiGangi, Jonathan D Bethard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of physical anthropology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ancestry estimation: Methodological evolution and forensic implications.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Towards a forensic anthropology of structural vulnerability.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Forensic genetics through the lens of Lewontin: population structure, ancestry and race.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth A DiGangiDepartment of Anthropology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2403-7209
Jonathan D BethardDepartment of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9368-6627

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

CephalometryForensic AnthropologyRacismBlack or African AmericanFemaleHumansMaleOdontometrySkullToothUnited StatesWhite Peopleancestry estimationcraniometricscritical race theorydental morphologyforensic anthropologymorphoscopic traitsrace science

Identifiers

PMID33460459
PMCPMC8248240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.