The concept of race has a complex history in the field of biological anthropology. Despite increased recognition of the racist origins of the discipline, there remains little agreement about what the concept means, how it is used, or how it is discussed. This study presents the results of a survey of biological anthropologists to investigate the relationship of biological anthropologists with race and ancestry. The survey focuses on the areas of research, public engagement, and teaching as related to these concepts. Results indicate that a large majority of biological anthropologists agree that race (as a social not biological concept) is separate from ancestry. The majority of respondents agreed that ancestry categories should be based on geography (e.g., Asian, European, and African), and more anthropologists thought the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” were inappropriate ancestry categories. While most respondents felt that discussions of these terms were not matters of “political correctness,” nearly a quarter of respondents suggested that concerns over the moral and ethical implications of research (e.g., photos, terminology, and ancestry) result in the silencing of anthropological research. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt that anthropologists have a responsibility to ensure the avoidance of misappropriation of their work by race science and by white nationalists/supremacists. Some differences in survey responses were found relating to respondents' subdiscipline, educational level, location, age, self-identified racial/ethnic categories, and gender. In regard to teaching, survey results indicate that these concepts are minimally covered in university classrooms. When taught, topics focus on the colonialist/racist history of anthropology, the presence of white privilege/supremacy, and racism. Based on the results of this survey, the authors argue for greater public engagement on these concepts, a standardized system of teaching race and ancestry, and a disciplinary conversation about practice and terminology. In this way, biological anthropologists can best place themselves to combat racism in a socially responsible way.

The humanitarian crisis on the US-Mexico border is a long-standing and evolving crisis in which nearly 8,000 deaths have been reported in the last two decades. These deaths are largely distributed across the Arizona-Mexico and Texas-Mexico border regions, where demographic trends for immigrants attempting to cross into the United States have shifted dramatically. The demographic change and volume of immigrants seeking shelter in the United States present new challenges for the forensic practitioners entrusted with the identification of individuals who lose their lives during the final segment of their journey. Within this border context, this study investigated how genetic variation inferred from forensically significant microsatellites can provide valuable information on regions of origin for unidentified remains at the group level. To explore how to mobilize these genetic data to inform identification strategies, the authors conducted a comparative genetic analysis of identified and unidentified immigrant cases from the Arizona- and Texas-Mexico contexts, as well as 27 other Latin American groups. Allele frequencies were utilized to calculate F_ST, and relationships were visually depicted in a multidimensional scaling plot. A Spearman correlation coefficient analysis assessed the strength and significance of population relationships, and an agglomerative clustering analysis assessed population clusters. Results indicate that Arizona-Mexico immigrants have the strongest relationship (>80%) with groups from El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and an indigenous group from southern Mexico. Texas-Mexico immigrants have the strongest relationships (>80%) with groups from Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. These findings agree with, and are discussed in comparison with, previously reported demographic trends, population genetics research, and population history analyses. The authors emphasize the utility and necessity of coupling genetic variation research with a nuanced anthropological perspective for identification processes in the US-Mexico border context.

Dental development has been used to assess whether an individual may be below or above an age that serves as a legal threshold. This study used development of the first and second mandibular molars from a large sample of individuals (N = 2,676) to examine the age threshold for minimum age of criminal responsibility. A bivariate ordered probit model was applied to dental scores following the Moorrees et al. (1963) system, with the addition of a crypt-absent/present stage. Then a 10-fold cross-validation within each of the sexes showed that the bivariate models produce unbiased estimates of age but are heteroskedastic (with increasing spread of the estimates against actual age). To address the age threshold problem, a normal prior centered on the threshold is assumed, and the product of the prior and the likelihood is integrated up to the age threshold and again starting at the age threshold. The ratio of these two integrals is a Bayes factor, which because the prior is symmetric around the threshold, can also be interpreted as the posterior odds that an individual is over versus under the age threshold. It was necessary to assume an unreasonably high standard deviation of age in the prior to achieve posterior odds that were well above “evens.” These results indicate that dental developmental evidence from the first and second molars is of limited use in examining the question of whether an individual is below or over the minimum age of criminal responsibility. As the third molar is more variable in its development than the first two molars, the question of dental evidence regarding the age of majority (generally 18 years) remains problematic.