The Flawed Logic of the Biology of Race: Reexamining Forensic Anthropological Biological Affinity Methods

Forensic anthropologists are vital in identifying victim profiles when typical methods, which are usually completed by a medical examiner, witness, or law enforcement officer, cannot be utilized.  Forensic anthropologists are responsible for various aspects of a victim’s identity based on their skeletal remains in order to identify who they were so justice can be served and family’s reach closure.  These are very hefty responsibilities that fall upon forensic anthropologists, and it is important to know what can and cannot be done by a forensic anthropologist.  One of the victim profile requirements, specifically related to identifying a victim’s race, has recently come under necessary scrutiny, and this blog post will further explore this topic by noting the problematic nature of race analyses within the field of forensic anthropology.

 

With victim identification forensic anthropologists are responsible for identifying the sex, age-at-death, stature, and various other aspects of a victim’s biology, which includes the problematic matter of the victim’s race.  This analysis comes under several names, including biological affinity, ancestry, and population affinity, but ultimately they all meet the same requirement: applying a “race” to the victim.  This is meant to act as an additional factor in narrowing down who the victim may be.  This is particularly pertinent and necessary if and when there are multiple potential victims the deceased could be, such as in cases of mass disasters or areas where there are multiple missing persons who could be deceased. 

 

As necessary as the need for multiple identity factors is for specifically identifying who a deceased individual is the use of race as one of those components is incredibly problematic, for the reasons listed in the points below:

-First, there are no morphological characteristics that are exclusive to any one human group.  Genetically speaking all humans, regardless of “race” or “biological affinity”, are 98% similar, and there is greater variation within “racial groups” than among all humans globally.  As noted in a previous post and in the strict stance taken by the American Anthropological Association there is no biological evidence to support “races” and race is recognized as a strictly sociocultural concept.

-Second, the methods used by forensic anthropologists to identify “race” are falsely believed to be heritable in nature, and they actually are not.  Furthermore, the methods used by forensic anthropologists are different from those used by skeletal biologists, bioarchaeologists, and population geneticists.  Their methods have been and are continually tested to determine their validity and acceptability, and any and all limitations are expressly noted within studies.  This is not the case in forensic anthropological reports, wherein the methods are popularized as flawless and conclusions definitive.

-Third-Part 1, racial classifications used by forensic anthropologists are limited and do not match the diverse array of “racial” groups that most societies recognize.  Therefore, the “race” assessment made by the forensic anthropologist may not match up with what the victim self-identified as or as others who knew the victim would identify. 

-This has actually happened in a case in Montana.  A deceased woman discovered almost 40 years ago was misidentified by her teeth as being of Asian descent, but in reality she was Caucasian.  This misidentification led to her case not only remaining unresolved for several decades but caused her son, who spent years looking for her, to not conclude that she was in fact his mother quite simply because she had been misidentified as Asian.

-Third-Part 2, furthermore, as reports are handed to law enforcement agents who ultimately make the victim identification they may misidentify a victim’s race at any point in the investigation, thereby delaying justice.

-In this vein there is also the issue of whether or not the criminal justice agents will conduct an adequate investigation if a victim is viewed as being of an inferior “race” or group, as well as problems with minority populations reporting missing individuals to criminal justice officials due to the history of mishandling investigations or inappropriate conduct between both parties.

-Fourth, the forensic anthropological methods continue to support flawed logic of biological determinism, which forwards and promotes racist, prejudicial, and discriminatory stereotypes and ideas about “racial” groups.

-Fifth, the forensic anthropological methods for determining “race” are based on flawed science.

 

It is of the utmost importance, particularly given the sensitive and critical role of the forensic anthropologist, that victim identification methods be as accurate and thorough as possible.  It is the argument of thoroughness that has led many forensic anthropologists to be unwilling to abandon these methods, but it is a subject that requires a great deal of scrutiny and reevaluation.  As the forensic anthropological methods related to identifying race are problematic and the “race” concept is not biologically supportable it would seem best that this measure of victim identification be abandoned.

 

References

Bethard, J. D., & DiGangi, E. A. (2020). Letter to the Editor—Moving Beyond a Lost Cause: Forensic Anthropology and Ancestry Estimates in the United States. Journal of Forensic Science, 1-2.

Murphy, H. (2021, May 13). Remains Found 36 Years Ago in Montana Are Identified. New York Times.

Welsch, R. L., Vivanco, L. A., & Fuentes, A. (2017). Anthropology: Asking Questions about Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.