Sophia Dibbini April 20, 2016
Augenstein, Seth. "'Letting Data Paint the Picture': Anthropologist Combines Skull Measurements with DNA." Forensic Magazine. N.p., 20 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
The article “‘Letting Data Paint the Picture’: Anthropologist Combines Skull Measurements with DNA” concerns examining deceased bodies in hopes for new information on the ancestry and history of the deceased. Since bodies are deceased and old, it is hard to derive information. The first step, this article states, is to determine the ancestry of the deceased. “Craniometrics” is an anthropological discipline where measurements of the skull are used to determine someone’s ancestry. Investigators used this type of forensic science to investigate the bodies by examining the skull’s shape and size. It can be very accurate with people from one genetic background- but the more mixed ancestry there is, the less reliable it becomes. This leads to one problem- in a diverse combination of genes, fewer people than ever before are from one ethnic group. Even those who identify as black or white may have a complex DNA palette producing unique body dimensions- including skull shape and size. A recent paper proposes to update and improve the skull-measuring discipline, and to bring it in line with the most recent DNA analysis instead of self-reported ethnic background. Algee-Hewitt of Stanford University states that “genetics has taken the whole question of ancestry up to a completely different level” and “we now have standards and methods that are very refined in genetics that we need to start applying to craniometrics so that we have compared analyses and comparable data returns.” Once a person was classified simply as “white or “black” or “Asian” or “Native American.” But now the percentages of each racial group we acquire over generations has made genetic portraits much, much more complex. Even medicine has begun a major shift as the effectiveness of drugs and medical interventions has become intertwined with a person’s DNA. A prime example of the current difficulties with racial classification is the category currently known as “Hispanic.” “Hispanic” is really an all-including term that groups together diverse groups of Mexicans, Guatemalans, South Americans of dozens of nations and ethnic groups. Identifying them and trying to notify their “next of kin” back home has been a humanitarian crisis. This work is not yet complete, and investigators are continuing to study this issue to refine the study of craniometrics.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of skeletal remains lay bare, unidentified and unknown. Craniometrics has identified and classified many of those skeletons with one genetic background, but leave the others with more mixed ancestry unidentified and unsolved. Medicine and genomics has also shifted in its quality and relevance of its work, revolutionizing forensic science. Adapting population assignment methods from genetics can be information in forensic anthropology. The methods accommodate individuals who do not fit neatly into predefined population categories. The next step for the work is to take the mathematical models and make them more comprehensive with thousands more cross-referenced samples. The equations and methodology are all open-source. Mixing anthropology with DNA is only going to get more complicated, but accurate. By combining craniometry with the latest genetics, people can be better identified, and crimes can be solved.
The author does a great job of setting up the article because he goes from introducing craniometrics to talking about these investigations and problems. One major strength of this article is the introduction and clear description of craniometrics. The author introduces this term to the reader, one of which I had never heard of before, and talks about its importance in forensic science. Another strength is the author’s connection to Algee-Hewitt and her information and view on this topic. She provides good information and opinions and it was smart of the author to incorporate her into the article, it made it flow better. Although this article had many strengths, it also had some weaknesses. First, the author did not do a good job of explaining background information on this topic and why it is being discussed- it would have been better if he mentioned why this is an important issue and what problems have led up to dealing with this issue. Also, although the author referenced the new ideas and actions being taken towards this issue, he did not talk about the new processes coming into play to help investigate the deceased- It would have made the article better if he had talked about these new and updated processes. Even though there were some weaknesses, the article was very interesting and relevant. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and look forward to learning more about this topic when new information is found.
1 comment:
Sophia Dibbini’s current event brings back so many memories from earlier in the year. Although I was never part of the A/B class, the E/F class did an investigation that briefly touched upon craniometrics and the study of other skeletal parts.
Overall, the current event touched upon every point of the original article clearly and completely, often quoting the source directly. This greatly augmented her claims and supported her significance and critique paragraphs strongly. For instance, Dibbini takes an enormous amount of effort to detail and explain craniometrics, thus making the reader more aware of the current event’s relevancy, even from the beginning.
Secondly, the current event expands on many important terms, such as craniometrics and assignment methods, which she reviews step by step in her second paragraph. By doing this, she also analyzes the results of the development of these methods. Last but not least, the current event is rather well-written. The sentence structure is varied; the paragraphs flow well, and Dibbini also includes a rich vocabulary. The sheer amount of effort placed into this work is quite appreciated!
However, even Sophia has her work cut out for her. A lot of the information she states in the first paragraph is often repeated in the second. For instance, Dibbini writes, “It [craniometrics] can be very accurate with people from one genetic background- but the more mixed ancestry there is, the less reliable it becomes.” Later on in the second paragraph, she adds, “Craniometrics has identified and classified many of those skeletons with one genetic background, but leave the others with more mixed ancestry unidentified and unsolved.” Essentially, these two statements are making the same point and expands the current event unnecessarily.
In order to remedy this, it is important to make sure your paragraphs work well together and remove the silo paragraph structure entirely. Treating them like separate entities will not work in the favor of the writer because this writing style combines analysis and summary into two well-blended paragraphs that are arranged through the progression of her ideas. Like a house blend coffee, it tastes fantastic, but you have to let the coffee’s flavor develop over time.
Also, I disagree with some of the points made in the critique paragraph. First of all, Dibbini argues that the article fails to explain background information and why the issues it poses are being brought up currently. And it IS an easy argument to make because the implications are so subtle.
Most of the points that the article’s author gives are merely implied. For example, he implies why this is an important issue through Algee-Hewitt’s quote: ”There’s always been this uncomfortable positions as a skeletal person versus a DNA person, because you have two different data types and they each go away and do their analysis. Doing two completely different things,” she said. “This is bridging a gap that has a long history of being a gap.” By presenting an expert’s opinion and her conclusions, he can bring to life little epiphanies - one by one - in the reader’s mind regarding the significance of this article. Also, in the first two paragraphs of the article, Seth Augustein briefly explains why the issues are being brought up currently; it is due to America’s melting pot of genes and due to the recent availability of biotechnology that can analyze DNA. He does not explain this overly because this is merely an introduction to an article. After all, he has other points to make.
Nonetheless, I really enjoyed this little trip to the past. I felt that Dibbini had picked out a particularly nice article and reviewed it appropriately. It is always a pleasure to read articles and current events based on past investigations. Out of the recent batch of current event reviews, this one caught my eye rather quickly since it was posted so soon after mine. I am happy to say it did not disappoint.
Post a Comment