Exploring Theoretical Approaches to Practicing Paleogenomics
Background
I view this piece as a retrospective culmination of my experiences at Stanford, applying the ways of thinking that I've picked up from my training in archaeology as a critical lens of scientific work, drawing from the work of scholars in processualist, Indigenous, and Black feminist thought to think through what an engaged practice of paleogenomics, informed by archaeological theory, might look like. In this piece, I emphasize the importance of science communication as part of that practice, which hearkens back to my roots in the NSC program: the lack of science communication in paleogenomics was one of the biggest motivators for me to join in the first place.
Reflection
The first class in archaeology that I took at Stanford was a 3 person seminar on Zoom examining the intersection of ancient DNA research and bioethics, and one of the things that struck me as I was delving into this burgeoning field was the reluctance of many prominent scholars to engage with non-scientists about their work. From an unwillingness to translate their research to the public and believing that it was the job of the journalist to be a science communicator, to some labs walking back on their promises to return to communities where they worked with their results, a large part of the ethical failure of scientists was not valuing communication and engagement with the people that they worked with and for.
This piece focuses heavily on the theoretical underpinnings of what I call a "more transparent, rigorous, accessible, and ethical practice of paleogenomics" as per the guidelines of the paper, but I would love to expand on this piece to focus on the role of science communication as a vital skill in this field as it is in archaeology. In paleogenomics, this expands beyond community engagement in the places researchers work—it's an active presence in dispelling misinformation online, providing mentorship to interested students, and being vocal about correcting the wrongs that our predecessors in biological anthropology have done.