The emergence of biomedical anthropology and its implications for the future

Primarily during the past 15 years a distinct new area within physical anthropology has emerged, biomedical anthropology. Physical anthropologists have become heavily involved in studying problems of relevance to the health and illness patterns of living humans. There has been a proportionate increase in biomedically focused papers published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, in biomedically focused papers presented at annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and in physical anthropology doctoral dissertations oriented toward modern biomedical phenomena. Proportionately more physical anthropologists are now employed in medical schools and there has been recent growth in the proportion of physical anthropologists in anthropology departments who claim some aspect of biomedical anthropology as a research interest. Increasingly, physical anthropologists are focusing their research on cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in America. These distinct trends are partially a result of the nature of physical anthropology and its unique biocultural perspective. However the growth of applied anthropology, the present academic marketplace, and the availability of research funds are probably also contributing factors. The emergency of biomedical anthropology holds promise for the future of physical anthropology and for its current employment crisis. Careers with academic and nonacademic organizations engaged in biomedical research appear to be a viable alternative to careers in departments of anthropology, for biomedical anthropologists. This will entail some reorientation of graduate training for physical anthropologists. More emphasis will have to be placed on substantive biomedical subjects, research methods, and data management and analysis.     

W. Montague Cobb (1904–1990): Physical Anthropologist, Anatomist, and Activist

William Montague Cobb's life and work reflect a profound integration of art, literature, social activism, and science. This article presents some of the highlights of his academic development and professional contributions. We have considered his early academic development within the contexts of the formative years of American physical anthropology, Howard University Medical School, and the social issues in American society that influenced Cobb. His approaches to teaching, anatomical and anthropological research, and medicine are unique, and yet are closely reasoned and creative reflections of the major currents of academe and the broader society with which he dealt. Imbued with a sense of social responsibility, Cobb's applied anthropology involved the accumulation of extensive data on the one hand, and the formation of organizations for social activism on the other. It was directed toward solving problems of health care and racism. His work thereby served to balance the widespread distortion and neglect of medical and racial problems facing A fro-America between 1930 and the present day. He was also a principal builder of black medical and scientific institutions, and he preserved the record of his coworkers' contributions through his many biographies. This work represents no more than a sketch of his rich and prolific career (during which he produced more than 1,100 publications); the emphasis of this biographical study has been to ascertain the circumstances and attitudes that helped mold the first Afro-American Ph.D. in physical anthropology.     

Understanding racism in physical (biological) anthropology

The mainstream of American physical anthropology began as racist and eugenical science that defended slavery, restricted “non-Nordic” immigration, and justified Jim Crow segregation. After World War II, the field became more anti-racial than anti-racist. It has continued as a study of natural influences on human variation and thus continues to evade the social histories of inequitable biological variation. Also reflecting its occupancy of white space, biological anthropology continues to deny its own racist history and marginalizes the contributions of Blacks. Critical disciplinary history and a shift toward biocultural studies might begin an anti-racist human biology.     

Capitalist Philanthropy and Russian Revolutionaries: The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1897-1902)

This review of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, still the most important expedition in American anthropology, gives an idea of the goals and hazards of fieldwork around 1900, the pitfalls of international research, the tensions between anthropologists and host populations, the careers of early anthropologists, the role of private philanthropy, and the character of anthropology at the turn of the century. Franz Boas was the Expedition's linchpin. His organization of the Expedition, the way he handled problems, and his personal concerns reveal aspects of his view of anthropology and some of his basic attitudes.     

The State of Biological Anthropology in 2008: Is Our Discipline Strong and Our Cause Just?

ABSTRACT   Biological anthropologists inform a largely professional discourse on the evolutionary history of our species. In addition, aspects of our biology, the ways in which we vary, and certain patterns of behavior are the subjects of a more public and popular conversation. The social contexts in which we work not only define our times but also produce the anthropologists that in turn construct an emergent understanding of our species' (and our societies') inner workings. In this review of scholarly production, I focus on developments within a selection of "sub-subdisciplines" that were particularly influential in bending the arc of biological anthropology in 2008, namely: evolutionary medical anthropology, anthropological neuroscience, forensic anthropology, primatology, and paleoanthropology. Ultimately, this review demonstrates, yet again, anthropology's great contribution: the ability to incorporate new technologies and research methodologies into a synthetic and integrative interdisciplinary approach toward the elucidation of human behavior, evolution, and biocultural engagements with the environment. [Keywords: biological anthropology, year in review, 2008, science and society]     

The American Anthropological Association and the Values of Science, 1935-70

American anthropologists have repeatedly addressed questions about the nature of anthropology as a science and the relationship of anthropology to society. Complex interactions between anthropology and political events in American life have challenged definitions of science, including anthropologists as citizens, scientists, and professionals and the roles they appropriately play. A series of exchanges and events between the 1930s and 1970 are examined in order to shed light on some of the recurrent dilemmas of definition and practice in anthropology as anthropologists have grappled with them in different times and in relation to different contexts. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, U.S. history, science]     

中国法医人类学三十年

法医人类学在上世纪80年代开始引起中国法医学界的重视。改革开放后, 经济发展人口流动增加, 全国范围内无名尸体案件增加, 对骨骼个体识别的需求日益迫切。为了满足案件侦察的需要, 国内学者开始引进国外的有关研究结果, 并开始使用国人的材料对中国人骨骼个体识别的方法进行了广泛深入的研究。本文对中国学者近30年来在中国人骨骼年龄、性别及身高等方面的研究进行了回顾, 对相关研究与国外情况进行了比较,对有关问题的未来研究方向进行了讨论。     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: Changing Anthropology,Changing Society

Fifty years after the founding of the field of medical anthropology, the Society for Medical Anthropology of the American Anthropological Association held its first independent meeting on September 24-27, 2009, at Yale University.Fifty years after the founding of the field of medical anthropology, the Society for Medical Anthropology of the American Anthropological Association held its first independent meeting on September 24-27, 2009, at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. The conference, Medical Anthropology at the Intersections, drew an international audience of more than 1,000 scholars.In her opening remarks, program Chair Marcia Inhorn noted that medical anthropology has been interdisciplinary since its inception. This assertion was supported at a roundtable discussion, Founding Medical Anthropology and the Society for Medical Anthropology, which featured four of the field’s founders.Asked to identify the factors that led to the development of medical anthropology, the panelists emphasized the role of changes in the practice and landscape of medicine in the late 1950s and early 1960s in the United States. According to Hazel Weidman, who helped spearhead the Society for Medical Anthropology, medical personnel sought social scientists’ guidance in the new clinical environments created by the increasing involvement of U.S. physicians in global development work and by the community-oriented approach to mental health encouraged by the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. The novel inclusion of lifestyle as a determinant of health at this time also played a role, according to Clifford Barnett. Norman Scotch, author of a 1963 review that had helped define medical anthropology as a field, noted that physicians at the time were very interested in the possible applications of the social sciences to medicine [1,2]. Joan Ablon recalled that this emphasis on application led some academic anthropologists to dismiss the medical anthropologist as a “handmaiden to the doctors.” Despite such resistance, interest in medical anthropology as a sub-field was clearly growing among anthropologists. When Weidman helped organize the first gathering of medical anthropologists at an anthropology conference in 1967, attendance was twice what was expected. Panel organizer Alan Harwood noted that the Society for Medical Anthropology transformed its newsletter into a professional journal, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, in 1983. According to Inhorn, the society has 1,300 members today.For the panelists, medical anthropology’s potential for application makes it a compelling scholarly pursuit. As Barnett stated in explaining his decision to work in anthropology: “If you know how a society works, you can change it.”     

Introduction to "Anthropology and Human Rights in a New Key"

In this "In Focus" introduction, I begin by offering an overview of anthropology's engagements with human rights following the American Anthropological Association's (AAA) 1947 "Statement on Human Rights." After offering a rereading of the Statement, I describe the two major anthropological orientations to human rights that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, following several decades of relative disengagement. Finally, I locate the articles in relation to this history and indicate how, when taken as a whole, they express a new key or register within which human rights can be studied, critiqued, and advanced through anthropological forms of knowledge. This "In Focus" is in part an argument for an essentially ecumenical anthropology of human rights, one that can tolerate, and indeed encourage, approaches that are both fundamentally critical of contemporary human rights regimes and politically or ethically committed to these same regimes.     

Anthropology and the Mining Arena in New Caledonia: Issues and Positionalities

In the last 25 years, the mining sector has become an important field of investigation and controversy for anthropologists. As an object, the ‘mine’ itself poses specific problems that make it particularly fertile ground for the exploration of inextricably linked theoretical, methodological, ethical, and political issues. In this paper, I explore the issue of the positionality of anthropologists within the mining arena. The analysis of positionality is taken beyond an individual perspective focusing on ethics, engagement and responsibility, to additionally include discussions of networking, alliance-building and institutionalising processes. I shall begin by dealing with the problems posed by the anthropology of mining and the various perspectives that respond to it. In the second section, I narrow the focus to the case of New Caledonia. In the third section, I present the context and challenges associated with the discussed cases. I portray the cases in question and, in particular, the new arena represented by the National Centre for Technological Research (CNRT) ‘Nickel and its Environment’, an agency established in 2008 to fund research on nickel in New Caledonia. The analysis in terms of a ‘hybrid’ forum of this arena will be complemented by the consideration of the social demand for the anthropology of mining. In the concluding section, the paper outlines options for further research while stressing the need for a balanced, ‘symmetrical’ approach of the multiple actors’ agendas constitutive of the mining arena.     

Beyond the Post-Structural Impasse in the Anthropology of Development

In recent years anthropologists have produced innovative and critical scholarship that refuses to simplify or essentialise the development process. However, for the most part the anthropology of development remains closely tied to the post-structuralist paradigm. Why, after more than two decades, does the post-structuralist critique continue to hold its dominant grip on the anthropology of development? Why haven’t anthropologists been able to move the anthropology of development, or development itself, further ahead? These are the main questions addressed in this article. More specifically, it is argued that the anthropology of development has reached an impasse; it remains bound to an overly structural interpretation of the development process, a construction that privileges not only structure over agency, but also hegemony over dialectics. Using the ethnography of a high-profile case of development in northwest Namibia, the article suggests a possible path forward by outlining a proposal for a simultaneous theoretical re-orientation and methodological reclamation in the anthropology of development.     

Anthropology at the University of Michigan in the late 1950s

By 1958, the Anthropology Department at the University of Michigan had emerged as a major center in the discipline. Its excellence derived from a strong faculty, commitment to an integrated view of the field, and broader support from a rising national tide of scholarship. While many new intellectual currents developed, among the strongest was biological-behavioral theory--somewhat ironically flourishing in a biological anthropology program that viewed itself as a nexus of population genetics. The biological anthropology faculty thought like anthropologists. From this environment, Frank Livingstone not only drew intellectual support, but also became a key player in demonstrating the importance of historical and cultural factors to shaping biological patterns. A biocultural perspective is evident in Michigan research to this day.     

Jews, Multiculturalism, and Boasian Anthropology

Standard histories of American anthropology have downplayed the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of later anthropologists. Jewish histories, however, foreground the roles and deeds of Jews. This essay brings together these various discourses for a new generation of American anthropologists, especially those concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism. Although Boas's anthropology was apolitical in terms of theory, in message and purpose it was an antiracist science.     

Reconciling “stress” and “health” in physical anthropology: What can bioarchaeologists learn from the other subdisciplines?

The concepts of “stress” and “health” are foundational in physical anthropology as guidelines for interpreting human behavior and biocultural adaptation in the past and present. Though related, stress and health are not coterminous, and while the term “health” encompasses some aspects of “stress,” health refers to a more holistic condition beyond just physiological disruption, and is of considerable significance in contributing to anthropologists' understanding of humanity's lived experiences. Bioarchaeological interpretations of human health generally are made from datasets consisting of skeletal markers of stress, markers that result from (chronic) physiological disruption (e.g., porotic hyperostosis; linear enamel hypoplasia). Non-specific indicators of stress may measure episodes of stress and indicate that infection, disease, or nutritional deficiencies were present in a population, but in assessing these markers, bioarchaeologists are not measuring “health” in the same way as are human biologists, medical anthropologists, or primatologists. Rather than continue to diverge on separate (albeit parallel) trajectories, bioarchaeologists are advised to pursue interlinkages with other subfields within physical anthropology toward bridging “stress” and “health.” The papers in this special symposium set include bioarchaeologists, human biologists, molecular anthropologists, and primatologists whose research develops this link between the concepts of “stress” and “health,” encouraging new avenues for bioarchaeologists to consider and reconsider health in past human populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 155:181–185, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The growth of growth

Over a 40-year period, 1940 through the present, human growth research has increased from a minimal to a major part of physical anthropology. Such research, originally conducted at the major American growth centers, has become more diverse and more specialized, extending to National Probability Samplings, nutritional surveys, studies of twins, investigations restricted to the craniofacial complex, and studies of the growth and development of various primate species. Besides extending knowledge of growth and development in general and control mechanisms in particular, there has been major feedback into physical anthropology affording far greater understanding of human variability, of taxonomic differences, and of changes previously believed to be phylogenetic in nature. To the larger extent, all physical anthropologists have some degree of growth awareness.     

A Sensory Ecology of Medicinal Plant Therapy in Two Amazonian Societies

Sensory anthropology has explored sensation as a fruitful but poorly examined domain of cross-cultural research. Curiously, sensory anthropologists have mostly ignored scientific research into sensation, even that which addresses cross-cultural variation. A comparative study in two Amazonian societies (Matsigenka, Yora [Nahua]) documented the role of the senses in medicinal plant therapy and benefited greatly from theoretical insights gleaned from sensory science. The study reveals a complex interweaving of cultural and ecological factors in medicinal plant selection, with sensation standing at the culture--nature nexus linking medical ideas with medical materials. By synthesizing (rather than antagonizing) scientific and anthropological insights, sensation can be understood as a biocultural phenomenon rooted in human physiology yet constructed through individual experience and culture. Overcoming the limitations of a narrowly defined sensory anthropology, sensory ecology is here proposed as a new theoretical perspective for addressing human--environment interactions mediated by the senses.     

The rise of academic physical anthropology in the United States (1880–1980): A historical overview

This paper surveys the development of physical anthropology in the period from 1880 to 1980, beginning with the founding of the U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology and the advent of professionalism in anthropology. The growth of physical anthropology within academic anthropology and the effect of the bias toward ethnology and archaeology is considered. Three historical phases are suggested: pre-1900, the pre-academic period of physical anthropology; 1900–1930, the initial development of academic physical anthropology, which witnessed the founding of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists by Hrdli?ka, and of Hooton's program at Harvard University; 1930-present, which has seen the full development of physical anthropology in an academic context.     

Thinking about artworlds in a global flow: Some major disparities in dealing with visual culture

This article will argue that the differences between art history and the anthropology of art not just due to discipline-driven methodologies, though these are certainly a factor, but also occur because art historians and anthropologists are usually asking rather different questions, and finding the answers in quite different places within the culture. As a starting point I will demonstrate these differences of both approach and result, using two acclaimed studies by anthropologists of African expressive culture, one from the Congo (Zaïre), the other from Sierra Leone. Although very different from each other, both downplay the importance of affect, and both assume aesthetic practice is transparent, i.e. that it directly reflects the meaning of life or human behavior. No art historian would make such a confident assumption.     

Trends and developments in physical anthropology, 1990–91

The 1408 members of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists were surveyed by mail regarding professional background, training deficiencies, opinions regarding areas of future importance to the discipline, and teaching/research specializations. A total of 544 responses (39%) resulted; 71% were from professionals in the United States and 16% were from U.S. students. Survey results are compared to surveys done in 1971 and in 1978, and are broken into three cohorts: pre-1971 Ph.D.s, 1972–1978 Ph.D.s, and post-1979 Ph.D.s. Statistics and anatomy continue to be common training deficiencies across cohorts. Molecular/cell biology and writing are new training deficiencies that reflect contemporary concerns and trends in the discipline. Anatomy, genetics, ecology, and paleontology are still considered important to the future of physical anthropology; statistics, computer science, and the biomedical sciences are also thought to be of importance to its future. The most frequent teaching/research specializations are growth and development, evolutionary biology, and population studies. Genetics and primatology appear to be losing popularity; biomedical anthropology, statistics, and ecology appear to be gaining it. The survey results have implications for the future training of graduate students and for employment opportunities in physical anthropology.