2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: Reflections on the Future of Anthropology

In his plenary session entitled Five Questions on the Future, Harvard anthropologist Arthur Kleinman capitalized on the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference’s theme of Medical Anthropology at the Intersections to speculate on the future of the discipline.As he reflects on the field of anthropology, which had lacked theory, ethnography, and strong ties to public health and medicine, Harvard anthropologist Arthur Kleinman celebrates the accomplishments made by his contemporaries by saying, “My generation has made medical anthropology what it is today.” However, he is now looking to the future of the discipline, saying it must re-examine itself as a field.During the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University, Kleinman capitalized on the theme of Medical Anthropology at the Intersections in his plenary session entitled Five Questions on the Future. Casting the conference itself as a kind of intersection, Kleinman not only lauded its size and diversity, but asserted that it marked a pivotal moment in which medical anthropology must re-evaluate its central questions.     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: Training,Communication, and Competence: The Making of Health Care Professionals

The role of medical anthropology in tackling the problems and challenges at the intersections of public health, medicine, and technology was addressed during the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in an interdisciplinary panel session entitled Training, Communication, and Competence: The Making of Health Care Professionals.The discipline of medical anthropology is not very formalized in the health setting. Although medical anthropologists work across a number of health organizations, including schools of public health, at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and at non-governmental organizations (NGOs), there is an emerging demand for an influential applied medical anthropology that contributes both pragmatically and theoretically to the health care field.The role of anthropology at the intersections of public health, medicine, and technology was addressed during the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September. In a conference session entitled Training, Communication, and Competence: The Making of Health Care Professionals, health professional career issues, including training and education, medical entrepreneurship, and the maintenance of clinical relationships with patients were examined. The presentations encompassed macro approaches to institutional reform in training, education, and health care delivery, as well as micro studies of practitioner-patient interaction. Seemingly disparate methodological, disciplinary, and theoretical orientations were united to assess the increasing relevance of medically oriented anthropology in addressing the challenges of health care delivery, health education, and training.Margaret Bentley, a professor of public health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, spoke about the increasing “epidemic of global health” in universities, noting a doubling of global health majors within the past three years. Despite this expansion of the field, a common discipline of global health continues to be developed. In September, the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) and the University of Minnesota hosted a Global Health Core Competency Development Consensus Conference with the initiative to explore “workforce needs, practice settings, and to identify core constructs, competency domains, and a preliminary global health competency model”¹. Given the current variability in training, Bentley believes medical anthropology is uniquely suited to inform training in global health because of its offerings in the way of interdisciplinary methods and team-based applied field experience.Anthropologists Carl Kendall of Tulane University and Laetitia Atlani of Université de Paris X Nanterre have seen medical anthropologists examine models of health strictly within a clinical experience. Understanding of the social determinants of epidemiology, methodological issues of population health, and survey research is crucial. However, training individuals through a more formalized program (currently in development in Europe) will allow anthropologists to better understand context, explain complex models, humanize aggregate statistics, and articulate methods of the multidimensional “social field” of health outside of the clinical experience.The social field of health, however, as Robert Like of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey explained, shares an uncomfortable interface with clinical medicine. Recent efforts by the New Jersey Board of Examiners to incorporate cultural competency legislation have been robustly criticized. Evaluations of six-hour training sessions on cultural competency training have revealed health professionals’ frustration with the health care system’s inability to deal with “culturally different” individuals. In fact, the majority of health professionals who were required to complete the training believe cultural competency to be an area of study that is a “waste of time.”This opposition to cross-cultural education and the value of “cultural competence” training also has been a topic of great debate among anthropologists and health researchers. Despite the ubiquitous use of the term among research and health professionals, cultural competency is a term that cannot be defined precisely enough to operationalize.In “Anthropology in the Clinic: The Problem of Cultural Competency and How to Fix It,” Arthur Kleinman and Peter Benson asserted that the static notion of culture in the medical field “suggests that a culture can be reduced to a technical skill for which clinicians can be trained to develop expertise” [1]. T.S. Harvey, a linguistic and medical anthropologist at the University of California, Riverside, expounded on Kleinman’s opposition to competence as an acquired “technical skill” [1] and suggested reconceptualizing the approach to competence as communication. Although Kleinman’s explanatory models approach [2] provides a health care professional with what to ask the patient, Harvey pulls from Dell Hymes’ communicative competence [3] to understand how to ask it. Harvey recommended viewing competence as a “sociolinguistic acquisition … like a foreign language” where competencies are rule-governed and communication and speech events are formulaic.Harvey also noted that the “onus of cultural competency” is too often placed on the practitioner. Inevitably, there is an asymmetry in every clinical encounter, whereby the “would-be patient” is perpetually considered the “passive receptor.” Patients also share a stake in their health and, as such, should be taught communicative competence as well.Harvey also noted that the “onus of cultural competency” is too often placed on the practitioner. Inevitably, there is an asymmetry in every clinical encounter, whereby the “would-be patient” is perpetually considered the “passive receptor.” Patients also share a stake in their health and, as such, should be taught communicative competence as well.The role of the patient is made ever more complex by the power relationship that exists in the patient-provider context. Through ethnographic research, Sylvie Fainzang, director of research in the Inserm (Cermes), examines how doctors and patients lie. She argues that lying, in the context of secrecy, is an indication of a power relationship [4]. Fainzaing’s further research on the relationship between doctors and patients has yielded additional information on how patients learn about their diagnoses and how they will react to these diagnoses. Though a clinical encounter between a doctor and patient is expected to be one of informed consent, doctors often judge patients upon their ability to “intellectually understand” [4] and assess who is “psychologically ready” [4] to bear the information. This leads to manipulated, misinformed, and “resigned consent” [4]. This sort of social training of obligation of a subject to medical authority provides the patient with the choice either to conform or overthrow the rules as defined by society.Collectively, this interdisciplinary panel worked to inform the discussion on how medical anthropology can address training, communication, and competence at the intersections of medicine, public health, and education. By reviewing health professionals’ growing interest in public health, training in health education and competence, and the patient-provider relationship, medical anthropology can be seen as both relevant and necessary to addressing the challenges faced by the medical and health community today.     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: The Intersection of Anthropology and Medicine as Portrayed in Paul Farmer’s Photo Album

Paul Farmer, physician, anthropologist, and author, spoke at the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September.Medical anthropology is a very young field, only approximately 50 years old. The underpinnings of medical anthropology have been around for some time, but as a discipline, the burden to ensure that it continues to flourish and grow belongs to future generations of students and scholars. However, future generations of medical anthropologists cannot carry the field forward unless they examine the teachings of previous teachers and scholars. By narrating his own story, just as he so frequently narrates the intricacies of Haiti [1], Paul Farmer, physician, anthropologist, and author of Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor [2], displayed a parallel between the stories of his own past with that of medical anthropology.At the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September, Farmer began his aptly titled presentation, Photo Album, with a discussion of his introduction to medical anthropology while an undergraduate at Duke. He stumbled upon medical anthropology quite by chance as an ambitious pre-med who was interested in taking every course that had the word “medical” in its title. He credited many people, including Patricia Pessar, Arthur Kleinman, and Linda Garro with aiding the development of his ideas and perception of the world and teaching him to use medical anthropology not only in passive observation, but in the active practice of medicine. You “don’t have to be a faculty member to teach,” stressed Farmer. Some of the most important lessons to learn come from the poor, to whom few listen.Farmer believes that listening can form the work we do. He honed his listening skills, which are used in anthropology in an ethnographic context, after his first night in an emergency room, when he saw that many minor cases were brought in solely because individuals had no other outlet for treatment. Being a good listener allowed Farmer to understand the full impact of a 1981 slavery case involving migrant workers in Florida. It was this skill of listening that enabled Farmer to understand and tell Haiti’s story, as well as understand the intricate web that exists between privilege and privation. Just as the line between medical anthropology and primary care is often blurred, the “bracing connection between privilege and privation” becomes even more apparent the longer one spends studying both extremes.This is a vantage point Farmer was particularly susceptible to, given his trips from Haiti to Harvard and back again. Listening to his patients in Haiti and the United States would allow Farmer to draw parallels of inequality and injustice that exist for the impoverished in both places. The only difference between the United States and Haiti is that eventually many impoverished individuals in the United States will wind up in somewhat adequate medical facilities. In the story of global economics, Farmer said, “Good things get stuck in customs and bad things get traded freely.” A practicing physician may easily note that inequalities between the rich and poor are not unique to the United States or to Haiti, but what, Farmer asks, can anthropologists say about this division?The cursory glance through Farmer’s photo album ended with a picture of friends whom he fondly termed “the structural violence mafia” and anthropological ideas regarding unequal access to health care. While at first, the portion of anthropology that dissects the structures of violence seems isolated from medical anthropology, those structures of violence institute the vast inequalities that cause medicine to seem inaccessible. Farmer also stressed that “how we think about social theory influences global health.” Work in Haiti taught Farmer firsthand about the phenomenon of blaming the victim [3]. To understand this entrenched system of structural violence fully, an intensive bio-social analysis must be undertaken. Structural violence results in a system in which the victims are blamed, empowering those who suppress the victim while inhibiting the victim’s access to health care. Pointing fingers at the vulnerable is illustrated by the fact that Haiti is often blamed for the introduction of AIDS into North America [4,5]. Farmer stressed not only the inherent trauma of structural violence, but Carolyn Nordstrom’s ideas on violence having a distinct tomorrow [6]. The perpetual cycle of structural violence enables this concept of violence having a clear future with the inherent cultural systems that allow for violence remaining stagnant while the individuals entrapped within the system change.Beyond this concept of structural violence is that of structural healing [3]. Though structural healing is a new phenomenon being examined by anthropologists, it provides a balance to structural violence with the idea being that there are certain societal standards that are either in place or can be introduced that allow for an alleviation of the suffering caused by structural violence. While Farmer’s discussion of the path that led him to his current position was inspirational in itself, the sharing of his story is of even more importance because he has been a teacher to so many. His story reinforces the idea that even though structural violence has a definite past and future, so do medical anthropology and the idea of structural healing. Thankfully, medical anthropology may be used as a relatively new force to combat structural violence. Farmer’s speech may have been unexpected in its autobiographical content, but perhaps the main point is that the intersection between medicine and anthropology can be seen not as a single point but a line that runs the full length of each of these disciplines. We all have a distinct responsibility to not only hear but to listen and learn, not to just passively observe, but actively understand. It is with this listening and acting, that future medical anthropologists can bridge the gap between social sciences and practical medicine.     

Race, Ethnicity, and Racism in Medical Anthropology, 1977–2002

Researchers across the health sciences are engaged in a vigorous debate over the role that the concepts of "race" and "ethnicity" play in health research and clinical practice. Here we contribute to that debate by examining how the concepts of race, ethnicity, and racism are used in medical–anthropological research. We present a content analysis of Medical Anthropology and Medical Anthropology Quarterly , based on a systematic random sample of empirical research articles ( n = 283) published in these journals from 1977 to 2002. We identify both differences and similarities in the use of race, ethnicity, and racism concepts in medical anthropology and neighboring disciplines, and we offer recommendations for ways that medical anthropologists can contribute to the broader debate over racial and ethnic inequalities in health.     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: Global Public Health through the Eyes of Medical Anthropologist Didier Fassin

At the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University, anthropologist Didier Fassin discussed social inequality and the politicization of health in the context of global public health.U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, “You lie!” during President Obama’s denial that the proposed health care reform bill would cover illegal immigrants, and anthropologist Didier Fassin used that antagonistic stance toward what the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata [1] had called a fundamental human right to best illustrate the issues of social inequality and the politicization of health.Global public health was one focus of the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September. Since its inception in 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) has striven to provide health assistance to the world population, especially those in developing countries. But Fassin, professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, professor of sociology at the Université de Paris, Nord, and director of studies in political and moral anthropology at the Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, argued that the concept of global health, albeit well-meaning, is problematic. Its utopian nature is clearly apparent in the rhetoric of politicians, he said, adding that health as a gift of nature, a common good, and the core of the WHO, quickly becomes an object of politics and the coverage in times of sickness of a select few is akin to entitlement and privilege.The present age of globalization certainly makes health threats such as epidemics a threat to all, and nations are in it together to take preventive measures or put up a concerted fight. However, threats like bioterrorism or predicted consequences of global warming such as population migration may be viewed, particularly by Western countries, as security issues that menace national interests and state sovereignties. The consequence being that new policies are implemented that may directly or indirectly affect the rest of the world population.And then there is the issue of humanitarian intervention, which Fassin refers to as “politics of life” [2]. How can we view humanitarianism with the eye of a cynic when it is, in essence, the effort to demonstrate the very best of our nature? Yet the transformation of some humanitarian interventions into military operations and the decision to intervene (Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia) or not (Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia), politicize this notion. Additionally, Fassin believes that the key nation-states integrate their own cultural and political biases during interventions in troubled regions.Nowhere is this subjectivity more apparent than in the image of suffering as depicted by psychologists and psychiatrists working for non-government organizations (NGOs). NGOs compile testimonies of traumatized people in war and conflict zones, but their subjective narratives enmeshed in the diagnosis reports are increasingly supplanting faithful witness accounts. Fassin sees this trauma as “political expression of the world” [3]. The experts, in trying to raise awareness on issues that need immediate attention, may dramatize certain situations or get emotionally involved during their missions and take sides. They become the new voice of the conflict and their efforts may throw the victims into a state of confusion.It’s no surprise then that some nations view with distrust Western practices and their portrayal of aggressors and victims [4]. In 2000, Thabo Mbeki, then president of South Africa, convened an advisory panel that aimed to collect scientific data to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. In return, he received the Durban Declaration with the signatures of more than 5,000 scientists and doctors who unilaterally declared the opposite to be scientifically true.Fassin brings up the abovementioned issues in order to shift attention to the difficulties that face our common efforts for better health services. It is truly challenging for Western leaders to mend the rift between their political agendas and accessible health for all, and as long as that continues to be the case, health care will elude millions.     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: From Race to Repositories: Bioethics in a Genomics Age

Medical anthropologist Barbara Koenig spoke on the intersection of bioethics and genomics at the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.Medical anthropologist Barbara Koenig is at the forefront of numerous endeavors that seek to understand race in the age of genomics and protect human subjects with regard to DNA repositories. Through a dialogue ranging from the history and critiques of bioethics to her own research projects, Koenig brought her respect and excitement for the anthropology found in biomedicine to the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology conference at Yale University in September.As a whole, the space in which bioethics operates does not constitute a “field” in the traditional sense. It is an amalgam of approaches to the social, ethical, and cultural issues surrounding biology and medicine. While the prevalent medical ethic for 2,500 years has been understood to be embodied in the Hippocratic Oath [1], the modern age of biomedical research and clinical practice demands more careful inspection of ethical issues in biology and medicine. This precise space is where bioethics has found fertile ground for investigation. For Koenig, anthropological analysis and, more specifically, empirical ethnographic study are critical tools to tease apart the complexities of bioethical issues.Recently, Koenig, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, has considered the definitions of race in light of the emerging work of genomics [2,3]. Her book, Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, argues that the complex definitions of race are an interesting blend of biological differences and cultural traditions. Often in modern society, the unity assumed among a racial group is at odds with the underlying biological diversity revealed by genomics. And yet individuals in our species are much more related to one another than, for example, any two chimps are related. It is clear from the much-cited work of the Human Genome Project [4,5] and the International HapMap Consortium [6] that genomics will have a deeply profound impact on how we understand our ancestry and how easily individuals will be able to trace their own origins using modern genetic technologies.Hints at new implications in personalized medicine also have come to light, showing that different patient populations, distinguished by race, can have significantly different responses to drugs [7,8]. Increasingly, race is used as a categorization to parse individuals for the purposes of biomedical research. These categories are themselves areas of contention, as they are socially constructed. Individuals may identify themselves with different racial categories depending on the context in which the identifiers are provided. Furthermore, it is unclear what implications can be drawn from the studies in which researchers are asked to conclude something about a social identity based on biological data. Research in these areas undoubtedly will provide insightful anthropological analysis in the coming years.Much of bioethics is concerned with the issues surrounding new medical technologies and their impact on society. In this same vein, the advent of sequencing databases and direct-to-consumer genetic tests has had broad implications for the participants. At the Mayo Clinic, Koenig is working on the development of a centralized biobank. This facility will store DNA samples collected from patients with a wide range of diseases and enable easy access for clinicians and scientists interested in studying a given disease. However, as with any collection of information, there is a question of access. Who can see what information? How will this be regulated? And to what extent is informed consent required for each of the future uses of the collected sample?There has been much public debate regarding the ethical use of forensic DNA databases [9,10] and yet less public consideration concerning the medical DNA databases. Koenig spoke of attempts to create community understanding beyond the informed consent standard. An auxiliary issue related to the social impacts of new genetic methods is the emergence of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Currently, certain companies market to the public with the promise of assessing the customer’s genetic profile in order to identify genetic risk factors for disease. Without the intermediary of a health care provider to validate the analysis and contextualize the risk, these tests can have an alarming and bewildering effect on consumers. How should one understand an 8 percent increase in colorectal cancer risk relative to the general population? Certainly, these new technologies and the companies pushing them directly to the consumer public are of profound anthropological interest.While some anthropologists analyze trends and conduct surveys to understand their subjects, Koenig has entrenched herself within the clinic and on advisory boards to shape the outcome of bioethical issues facing our society in a time of ever-changing technologies. She has done so with a firm foundation in the historical perspective and practical ethic of biomedicine.     

Race, ethnicity, and racism in medical anthropology, 1977-2002

Researchers across the health sciences are engaged in a vigorous debate over the role that the concepts of "race" and "ethnicity" play in health research and clinical practice. Here we contribute to that debate by examining how the concepts of race, ethnicity, and racism are used in medical-anthropological research. We present a content analysis of Medical Anthropology and Medical Anthropology Quarterly, based on a systematic random sample of empirical research articles (n = 283) published in these journals from 1977 to 2002. We identify both differences and similarities in the use of race, ethnicity, and racism concepts in medical anthropology and neighboring disciplines, and we offer recommendations for ways that medical anthropologists can contribute to the broader debate over racial and ethnic inequalities in health.     

Blogging Anthropology: Savage Minds, Zero Anthropology, and AAA Blogs

ABSTRACT  In this review essay, the academic merits of three anthropological blogs ("Savage Minds,""Zero Anthropology"[formerly "Open Anthropology"], and the official blog of the American Anthropological Association) are considered. The review examines differences between group-blog projects (such "Savage Minds"), single-voiced blogs (such as "Zero Anthropology"), and official blogs representing central anthropological institutions (the AAA's blog) and identifies roles and strengths of each of these blog forms.     

Anthropology at the heart of medicine

Anthropology and medicine share many concerns, but have had trouble collaborating in the past. The anthropologist has had to plead both with his colleagues and physicians to move beyond a < culturalist > vision that would confine him to the study of traditional or alternative medicines and representations of populations and the sick. The anthropologist's approach perceived as intrusive has also raised fears in the medical world. These reciprocal misunderstandings and stereotypes need to be overcome by an anthropology that studies the practices and knowledge of modern medicine as they are elaborated daily. Anthropology will dialogue with medicine without judging it. In its turn, medicine will open its sites of healing and teaching to the anthropologist. Anthropology at the heart of medicine is organized around the idea that the paths and expectations of health professionals reflect the specicifities of the local system of health. The individual dimensions of practices cannot be divorced from the functioning of structures of health and decision. Finally, like any other kind of anthropology, medical anthropology must scrutinize its own methods and ethics in a critical way.     

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Comment on Anthropology: Why it Matters

We, the Editors and Publisher of Anthropological Forum, have retracted the following article:

Maurice Godelier (2019) Comment on Anthropology: Why it Matters, Anthropological Forum, DOI:10.1080/00664677.2019.1615255

Due to some communication issues, another version of this review has been published elsewhere. Accordingly, this version of the review has been retracted from publication.

We have been informed in our decision-making by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retractions.

The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.     

Keeping Biological Anthropology in Anthropology, and Anthropology in Biology

Considerable tension among the subfields has existed within the discipline of anthropology. As a result, some anthropology departments have splintered, and the hallmark "holistic approach" of anthropology has been considered more myth than reality. However, as promoted by the American Anthropological Association and the American Anthropologist for over one hundred years, enhancing the holistic nature of anthropology remains an important and necessary endeavor. This article provides an introduction to this special issue of the American Anthropologist , which focuses on the subfield of biological anthropology. Hopefully, as a result, increased connections among the subfields will be fostered, for the betterment of both biological anthropology and anthropology in general. The underlying theme of this article and the subtext for the entire special issue is clear: Biological anthropology needs anthropology, and anthropology needs biological anthropology. [Keywords: biological anthropology, subfields, four-field approach, holistic]     

Origin Myths in Bioethics: Constructing Sources,Motives and Reason in Bioethic(s)

Bioethics, the term now usually standing in for Biomedical Ethics, is a field of medical anthropological engagement. While many anthropologists and other social scientists work with bioethicists and physicians, this paper instead takes Bioethics as a topic of cultural research from the perspective of Cultural Bioethics and Interpretive Medical Anthropology. Application of useful findings of vintage anthropological research in cultural anthropology and the anthropology of religion and an interpretive lens reveal a field without a single origin or unified methodology. The paper suggests the appropriateness of a literal meaning of current conceptual commonality of the term Bioethics: that the term does in fact refer to a plurality of distinct enterprises with distinct origins and, hence, justifications.     

Development and evaluation of a community based,multiagency course for medical students: descriptive survey

Objective: To develop and evaluate an effective, community based, multiagency course (involving doctors, nurses, non-health statutory workers, and voluntary organisations) for all Leicester medical students, in response to the General Medical Council’s recommendation of preparing the doctors of tomorrow to handle society’s medical problems. Design: Survey evaluating a task oriented, problem solving course, designed by medical students in partnership with the University of Leicester and the local community. The students, staff, and participating agencies and patients all helped in the evaluation of the first course. The students’ performance on the course was also individually assessed. Setting: Inner city housing estate with Jarman index 64.1 in Leicester. Subjects: All third year medical students at Leicester University. Main outcome measures: Results of the student assignments and students’ responses to a questionnaire. Results of feedback questionnaires distributed to the patients and agency representatives. Results: In a two month period, 168 students completed the first course. 163 students passed the criterion referenced assignment, 50 of whom achieved an “excellent” grade. 166 completed the questionnaire, with 159 wishing to see the course continue in the present format and 149 saying that the course linked theoretical teaching with the practical experiences gained in the community. Conclusions: The University of Leicester has a viable mechanism for providing a community based, multiagency course for all its medical students. Many of the principles applied in the development and implementation of the course could be transferred to other medical schools.

Key messages

• Health policy increasingly emphasises the need for multidisciplinary service provision and training
• A new course for third year medical students provides practical and reproducible multiagency learning in the community
• Medical students and local community organisations participated in the development of the course
• Students received quality experiences with minimum inconvenience to agencies
• The structure of the course could be used in other medical schools

     

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.     

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.     

The Anthropology of Authenticity: Everyman His Own Anthropologist

Anthropology, the contributors to the recent volume Reinventing Anthropology tell us, is suffering from severe hardening of the intellectual arteries. In order for it to be revitalized, they say, the discipline must be de-professionalized and de-institutionalized, made more personal and existential. This involves a rejection of the pose of "objectivity" and "value-free" inquiry and an open admission of the inherently ideological nature of the discipline. In a word, anthropology will have to become politically and morally partisan. This essay explores some of the implications of the recommendations made by the reinventors of anthropology. The stance taken in Reinventing Anthropology, this paper contends, would not only undermine anthropology as a systematic field of inquiry but would also negate whatever "relevance" the discipline might have to the contemporary world.     

Distinguished Lecture in General Anthropology: The Anthropology of Trouble

This essay was presented as the Distinguished Lecture in General Anthropology at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, December 4, 1992, in San Francisco, California.     

Australian Anthropologists and Public Anthropology

In 2004, the authors convened a session entitled ‘Public Anthropology’ at the Australian Anthropology Society's annual conference. The session examined the development of a specific stream of public anthropology in the USA and Britain and its articulation by writers such as Robert Borofsky in the aftermath of the Yanomami controversy and Richard Werbner in the African context. In pursuing this discussion, we identify three key characteristics that distinguish public anthropology: the broader application of ethnography to urgent and political social issues in a way that shows the profoundly relational nature of current crises to historical, political and local events and forces; a focus on this approach as a central aspect of training, particularly at the postgraduate level; and an active and accessible engagement in public discussion and debate. We present a short case study from Skidmore's research on disease, suffering and the health system in Burma to illustrate ways in which a public anthropology approach could represent the current health crisis in Burma in an effective manner. Drawing also on the work of our fellow panellists, we argue for the timeliness of the development of a public anthropology stream in Australia and for the deliberate inclusion of public anthropology in the Australian Anthropology Society's mandate.     

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]     

Anthropology in the French-speaking Switzerland: a historical sketch

The author reports on the history of anthropology in the French speaking part of Switzerland from its beginning in the 16th century until the foundation of the Swiss Society of Anthropology in 1920.