Reading reflections, Feb. 16th

In DNA and American Ancestry, TallBear argues for the inadequacy of using DNA testing for determining Native American citizenship. The big problem is that, race and ethnicity are not completely determined by genetics. She mentions that although genetics are supposed to tell where people were originated in the past, the fact that human beings move around makes things more complicated. Using DNA testing to determine racial and ethnical identity implies biological essentialism and ignores the social and cultural factors of human communities. Furthermore, TallBear points out that although DNA fingerprint tests are sometimes regarded an objective criterion in kinship tests, they are in fact not objective, and that to consider them as superior to other criteria for enrollment purposes “gives priority to techno-scientific knowledge of certain kinship relations over other types of knowledge and relationships”. Another drawback of genetic ancestry testing that she mentions is that by only identifying biological descent along strict bloodlines, it narrows down ones’ links to ancestors. TallBear finally compares DNA testing to blood quantum testing, claiming that DNA testing can be even more problematic although it has started to take the place of blood tests.

In Native American DNA: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of an Evolving Concept, Bardill shows very similar concerns regarding the DNA tests in determining Native American ancestry. I think TallBear’s and Bardill’s worries can be grouped into roughly two categories: technical issues, such as the inadequacy of data and the information stored in certain genes, which should be left for scientists, statisticians and engineers, and the cultural implications of DNA testings. Bardill echoes TallBear’s idea that the making of a community is not purely biological, and therefore DNA evidence alone is not enough for determining ancestry. Morever, she mentions the “power structure that puts scientists on the top of the recreated colonial chain” in the practice of using DNA to determine Native American ancestry.

Bolnick et al. raise some similar concerns. They point out that the tests can provide information of some but not all of the subject’s ancestry. Like TallBear and Bardill, they also argue that statistically some of these tests are not qualified be used for diagnostic inferences, and that social and cultural experiences are important factors in influencing racial identity besides biology. They also mentioned the effects of the commercialization of these tests. They argue that financial incentives might influence how the tests are done and interpreted and make peer-review hard to achieve. For these reasons, the authors urge the scientific community to speak out about the limitations of genetic testing.