The answer is no. I understand genetics like my dog understands where I go when I leave the house everyday. I know it’s real, I’ve dabbled a little bit in it, but there’s also more that I don’t know than I know I don’t know. So you may be asking why so many of my initial posts have had some discussion of genetics. The biggest reason why I am oftentimes writing about genetics is because I happen to have been doing a lot of it this semester as my blog launched. As previously mentioned, I was working in the lab of Dr. Todd Disotell doing one of three required internships for my Ph.D. program. While I have taken genetics as an undergraduate, as well as another introductory course during my first semester of my Ph.D., this internship gave me a completely new perspective. What I really mean is, genetics is typically this big scary thing laypeople don’t dare try to understand. I had learned the theory behind it, the basics, in class. However, I had always found it hard to reconcile how geneticists actually knew what they were amplifying and sequencing, how to count backwards and look at a population’s past from those living today.

Todd has an interesting way of disseminating science to a layperson, and he did a great job explaining it to us in the lab. He has appeared on numerous television shows as the scientific consultant – the teacher, authority, and voice of reason. NYU Masters student Sara Feldkamp made a documentary where yours truly is featured, about Todd’s career intersecting with the media, Disotell All. I have definitely taken inspiration from his outreach work and am trying to navigate the line between lecturing and discussing in the quest to inform the general public.

Genetics, in the public eye, is the ultimate piece of scientific data. In popular culture TV detectives are always looking for DNA, the hit podcast Serial concluded with hope of testing new DNA evidence, Mendel’s experiments and Watson and Crick’s discovery are discussed in any biology, physical anthropology, or evolution course. Without understanding of genetics, the inheritance necessary in Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection wouldn’t be known – we still would be arguing (in the scientific realm) if evolution was happening, and if so, how?

So this is why I write about genetics, because it is an important component in evolutionary studies. Genetic data can trace population history, assess relatedness between individuals and species, and tell us about specific adaptations.

On one level genetics is distinct from the other subsets of physical anthropology, the distinction NYCEP makes is genetics, morphology, and behavior. Outside of my internship and genetics specific coursework, this type of data never enters into my research as a “morphologist” directly. But in a broader sense, many core assumptions, like which species are more closely related, have been informed by genetics. It is one of many lines of evidence we synthesize every day when contextualizing and interpreting results of a study based on any type of data.

This is why I will post about studies based in genetics even as a morphologist. Even though I don’t understand every step and concept, I trust my colleagues and the data they generate that is vetted by the peer review and publishing process. Further, I understand it can illuminate, and even contradict, interpretations of my own results. The incorporation of any line of evidence is crucial in the scientific process. That being said – I promise to try to represent and discuss genetic based studies as accurately as possible, and provide plenty of links so you can learn about things that I can’t quite describe.