Spreadsheet: 0123e9cc-5778-45c0-831c-01558195e3d3
Sheet: Table

Faculty GE | Current State | • Very few labs in anthro departments are generating or analyzing genomic-scale data.
 | Approaches (practical & theoretical) | • It often seems as if the field is not engaging the genomic era from an evolutionary perspective, rather from a descriptive perspective only.
 |  | • It has gotten disconnected from the rest of anthropology, and often uncritically repeats the nonsense or "geno-hype" that geneticists themselves produce.  The Wenner-Gren volume "Genetic Nature/Culture" is hugely important, but is more commonly taught by cultural/medical antrhopologists.
 | Funding | • Funding!  We can’t possibly afford to hire anyone who does genetics/genomics.
 |  | • Genomic studies are expensive. Anthropological funding sources do not have the funds necessary. While funds for anthropological genomic studies may be obtained from the NIH, this is not an optimal solution. To obtain funds from the NIH, one's primary research agenda must be health-related, not anthropology. There certainly are anthropological genomic research programs that are health-related, but the potential scope of anthropological genomics is much broader. Currently, most anthropological genomics is being done on the side by medical geneticists with little understanding of the requisite anthropology.
 |  | • The funding limits at NSF-biological anthropology make it difficult to fund research adequately and it is almost impossible include a postdoc or extra bioinformatic assistance on a project because of the cost.
 | Infrastructure (resources, facilities, faculty) | •Insufficient molecular genetic facilities.
 |  | • Funding and laboratory facilities are in general inadequate.
 |  | • Most individuals who consider themselves "bioanthropologists" are not in departments with adequate infrastructure or do not have adequate funding.  Most of the progress in the general area is coming from the biomedical sciences and is published in that literature.  At the last AAPA meeting the great majority of posters dealt with teeth and bones, studies that are cheap.  Modern genomics applied to anthropology is very powerful but also very costly.  The funding for bioanthropology, per se, comes from NSF with a very limited budget.  All my research that is relevant to bioanthropology comes from NIH and other sources under different titles.
 | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • We are not really providing adequate training to doctoral level students in genomic lab methods.  This is particularly acute in quantitative, bioinformatic methods of genomic analysis.  That most students go outside anthropology for post-doctoral training is one aspect of this.  In addition, the cost of equipping a laboratory for front-rank genomics research is beyond the budgets of many anthropology programs.
 |  | • Genomic approaches are not being integrated into questions of anthropological interest to nearly the same extent. Knowledge of bioinformatics is abysmal in our trainees. Quantitative and computer-based analysis/programming skills are also very poor among our students but they are relevant to the problems that we address.
 |  | • Not enough courses offered in anthropology programs on how to apply genomic methods in anthropology - it can be difficult to get enough funding from anthropological funding agencies to make use of genomic technologies.
Faculty NGE | Current State | [NAME] is far behind the curve of genetics and genomics in medical research and applications.
 |  | • Biological anthropologists generally have only a rudimentary understanding of population and quantitative genetics.
 |  | • Genomics represents a significant and important part of bioanthropology, but it is not well integrated into the field as a whole. PhD programs in bioanthro with this type of training are relatively few.
 |  | • It is not making the information as accessible as it could to the general public and introductory students.
 |  | • Not using new techniques and data to solve classic questions.
 |  | • Allowing evolutionary genomics types outside the field do the work of studying human evolution and adaptation.
 |  | • Not combining lab with fieldwork.
 |  | • The field needs a broader range of collaboration with biological sciences and with other sub-fields of anthropology.
 |  | • Most of the genomic studies of interest in bioanthropology are being done by researchers outside of the discipline. Grant resources within the field are far too meager to enable the needed research agenda.
 |  | • The fast pace of research and technological innovations of the genomics area are generating a very specialized field inside bioanthropology that makes its relation with other fields of the discipline virtually non-existent (see for example the amount of sessions dedicated to Genomics in AAPA and how it is largely frequented by molecular anthropologists). Genomics is turning us into discipline of biologists, where the contribution of anthropological theory is only marginal (besides the fact that it is a study of human groups).
 |  | [NAME] is not at the forefront of current scientific or public discussions about the current state and future of genomics research.
 | Approaches (practical & theoretical) | • Results are being interpreted and taught ahead of a deeper understanding about what they really mean.  I don't think we know enough yet to sustain the claims/interpretations placed on it.
 |  | • Not critical enough of its [genomic's] exaggerations.
 |  | • We are not adequately pursuing models of the joint evolution of organism and culture
 |  | • We are not well enough informed about the interactions between genomics and culture and between genomic systems.
 |  | • No explicit (or even cohesive) framework yet to pose questions or integrate findings.
 |  | • There needs to be a better understanding by skeletal biologists of the capabilities and limitations of DNA research and also a much better understanding by the DNA researchers of the usefulness of skeletal biology in tracking relationships and assessing ancestry.  Someday genomics may replace skeletal biology in this particular area, but that has not happened yet, and by and large the skeletal biologists understand the forces of evolution much better than the DNA folks and avoid the naive assumptions that some mtDNA researchers have made about ancient population connections (e.g., the Neanderthal question).
 | Funding | • Not enough funds for genotyping or for statistical analysis.
 |  | • Because of lack of adequate funding, many researchers are not able to conduct a proper level of research.
 |  | • Lack of understanding on the part of administrators regarding funding levels.
 | Infrastructure (resources, facilities, faculty) | • Labs for anthropologist at my institutions are not equipped and linkages to other disciplines are not made.
 |  | • Doesn't really have the resources or critical mass to be able to do this [genomic research] in the same way as biological sciences.
 |  | • At my institution we do not have enough faculty in this field to offer the type of training needed at the undergraduate level, let alone at the graduate level.  Further, given the use and often misunderstood application of this field (as viewed from other fields) it is also incumbent upon biological anthropologists to clarify the parameters of our field for those in the social sciences and humanities.
 | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • Bioanthropology programs, in general, do not seem to provide adequate or up-to-date training.
 |  | • Bioanthropology undergraduate programs need to require the following courses: genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and molecular biology.
 |  | • Frequently positioned in arts & science units, American 4-field anthropology draws students from a pool that is science-averse. Unless we can convince undergrads to take more core science courses, they will always be behind, in the context of research. We also have an ill-prepared graduate application pool. We must train them ourselves, almost like remedial education. Also, probably many colleagues avoid shifting their traditional syllabus away from outmoded perspectives.
 |  | • Faculty are not adequately trained.
 |  | • Not enough specialty training.
 |  | • Most texts either ignore or give little attention to the topic.
 |  | • Students are not required to study sufficient chemistry and biology. The genomic era requires anthropologists to study more science courses outside of anthropology departments than in the past.
 |  | • I don't think we get sufficient training in the biochemistry or molecular biology of it all. We use the results of the research in these areas, but don't always understand how they were produced, and therefore can't necessarily judge their validity or implications.
 |  | • Based on my own training, the training we offer at my home institution, and informal queries of my peers regarding this issue, any coursework that touches on genetic or genomic approaches to understanding biological variation tends to be watered down because the course includes graduate and undergraduate students and/or the course includes students from diverse backgrounds who may lack any basic understanding of the material.  As such, students who are interested in these issues must seek out training on their own and/or become immersed in the literature.  In the case of the latter alone there tend not to be any (or many) opportunities for lab experience.  In part this has to do with funding available to anthropologists, but this certainly varies by university.
Graduate Students GE | Current State | • Most bioanthropologists do not understand the difference between genetics and genomics.
 |  | • I do not feel that the field of Bioanthropology has accepted the integral role that genomics has and will play in illuminating many of the core questions of anthropology. As a consequence, we are not adequately preparing students to approach these questions using genomic tools and we are not concerned with maintaining a functional level of familiarity with newly emerging genomic methods and theories.
 |  | • Research in genomics is very fast paced.  Bioanthropology is making an effort to participate but seems to be behind many other disciplines in terms of incorporating genomics research into anthropology departments via research and curriculum.
 | Approaches (practical & theoretical) | • The field needs to incorporate what would be considered classical research (phenotypic based) with genetic research without overemphasis on either field.
 | Funding | • Primarily this is the result of lack of funding. Funding is highly competitive, especially for sub disciplines that bridge several fields. The focus of funding within Physical Anthropology funding agencies is not on genomics research. There is not enough financial support for students in Physical Anthropology to get the interdisciplinary training needed to be competitive researchers upon completion of their degrees as a result. Additionally, the focus of Physical Anthropology remains within the academic sector, which operates to slow technological development, especially in the U.S.
 |  | • Funding
 |  | • This field, like so many others, are having problems locating funding.
 |  | • Funding sources are inadequate for small research laboratories to carry out genomic level analysis.
 | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • There are two primary problems.  The first is that many biological anthropologists know very little when it comes to genomics.  The second is because of the first problem, many undergraduates in anthropology departments fail to learn even basic ideas concerning genomics.  Thus, biology/genetics departments play a more significant role in shaping how genomics gets used (what questions get asked, who gets funded, etc).
Graduate Students NGE | Current State | • Genetic research in the field of biological anthropology is failing to integrate multiple lines of research produced by colleagues in other subdisciplines of biological anthropology
 |  | [NAME], anthropology as a whole appears to be behind the times in regards to recent advances in the study of, and our understanding of, genetics.
 |  | • As a student, I feel that the link is not being made as to why each can contribute to Bioanthropology in their own respective contexts, and how they can work together to gather data in complex situations.
 |  | • Dissemination of information is very selective. Not all professional are aware of research being conducted that could contribute to their own work.  There is less transfer of information between traditional anthropologists working publishing in anthropology journals and their counterparts from cellular/biochemical departments.
 |  | • So many things to learn and understand and so little research (comparatively) being initiated and completed.
 |  | • All.  Always room for improvement.
 |  | • There is often a divide between organismal biologists and molecular biologists which is enhanced when the organism in question is human.  Additionally, genomics is not emphasized in anthropology programs to the degree that morphology is.
 |  | • Most studies completed by those interested in bioanthropology are still finding techniques that allow them to keep uo with the latest advancements. I feel this may result in a slight transitional phase that requires the introduction of new approaches that may not be clear at this point from a research perspective.
 | Approaches (practical & theoretical) | • While a number of anthropologists provide courses covering the advancement of genetics up until the modern synthesis, few courses, major textbooks, or departments are espousing a more full and complex picture of the extended synthesis. Further, few scholars are advancing systems views of genetics that include epigenetic systems of inheritance as well as how genes are impacted by the environment, etc.
 |  | • Information about genomics could be used more often to also inform studies using phenotypes as a proxy.  Also, we are still limited by the difficulty of replicating aDNA, and many researchers are uninformed about the pitfalls of DNA studies.
 |  | • Many arguments in bioanthro revolve around overly simplified understanding of genomic processes. Additionally, many of bioanthro's questions evolved before such technology and information was available. Now that these questions have been well established, it is difficult to reconstruct such research questions in a manner that takes into consideration information genomics has provided. Along these lines, I think the use of genetics and genomics is an appealing approach for many bioanthropologists. Therefore, too often valid research questions have been modified to include the use of such technology...this does not always result in well-developed ideas.
 | Infrastructure (resources, facilities, faculty) | • The application of genomics to the field of bioanthropology is generally lacking in means of technology and research abilities.  Human Genome research has been greatly taken on by scientists, such as biologist and anatomists, who have access to the best technology in order to advance within the field. Social sciences like bioanthropology, have a difficult time accessing such resources and as a result, have trouble meeting the challenges of this era.
 | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • It had been my experience lately that at the PhD level you are no longer provided with adequate learning opportunities and advisorship. If I want to advance my knowledge I have to do it on my own. Why on earth am I in a program that does nothing for me that I cannot do on my own?
 |  | • As someone who has experienced genomic research in bioanthropology and in "pure" biological contexts, I believe that the tools, technology, and teaching/mentoring in bioanthropology is lagging.  This is due in large part, I believe, to the limited number of anthropologists devoted to studying genomics and the difficulty that anthropologists have in securing funds for up-to-date genomics research.
 |  | • I have encountered several bioanthropology students pursuing genomic research who are inadequately prepared to do so due to their lack of background in molecular biology. It is imperative that students interested in genomics be well versed in molecular biology theory and methods, as well as the larger biological context of their work (i.e., not just trained to crunch the numbers, but to thoroughly understand what genes they're looking at, what pressures may have shaped their evolution, etc.). In addition, anthropology journal reviewers seem to have little grasp on what makes anthropological genomics papers high quality -- although this is improving, we need still more editors who are well-versed enough in genomics methods to subject publications to thorough review, demanding sufficient demonstrations of contamination control for aDNA studies, for example.
 |  | • Lack of training for students and a lack of keeping up on current methods and research and conveying this information to all anthropology students.
 |  | • Not enough bioanthropologists are trained geneticists, and much bioanthropological work is still based on "old-school" methods. However, there have been many successful developments, such as those of the Neanderthal genome discovery, and ancient DNA analyses in palaeopathology. The genomic era is definitely offering multiple new improvements in health care and anthropological research, and so bioanthropological studies should be incorporated into genomic work.
 |  | • We are not sufficiently qualified to deal with such a complex science and need to include researchers from other fields of expertise.
 |  | • The field is inadequately represented and the new work occurring so rapidly that it is not presented to students.
Postdoctoral Researchers NGE | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • Insufficient preparation of undergrads to deal with large datasets and the complex statistics required. Inadequate funding and difficult field methods.
Other | Approaches (practical & theoretical) | • While there seems to be a general understanding of genetics and genomics, they are often used as "tools" without comprehension of the underlying mechanisms, and therefore often inappropriately applied.
 | Teaching & training (faculty & students) | • Underprepared students. Faculty not up to date on methods, tools, theory and practice, and particularly how to exploit genomic information to address anthropological questions.