Biology meets humanity
Phillip Barron

Fossils can tell us only so much about pre-recorded human history. To learn any more, we turn to mitochondrial DNA. At least, Mark Stoneking does.

Stoneking, researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, spent a week at the National Humanities Center in April as a Meymandi Fellow. Through two seminars offered to Fellows and local faculty who are engaged in the Autonomy Singularity Creativity project, Stoneking argued that some of the smallest parts of ourselves, the molecules that compose our DNA, may provide the most insight into our past.

Because of a few peculiarities—the fact that in mammals, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is not rearranged in the process of recombination, thus chromosomes remain largely unchanged through matrilineal heritage—mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking one’s genetic lineage. It is also the perfect window into our pre-recorded past. You just have to know how to read its story.

Interpreting pre-recorded human history is generally an anthropologist’s job, while medical geneticists interpret DNA. Yet without training in both molecular genetics and anthropology, Stoneking would not have been equipped to estimate that human beings started wearing clothing about 72,000 years ago. Nor would he have been able to add evidence to support the “out of Africa” hypothesis: the theory that human life originated in Africa and subsequent migrations dispersed human beings throughout the world. His work proves that blurring the lines between disciplines can yield information we previously thought inaccessible.

But the great academic divide between the sciences and the humanities keeps Stoneking’s investigative approach somewhat anomalous. “Almost every university has an anthropology program, but anthropology departments are not usually equipped with the labs required for training students in molecular genetics. Meanwhile, geneticists who pursue answers to anthropologists’ questions are considered hobbyists,” says the molecular anthropologist. But an academic climate change is on the horizon, he thinks. “There is a growing realization among anthropology departments of the importance of genetics and molecular approaches.”

His anthropology background also helps him present his findings to a public increasingly thirsty for explanations. “Science has always produced answers, but rarely produced narrative explanations,” the scientist and humanist says. “But scientists are being called upon more and more to explain their findings to the public.”

The public’s demand for a narrative that contextualizes the esoteric findings of highly trained specialists “changes the way we think about our work.” As an example, he offers the story of how a Kurdish group tried to use findings in genetics to support a nationalist agenda. “We had to develop disclaimers stating that genetic investigations are a look at ancient events in pre-history and should not be used as a basis for determining one’s cultural identity.”

“Biology tells us how things are, how they came to be. Morality tells us how things should be,” Stoneking says. “I really feel very strongly about that.” So, while science can be used to debunk myth—demonstrating, for example, that there are no significant genetic differences between Africans and Europeans—we should not go on to claim that on the basis of genetics there is no rational basis for treating groups differently. To do so leaves open the possibility that disparate treatment might be justified if we did find significant differences. “One simply needs to realize the strengths and the limitations of each field.”

Mark Stoneking, researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, visited the National Humanities Center April 2nd through 5th.