Week 2: Ancestry and Ownership
Read:
David Reich “Who we are and how we got here” ch. 1 & 3
Kim Tallbear “Who Owns the Ancient One”
Question:
When scientists use DNA to trace human history, whose story gets told? Does genetic data help us understand our past, or does it let outsiders control how Indigenous peoples define their own ancestors?
Critique:
David Reich’s research on ancient humans like Denisovans and Neanderthals shows how all humans are mixed with DNA from different groups. However, genetic data can erase Indigenous voices. For example, when Reich talks about “Denisovan-related ancestry” in New Guineans, it reduces a tribe’s deep cultural connection to their land into a percentage of DNA. This mirrors how the Kennewick Man was treated. Scientists demanded “proof” of kinship through bones and DNA, ignoring the Colville Tribe’s oral history and spiritual ties to the Ancient One.
Reich’s work also risks making science the ultimate authority on human identity. If we say “DNA proves Native Americans migrated here 15,000 years ago,” it undermines Indigenous creation stories. Science becomes a tool to validate or dismiss Indigenous truths, which TallBear calls a form of modern colonialism. Even worse, this data can be weaponized. For instance, governments might use genetic “proof” to deny land rights.
Association:
This reminds me of how companies like 23andMe sell DNA tests that say, “You’re 10% Native American.” These tests turn complex identities into pie charts. But tribes don’t use DNA to decide who’s a member, they look at family ties, culture, community, and language. It’s like science reducing a whole identity to a number.
Week 3: Eugenics and Surveillance
Read:
Siddhartha Mukherjee “The gene: an intimate history” ch. Eugenics, Three generations of imbeciles is enough, Lebensunwertes Leben
Sui-Lee Wee China Uses DNA to Track Its People, With the Help of American Expertise
Questions:
How does the history of eugenics warn us about modern genetic surveillance? Could tools like DNA databases or gene editing repeat past horrors if used without ethics?
Critique:
The readings expose the history of eugenics’ brutality, but how does it connect to modern biopolitics? Modern surveillance, such as DNA tests and apps for health tracking, collect genetic data and biological information. Could governments or corporations exploit such information or even potentially discriminate? For example, deny insurance for high-risk genes and genetic disease. Also, gene editing is developed to eliminate disabilities or enhance genetic traits, which sounds righteous, but it echoes eugenic goals of “perfecting” humans. Who decides what’s a “flaw”?
Association:
I grew up in mainland China as a member of the Han majority. Reading this New York Times article leaves me conflicted. Personally, I’ve never witnessed or heard of discrimination against minority groups. However, living abroad, I see countless Western media reports about persecution in China. This makes me wonder if CCP’s state-controlled media is so powerful that such information is censored and covered up thoroughly or if foreign outlets are using such humanitarian propaganda to undermine China. I try to keep an open mind, but politics frustrates me, and it’s hard to know which side has the whole truth. (For example, in the US, you see interviews from the persecuted Uyghurs talking about their trauma firsthand. In Chinese social media platforms, you see Uyghurs and other minorities living their lives and defending the government against the allegations. But you could never find opposing views on either platform.)
Week 4: Race and Ancestry
Read:
Alondra Nelson “The Social Life of DNA” Ch. 1 & 5
Paul Vanouse “Discovering Nature, Apparently” chapter in “Tactical Biopolitics”
Questions:
Can DNA tests really reconcile historical wounds or do they just turn your stories into something you can buy in a lab?
Critique:
Nelson’s examples are powerful, but DNA testing has some potential problems. First, it’s expensive, which makes healing a privilege for those who can pay. Also, DNA ≠ Identity. DNA percentage ignores culture, history, and lived experiences. It’s like saying a cheeseburger is “American” just because it has beef. Additionally, corporations would sell your DNA data to drug companies, turning your ancestry into a product, not a right.
Association:
This reminds me of Social media. Just like Instagram sells your photos, DNA companies sell your data. Both profit from your personal life. Also, Police use DNA databases to solve crimes. Extremely helpful, but it means your DNA could be used without your consent.