Reflection
This week’s readings were helpful in learning about eDNA as a scientific method and provocative for thinking about the ethics of DNA. Critescu and Hebert’s paper illuminated the strengths and weaknesses of eDNA methods and pointed to gaps in knowledge (as of 2018). It is written in clear, understandable language (though I admit I had to look up a few unfamiliar science and bioinformatic terms!), and was accompanied by well-designed, and easy-to-follow figures and tables. I think the timeline was exemplary and imagine others could add to it as new developments emerge in the field. One gap I found interesting was the need for a “deeper understanding” of eDNA’s “origin, state, transport, and fate”—factors that will help determine “if eDNA is endogenous or exogenous, local or regional, present or past” (p. 220). By identifying the need for further investigation into these multiple factors, the paper points to this field as one that has huge potential for inquiry and growth, a potential boon for interested researchers and students. The second paper, written by TallBear, challenges us to think about the concept of “indigenous” (p.511) through the lens of “articulation” (pp. 511-512): A way of making sense of how “disparate elements are conjoined into new cultural and social formations in acts of borrowing, interpretation, and reconfiguration” (p. 512). This paper makes me think more dynamically and ethically about the interconnectedness and disconnectedness of humans, cultures, geography, ecology, politics, and science, especially genomics.