Reflection from eDNA overview
I felt that both the TallBear TallBear (2013) and the Cristescu and Herbert Cristescu and Hebert 2018) papers provided different, but valuable perspectives on the complex landscape of genetics. Cristescu and Herbert discussed the technical challenges of eDNA research: the potential sources of contamination and the limitations of the available methods. In contrast, TallBear broadened the scope to discuss what genetics research means for certain groups of people and the role that this form of science plays in American politics, power structures, and our history of colonialism. When combined, these papers raise an important question: How can scientists make sure that their research and results are not harmful?
Although eDNA is focused on the biological ecosystem, many of the species we study are intimately tied to humans through fisheries or other uses. It is important then that the communities that rely on these resources be brought into the research process. This is something that my lab and my current research is trying to do, but it’s not an easy or perfect process. I often wonder about how to better engage harvesters in research.
Many harvesters don’t feel comfortable in academic spaces or with using different types of technology, and are often just too busy trying to make a living. I would love to spend a bit more time discussing how we can work with stakeholders, like harvesters, in ways that are sensitive to these limitations and useful to both stakeholders and researchers. Not only do we want our research to not be harmful, we also want it to be useful, and having harvesters and other stakeholders setting the goals or asking the questions is an important step in this direction.