Reflection from eDNA overview
Until joining the eDNA program last year, the human dimension of DNA was always separate in my mind from eDNA as we apply in ecological contexts. Because these connections are relatively new to me, the TallBear paper was an interesting one to read. I enjoyed learning more about the conflict between indigenous articulations of identity, and how much more complex it is than the definitions to which governments and geneticists try to reduce it. It is a really complicated issue, because application of genetic studies to people can both help improve the understanding for indigenous people and can be abused and misused to their detriment. This paper brought back a lot of stories I heard at the University of Washington. I used to visit the Burke museum, and the Kennewick Man was a big story around this time (his body was there at the time). The long conflict over this his rights was finally resolved through more recent advances in analysis of ancient DNA that was able to link the man to the Native American tribe where he was found, and because of this, he was allowed to have a proper burial. But this is only one example of a person for whom the application of genetic science gave them better rights. There are more stories where people to abuse benefits, like healthcare and tribal benefits. People who have the genetics that align with the indigenous people, even without the cultural connections to land or tribes. These stories are ones that my time at UW allowed me to think about and understand the conflict between genetic and indigenous versions of identity at a very surface level.
I enjoyed reading Cristecu’s overview of the uses of eDNA in conservation science. I have previously been thinking about many of the downfalls and uncertainties in eDNA when trying to design experiments in the coastal ocean. Some of the challenges addressed in the paper, like uncertainties surrounding longevity of eDNA in the environment, and difficulty doing quantitative analysis, are ones we have discussed at length. It was very interesting to learn about the disconnect between advances in eDNA science and its understanding in the management sphere. I was slightly surprised to learn this given the prevalence of eDNA in ecology, but at the same time, I was not completely surprised because I have experienced an attitude of doubt in relation to the eDNA from many people before. Some people who work for government agencies seem to be predisposed to dismissing findings from eDNA because of the uncertainty surrounding it. I will be interested to know if the Maine eDNA program’s focus on collaborative science can address some of the questions surrounding uncertainty and help make their findings more accepted by the wider ecological community.