Reflection from eDNA overview
Reading both the TallBear (2013) and Cristescu and Hebert (2018) papers reminded me of the importance of caution in science. It is always tempting to immediately use new technologies and methods in biology, especially if the new technology is cost-effective and yields more results per unit effort than previous methods. Environmental DNA is one such technology, and its many uses in the fields of biology and ecology are gaining wider recognition and acceptance over time. Environmental DNA is an especially promising technique for monitoring rare, cryptic, and endangered species: its noninvasive sampling techniques and ability to detect low numbers of individuals make it a powerful tool for researchers and resource managers. But, as it is still a relatively new field, Cristescu and Hebert note that the lack of standardized protocols for both sample collection and analysis introduces error and hinders comparisons between studies. Therefore, researchers should be cautious about how they interpret their study results, and should be mindful of the current limitations of eDNA sampling (as with any sampling method).
Researchers should also be especially cautious if they are interpreting eDNA or other genetic samples that contain human genetic material. While genetic testing can seem like an acceptable way to define/distinguish both past and present human populations, these results are often an oversimplification of complex cultural groups. TallBear (2013) explains that in some instances, such as with indigenous groups, defining a group simply by shared genetic makeup can actively harm people (regardless of intent). While the technology for collecting genetic material and eDNA has improved rapidly and can now be used in a variety of studies, researchers must use caution to ensure that they understand the limitations of their results, and that, especially for human research, the use of genetic material is both ethical and warranted.