Thinking Computationally about Forensics: Anthropological Perspectives on Advancements in Technologies, Data, and Algorithms

1 Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2 Department of Scientifijic Computing, Florida State Tallahassee, Florida, 3 Anthropology, University Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, *Correspondence to: Jieun Kim, 400 Dirac Science Library, FL 32306-4120 E-mail: [email protected]. KEY WORDS: forensic anthropology, quantitative methods, medicolegal casework, human identification, skeletal analysis, genetic remains recovery, diverse populations. Human Biology, Winter 2018, v. 90, no. 1. doi: 10.13110/humanbiology.90.1.04. Copyright © 2018 Wayne Press, Detroit, Michigan 48201 introduction Thinking Computationally about Forensics: Anthropological Perspectives on Advancements Technologies, Data, Algorithms Bridget F. B. Algee-Hewitt,1 Kim,2 * Cris E. Hughes3 While anthropology is often characterized as an applied science, it deeply rooted the larger discipline biological anthropology. As practitioners, we work to extend theory of, methods for, study variation themedicolegalcontext.Wecontinue,therefore,to address fundamental questions topics critical such degree distribution diversity efffects environment life history morphological expression, just seek infer demographic parameters sex, age, ancestry that allow us broadly characterize modern peoples. In speaking single person, however, anthropologists are uniquely challenged with issue scale. We must distill our approaches (or methods) detection documentation populational trends level individual case reconstruct prof ijileandaddressthepersonalidentityconcernsthat dominate anthropological analysis unknown remains. concert this changeinscope,forensicanthropologistsmustalso contend a refocusing perspective toward investigative judicial system. At once, expected respond dynamic needs identifijication service rights, social justice, community , increasing demands scientifijic rigor reporting, changing expectations admissible evidence expert testimony courtroom (Christensen Crowder 2009; Grivas Komar 2008; Lesciotto 2015; Steadman et al. 2006; Wiersema 2009). Not surprisingly, fijield has evolved considerably over last half-century. The present state very diffferent from when was fijirst admitted into American Academy Forensic Sciences (AAFS) “physical anthropology” section 1972, yet there interesting important parallel moments its developmental trajectory. A decade later, Snow (1982: 97) wrote new expansion physical area forensics “at time many concerned need expand scope beyond traditional boundaries.” Similarly, writing here how presently 000 ■ Algee-Hewitt, undergoingitsowntransformation,asitexpandsits reachtoadoptmethodsthatoncewouldhavebeen outside limits anthropologist’s expertise. therefore stands crossroads areas skeletalvariation,overlappingwithcomputational biology, genetics, isotopes, demography, cultural (Algee-Hewitt 2018; Hughes 2017). This point most obviously supported by amendment AAFS title 2013 more inclusive “Anthropology.” change equally borne out observed publications specifijic . From Web Journal Science, fijiltered research constrained roughly fijive-year period 2013–2018, found titles top 10 cited papers explicitly computational advanced statistics, classifijication algorithms imaging speak biosocial issues racial ancestral identity peoples multiple origins complex population histories 2014; 2013; Edgar Hackman Black Hauther Hefner Ousley Kim Stephan Tise 2013...