Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024): (Neo)colonialidades y asimetrías geopolíticas en la bioantropología latinoamericana
Dossier

Scientific transparency: towards a relational paradigm in forensic anthropology.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España))
  • Arodi Farrera
Arodi Farrera
Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v9i2.2308

Published 2024-12-05

Keywords

  • transparencia científica,
  • conocimiento distribuido,
  • crisis forense,
  • México
  • scientific transparency,
  • distributed knowledge,
  • forensic crisis,
  • Mexico
  • transparência científica,
  • conhecimento distribuído,
  • crise forense,
  • México

How to Cite

Farrera, A. (2024). Scientific transparency: towards a relational paradigm in forensic anthropology. Uruguayan Review of Anthropology and Ethnography On Line: ISSN 2393-6886, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v9i2.2308

Copyright (c) 2024 Arodi Farrera

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

One of the main challenges of forensic anthropology in the context of the current humanitarian crisis in Mexico is to provide solutions that help increase the number of human identifications. For these solutions to be effective, proposals must incentivize collaboration among diverse actors and benefit both the end users of the produced knowledge and the affected individuals. In this context, it is essential to address any existing communication problems among these actors. In this contribution, I reflect on the role of scientific transparency as a possible intervention to improve the flow of information within forensic anthropology. I consider how this, in turn, could facilitate the development of distributed knowledge production systems whose dialogue eventually allows for the involvement of different instances or groups interested in human identification. Additionally, I address the ethical dilemmas that may arise from using transparency as the basis for information exchange in the discipline. Finally, I propose short and long-term strategies to address these dilemmas and ensure the ethical and sustained implementation of this scientific practice.

PDF (Español (España)) HTML (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Adcock, J., & Fottrell, E. (2008). The North-South information highway: Case studies of publication access among health researchers in resource-poor countries. Global Health Action, 1(1), 1865. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v1i0.1865
  2. Argüelles, J. M., Fuentes, A., & Yáñez, B. (2022). Analyzing asymmetries and praxis in aDNA research: A bioanthropological critique. American Anthropologist, 124(1), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13692
  3. Birhane, A. (2021). Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach. Patterns, 2(2), 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205
  4. Bowen, C. M. (2022). The Art of Data Privacy. Significance, 19(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1740-9713.01608
  5. Chin, J. M., Pickett, J. T., Vazire, S., & Holcombe, A. O. (2023). Questionable Research Practices and Open Science in Quantitative Criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 39(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09525-6
  6. Ewuoso, C., Cordeiro‐Rodrigues, L., Wonkam, A., & De Vries, J. (2023). Addressing exploitation and inequities in open science: A relational perspective. Developing World Bioethics, 23(4), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12378
  7. Fortuna, M., Corrales, L., Robinson, A., Enríguez Farias, R., & Marquez-Grant, N. (2022). Cuerpos No Identificados en el Contexto Mexicano. Forensic Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2022.4004b
  8. Hardwicke, T. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., Bendixen, T., Crüwell, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020). An empirical assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in the social sciences (2014–2017). Royal Society Open Science, 7(2), 190806. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190806
  9. Houck, M. M., Chin, J., Swofford, H., & Gibb, C. (2022). Registered reports in forensic science. Royal Society Open Science, 9(11), 221076. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221076
  10. Jamieson, K. H., McNutt, M., Kiermer, V., & Sever, R. (2019). Signaling the trustworthiness of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19231–19236. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
  11. Jull, J., Giles, A., & Graham, I. D. (2017). Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: Advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implementation Science, 12(1), 150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0696-3
  12. Klein, O., Hardwicke, T. E., Aust, F., Breuer, J., Danielsson, H., Mohr, A. H., IJzerman, H., Nilsonne, G., Vanpaemel, W., & Frank, M. C. (2018). A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158
  13. Lagos-Garrido, M. E., & Paravic-Klijn, T. (2015). Generación, difusión y transferencia del conocimiento de enfermería a la práctica del cuidado. Ciencia y Enfermería, 21(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95532015000200012
  14. Levin, N., & Leonelli, S. (2017). How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(2), 280–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916672071
  15. Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2018). Dismantling Knowledge Boundaries at NASA: The Critical Role of Professional Identity in Open Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(4), 746–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217747876
  16. Manco, A. (2023). Prácticas de ciencia abierta vistas desde la perspectiva de las comunidades de investigadores de las ciencias básicas de Perú. Revista Científica, 48(3), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.20905
  17. Markowetz, F. (2015). Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly. Genome Biology, 16(1), 274. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0850-7
  18. Metz, T., & Miller, S. C. (2013). Relational Ethics. En H. LaFollette (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics (pp. 1–10). Blackwell.
  19. Ramos, J. (2023). Modelos de investigación y ética del cuidado. En C. Domínguez-Alcón, M. Busquets, N. Cuxart, & A. Ramió (Eds.), Cuidado y ética del cuidado. Necesidades y evidencias para investigar y avanzar. (pp. 181–185). Fundació Víctor Grífols i Lucas.
  20. Ren, Y., Zhang, H., & Kraut, R. E. (2024). How Did They Build the Free Encyclopedia? A Literature Review of Collaboration and Coordination among Wikipedia Editors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 31(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617369
  21. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  22. Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384
  23. Staunton, C., Barragán, C. A., Canali, S., Ho, C., Leonelli, S., Mayernik, M., Prainsack, B., & Wonkham, A. (2021). Open science, data sharing and solidarity: Who benefits? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43(4), 115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00468-6
  24. Strasser, C., Hertweck, K., Greenberg, J., Taraborelli, D., & Vu, E. (2022). Ten simple rules for funding scientific open source software. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(11), e1010627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010627
  25. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
  26. Tidball-Binz, M. (2012). Recuperación e identificación de las víctimas mortales de la guerra civil: Consideraciones desde el derecho internacional humanitario. Boletín Galego de Medicina Legal e Forense, 18.
  27. Tiokhin, L., Panchanathan, K., Smaldino, P. E., & Lakens, D. (2023). Shifting the Level of Selection in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916231182568. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231182568
  28. Watson, M. (2015). When will ‘open science’ become simply ‘science’? Genome Biology, 16(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2
  29. Yáñez, B., Fuentes, A., Silva, C. P., Figueiro, G., Menéndez, L. P., García‐Deister, V., De La Fuente‐Castro, C., González‐Duarte, C., Tamburrini, C., & Argüelles, J. M. (2023). Pace and space in the practice of aDNA research: Concerns from the periphery. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 180(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24683